***************************************************************** 05/21/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.120 ***************************************************************** 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] Democrats ask Bush for intel update on Iran 2 [NYTr] Split emerges in West's front against Iran 3 IRNA: West concerned about emergence of powerful Iran - EC secretary 4 AFP: US works to contain Iran in Gulf - report 5 IRNA: Minister: Bullying powers now threatened by Iran's access to n 6 Guardian Unlimited: No Security Guarantee for Iran, Rice Says 7 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert: Iran Close to Atomic Bomb Know-How 8 Guardian Unlimited: Gulf Nations to Send Delegates to Iran 9 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Head to Meet With Rice Next Week 10 Guardian Unlimited: Sec. Council May Alter Involvement in Iran 11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Plan Floated by Sec. Council 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Reports of Gas Enrichment 13 IRNA: No int'l law can bar Iran from pursuing a civilian N-program - 14 IRNA: Germany urges more western concessions on Iranian nuclear row 15 IRNA: West incentives will not settle Iran's nuclear case - MP 16 AFP: Iran biggest beneficiary of US-led Iraq war - Albright - 17 IRNA: Official urges Russian support for Iran in case of attack 18 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: No proposal has been received - Asefi 19 IRNA: Rafsanjani urges active diplomacy to settle Iran's nuclear cas 20 AFP: Iran says it will not suspend uranium enrichment 21 AFP: Iran says it will not suspend uranium enrichment 22 AFP: Hardline Iran papers scorn 'worthless' EU proposal 23 AFP: Suspension of enrichment against Iran's legitimate rights - FM 24 AFP: EU offers reactors to Iran, threatens arms embargo 25 AFP: Iran refuses to comment on EU nuclear proposal 26 IRNA: Asefi: Iran not to suspend uranium enrichment 27 AFP: Rice: US offers Iran no security guarantees 28 AFP: Israel's Olmert says Iran could obtain nuclear bomb in 'months' 29 IRNA: Majlis, gov't will not accept Europe new offer - MP 30 AFP: Major concern if North Korea launches long-range missile - US 31 US: SF Chron: House panel boosts Bush plan to build new nuclear warh 32 WorldNetDaily: Another 'Coalition of the Willing'? 33 Xinhua: Israeli PM leaves for Washington 34 Toronto Star: Harper praises non-Kyoto group as `the kind of NUCLEAR REACTORS 35 [NYTr] Livingstone: Nuke Power Reckless and Wrong 36 US: Secret Document Reveals New Breed of Nuclear Reactors Vulnerable 37 US: Columbian: New nuke plant not on area's horizon 38 UPI: Australian energy may go nuclear 39 NEWS.com.au: Downer keeps nuclear 'open mind' - 40 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate premature - Shorten 41 The Australian: PM flags nuclear future 42 The Australian: PM's nuke fantasy a nightmare - ALP 43 US: Guardian Unlimited: Cooling Tower at Defunct Ore. Plant Razed 44 The Observer: French energy boss in nuclear warning 45 The Observer: Richard Wachman: Blair's nuclear option reeks of 46 Guardian Unlimited: The nuclear power debate - handle with care 47 London Times: Focus: How Blair made nuclear power green - 48 London Times: Nuclear energy and the future of the planet - Comment 49 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard's uranium debate set to spark a Labor 50 The Age: Nuclear power 15 years away - minister 51 Sydney Morning Herald: Liberals debate a nuclear future - 52 AU: The Age: Experts to put nuclear power in spotlight - 53 HindustanTimes.com: India to double power production from N-plants 54 Border Mail: Going nuclear? But not near me 55 Sunday Herald: Former minister launches anti-nuclear fight - 56 Independent: Don't rush to nuclear power, warns Blair's environment 57 Independent: Energy: Going nuclear 58 ABC: Greenpeace: nuclear energy no good for Australia 59 US: Sheboygan Press: NRC eyeing Kewaunee nuke plant 60 US: Times Herald-Record: Indian Point 2 open after refueling ends 61 Deccan Herald: City firm builds nuke technology - 62 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Douglas inks bill on VY license 63 Boston Globe: Douglas signs bill giving lawmakers say in nuke's futu 64 deepikaglobal.com: 'Amendment to Atomic Energy Act mooted for privat 65 US: Hudson Valley News: Entergy returns IP2 to service following ref 66 US: kgw.com: Demolition of Trojan power plant nears 67 Telegraph: Poll reveals safety fears over new nuclear reactors 68 Telegraph: 'A good safety record, though it's not perfect' 69 US: Daily News: Trojan trivia 70 US: Daily News: Day of destruction for Trojan cooling tower nears 71 Scotsman.com: A return to nuclear power could be good for Scotland 72 Scotsman.com News: Nuclear stations 'too costly' for Scotland 73 AU ABC: Nuclear energy debate call 'a sham'. 74 AU ABC: PM at odds with Minchin on nuclear power costs. 75 US: South Florida Sun-Sentinel: For energy future, think nuclear NUCLEAR SECURITY 76 IBNLive : Army trains to fight nuclear attacks 77 US: Pasadena Star-News: Nuclear watchdog regulates colleges NUCLEAR SAFETY 78 US: Deseret News: Bomb tests? Not again in our back yard 79 US: reviewjournal.com: Warnings for emergency responders kept from A NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 80 News & Star: N-plant women’s knickers in a twist over underwear ca 81 US: NEWS.com.au: Australia considers uranium enrichment 82 US: NEWS.com.au: Macfarlane joins unranium debate - 83 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Australia, Canada to hold uranium talks 84 US: Daily Sentinel: Rifle mill tailings sites annexed 85 Green Left Weekly: Nuclear dump plans on shaky ground 86 US: Spectrum: Walk mile in West's shoes 87 US: AFP: Canada, Australia seek to protect uranium exports 88 Daily Times: N-waste dumping taking toll 89 u.tv: Campaigners call for Sellafield closure 90 US: globeandmail.com: Harper rethinks nuclear policy 91 US: AU ABC: Power system can't handle enrichment - NT Govt. PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 92 Knox News: Filter problem leads to shutdown of uranium work 93 Coastal Post Online: Privatizing The Apocalypse-Bechtel To Run US Nu 94 Houston Chronicle: Energy secretary says coal, oil will power U.S. f 95 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL: UC offers $12 million to settle 96 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL, Japanese scientists team up for hydrogen 97 Hanford News: Hanford health, safety event set Tuesday, Wednesday at 98 Tri-City Herald: House OKs funding to finish B Reactor study 99 Tri-City Herald: Nuclear reservations tours planned 100 lamonitor.com: House panel cuts CMRR funds ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Democrats ask Bush for intel update on Iran Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:40:05 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Reuters - May 19, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-05-19T235413Z_01_N19247752_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-IRAN.xml Democrats ask Bush for intelligence update on Iran By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats asked President George W. Bush on Friday to order a new U.S. intelligence report on Iran to avoid the errors that plagued prewar assessments on Iraq. Five Democrats, headed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, wrote to Bush requesting a new National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, while the United States is involved in an international diplomatic effort to get Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. The Democrats want an NIE, the intelligence community's most authoritative written judgment, to address several points including Iran's nuclear program and its military and defense capabilities. The United States and European countries suspect Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons but Tehran insists it aims only to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program. A hastily prepared 2002 NIE on prewar Iraq, released as the Bush administration made its case for war, concluded on the basis of faulty evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found and critics, including Democrats, have accused the Bush administration of politicizing intelligence to justify its march to war. "In order to avoid repeating mistakes made in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, we must have objective intelligence untainted by political considerations and policy preferences," said the Democrats, who included ranking members of the Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign relations committees. Administration officials were not immediately available for comment on the letter. U.S. officials stress the importance of diplomacy in public remarks about Iran, but at the same time, have said they are not taking possible military action off the table. The Senate Intelligence Committee has sought to examine the quality of U.S. intelligence on Iran. But a committee staff member said the effort was sidelined by the need to complete the panel's probe of prewar Iraq intelligence. The Bush administration produced an NIE on Iran about a year ago. That document extended the U.S. estimate of Iran's likely development of nuclear arms to 2015 from early in the next decade. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee for CIA director, acknowledged on Thursday the U.S. intelligence community needed to earn back public confidence after the Iraq WMD breakdown. But Hayden, whose nomination is expected to win the Senate Intelligence Committee's endorsement next Tuesday, said Iran intelligence was being compiled on a broader basis and would follow new guidelines that emphasize dissenting views and grade the confidence behind specific intelligence claims. "I think it's unfair to compare what it is we believe we know about Iran with what it is we prove to know or not know about Iraq," Hayden said at his Senate confirmation hearing. The Democrats' letter asks that a new NIE address 10 specific issues including Iran's foreign policy and the objectives of its government; its relationship with terrorism; prospects for international support for diplomacy, sanctions and military action; and Iran's expected reaction to each option. ) 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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Split emerges in West's front against Iran Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:40:05 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Reuters - May 20, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-20T175834Z_01_L13443169_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml Split emerges in West's front against Iran: diplomats By Louis Charbonneau BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Union and Washington are split over an EU proposal to offer Iran a generous package of incentives including nuclear reactors and security pledges if it stops enriching uranium, diplomats said on Saturday. The EU draft offer of a package of incentives in exchange for a suspension of enrichment has caused a split in the West's previously united position on Iran since Washington has serious reservations about the European plan, EU diplomats said. The plan will be discussed in London on Wednesday by senior officials from the "EU3", the United States, Russia and China, an EU diplomat familiar with the EU3's draft told Reuters. "We agreed to offer Iran a nuclear power plant and possibly more, along with support for an international (nuclear) fuel consortium to guarantee fuel for civilian nuclear activity," the diplomat said on condition of anonymity. Russia and China are expected to support the plan but Washington is concerned about the idea of supporting a regional security framework in the Middle East and exempting EU firms from U.S. penalties if they do business with Iran. "We're still looking at it and we've not yet decided our position," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told Reuters. A British Foreign Office spokesman said public discussion of the EU proposal's contents was "premature" and indicated that there was no guarantee Iran would be offered any reactors. "The possible supply of a light-water reactor for Iran is still under consideration," he said. EU diplomats said Washington was uncomfortable with the idea of offering Iran any reactors and was loathe to ask Congress to exempt EU firms from U.S. penalties for nuclear deals with Iran. The EU and United States believe Iran is secretly developing atomic weapons under cover of a civilian energy programme and want it to halt its enrichment programme, which could produce atom bomb fuel. Iran refuses, saying its atomic programme is solely aimed at the peaceful generation of electricity. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has a legal right to pursue this project. We will try to address all the concerns other countries have about the Iranian nuclear file," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in Kuwait. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran reserves the right to enrich uranium and pursue the development of nuclear energy. POSSIBLE SANCTIONS The EU proposal also includes warnings about possible sanctions if, as the EU and Washington expect, Iran rejects the offer and continues enriching uranium at its Natanz plant. Possible sanctions include visa bans for high-ranking Iranian officials and their families, freezing assets of Iranian individuals and companies and trade sanctions. The draft also offers Iran a kind of security guarantee, saying the EU would work toward "recognition of territorial integrity" of Middle Eastern countries, an EU diplomat said. U.S. hardliners are not happy with the idea of any security pledges for Iran as long it continues to threaten Israel with annihilation and support "terrorism" in the region, he added. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier criticized Iran's neighbors in the Gulf and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for not putting enough pressure on the Islamic republic to halt its nuclear fuel programme. "Given their close proximity, a clear condemnation (by the GCC) of the nuclear ambitions of Iran's government would be a very important signal that this is not a conflict between 'the West' and Iran," Steinmeier told the Tagesspiegel newspaper. The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, and some German politicians think Iran should be allowed to conduct limited enrichment for research and is expected to urge Washington to soften its position, EU diplomats said. Washington opposes the idea of permitting Iran to do any enrichment work at all, even on a small scale. ElBaradei heads to Washington early next week and will meet with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to discuss Iran ahead of the London meeting of the six world powers, Vienna diplomats said. (Additional reporting by Carol Giacomo in Washington, Francois Murphy in Vienna, Kate Holton in London and Kuwait bureau) ) 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 IRNA: West concerned about emergence of powerful Iran - EC secretary - Qom, May 21, IRNA Iran-EC-West Secretary of the Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei said here Saturday that Western countries are deeply concerned about a powerful and nuclear Iran in the Middle East. Rezaei made the remark while addressing the closing ceremony of a national congress dubbed `The Youth and Nuclear Issue'. The United States knows an advanced and developed Iran will be the big power of the region in the future. Therefore, it strives to prevent such an event. He added, "Iran is a state neighboring 15 Islamic countries. Its power and progress will increase its influence on neighboring states. "If the US intends to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran, why does it call for holding negotiations with Tehran?" The EC secretary said, "Now that the Iranian officials have opened doors of nuclear sites to inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), why the US and Europe are insisting on closing Iran's technical facilities?" He stressed, "Today, the world sees Iran as a regional and influential power because Iran's mottos have scientific and logical base. "Enemies think that a strong and advanced Iran in the Persian Gulf, as a powerful block, might complicate all equations. Rezaei further stated, "If we quit our nuclear rights now, it means ignoring an honorable future. "Today, enemies have come to the scene through different methods including igniting domestic turmoil, terror and sectarian differences but it is the Iranian nation that will say the last word." He urged government organizations to outlines nuclear issues for the nation to neutralize the enemies' plots. Pointing to awareness of the Iranian nation to defend its national interests, he said the youth should make efforts to reinforce their unity. "All proposals presented by the West to Iran have ignored the demands and main goals of the Iranian nation," he said. ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: US works to contain Iran in Gulf - report Sat May 20, 1:01 PM ET LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The United States has reportedly begun developing a containment strategy with Iran" /> 's Gulf neighbors that aims to spread missile defense systems across the region and interdict ships suspected of carrying nuclear technology. The Los Angeles Times said the effort also reflects the administration's planning for a day when Iran becomes a nuclear state and, officials fear, more aggressive in a region that provides vital oil exports to the world. "Iran without nuclear arms is a threat," Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told the paper in an interview. "With nuclear weapons it would become even more emboldened, in terms of moving forward with its aggressive designs," A senior State Department official said the Gulf countries "as a whole are very receptive to the message," the report said. Joseph rolled out the proposal during a trip last month to the six gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, The Times said. John Hillen, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, led a top-level US delegation to the Gulf last week for further discussions. Hillen said in an interview that the initiative "is really the first time in a while" the United States had been actively involved in trying to reshape a regional security system. The effort "could put pressure on Iran to behave responsibly," the paper quotes him as saying. US officials want to help boost the Gulf states' ability to monitor and control cargo on the high seas, and goods that are trans-shipped from busy Gulf ports, The Times said. They want to help improve the countries' abilities to detect "front" companies for Iran and to identify and halt transactions to finance Iran's purchase of goods for its unconventional weapons programs, according to the report. The Bush administration is also eager to see wider use of sophisticated defenses against aircraft and missiles, the paper said. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have Patriot antimissile batteries, but US officials say other countries need them as well, especially in light of Iran's advanced ballistic missile program, the report said. Some analysts suggested that the United States would try to integrate missile defense systems with real-time intelligence using sophisticated US Navy Aegis cruisers. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 5 IRNA: Minister: Bullying powers now threatened by Iran's access to nuclear energy Qom, May 20, IRNA Qom-Nuclear-Address Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi said here Friday evening that Iran's access to peaceful nuclear energy has now created fear in the world's bullying powers. Addressing a national congress on the role of the youth and nuclear issues, he said the nuclear success achieved by Iran can be attributed to the efforts of Iran's young scientists. The enemies that try to prevent Iran from engaging in nuclear activities do not fear nuclear knowledge or bombs but the discovery of a new science that promotes Islamic precepts, he added. The Islamic Revolution, by emphasizing the power of the youth, will materialize all its objectives, he said, warning enemies that their conspiracies will not hinder efforts of the Iranian people to access their nuclear objectives. ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: No Security Guarantee for Iran, Rice Says From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday May 21, 2006 10:16 PM AP Photo WX112 By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. has not offered a guarantee against attacking or undermining Iran's hard-line government in exchange for having Tehran curtail its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday. ``Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table,'' Rice said. The European Union said last week it would propose economic and political incentives to persuade Iran to halt its plans for enriching uranium. While Iranian officials contend they are only seeking nuclear power, the U.S. and other nations fear Iran is working toward developing weapons. Rice, appearing on Sunday news shows, said European officials have not asked the U.S. for security guarantees as they discuss options for dealing with Iran. She did not say what the U.S. response would be if asked to provide such an assurance. ``What we're talking about is a package that will make clear to Iran that there are choices to be made,'' she said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``Either that there will be sanctions and actions taken against Iran by the international community or there's a way for them to meet their civil nuclear concerns,'' she said on Fox, where she also used the ``troublemaker'' lebel. Diplomats have said that Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, would meet with Rice and President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, this week in Washington. In addition, representatives from the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, the EU and Germany plan to met in London to talk about Iran. Rice said she thought it was strange even to discuss security guarantees when Iran threatens Israel, promotes terrorism in the Middle East and stirs up violence in southern Iraq to the detriment of U.S. forces. Asked on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' if Bush would leave office with nuclear arms being developed in Iran, Rice said: ``We can't allow Iran to steadily turn toward nuclear weapons because it would be tremendously destabilizing in this already volatile region. We have a lot of tools at our disposal.'' Rice dismissed as ``high talk'' the statement last month by Iran's president, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that his country would not ``give a damn'' about U.N. resolutions that could penalize Tehran. ``The Iranians know that sanctions, that international action can, in fact, be quite damaging to them,'' she said. ``And so I assume that the Iranian president is simply posturing on this because I think the Iranians do know how devastating this could be.'' Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told CNN's ``Late Edition'' that he believes Iran is just a few months rather than a few years from acquiring the technological expertise needed to build a nuclear bomb. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert: Iran Close to Atomic Bomb Know-How From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday May 21, 2006 4:31 PM AP Photo AKCF104 By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI Associated Press Writer JERUSALEM (AP) - Iran is just a few months away from acquiring the technological know-how that will allow it to build an atomic bomb, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview broadcast Sunday. Olmert flew to Washington on Sunday for his first meeting as prime minister with President Bush. The two leaders are expected to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions. Olmert told CNN's ``Late Edition'' that the key issue regarding Iran was not when it builds a nuclear bomb, but rather when it acquires the knowledge they need to manufacture such arms. ``This technological threshold is nearer than we anticipated before. This is because they are already engaged very seriously in enrichment,'' Olmert said. ``The technological threshold is very close. It can be measured in months rather than years,'' Olmert added, repeating statements previously made by other senior Israeli officials. Olmert said the world could not take Iran's nuclear ambitions lightly because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. However, he said it was unlikely Israel would act on its own, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the problem. In 1981, Israel's air force attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, destroying the facility. But Olmert said the situations cannot be compared, and Israel will try to persuade the Western world to impose sanctions on Iran. Iran has so far rejected European proposals to back off the idea of U.N.-imposed sanctions if Tehran agrees to freeze its uranium enrichment program. Another proposal the Europeans are preparing will apparently include a clause saying that if Iran refuses, it could face sanctions backed by the threat of force. Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian purposes, says it has the right to enrich uranium. Olmert expressed confidence that Bush would ``lead other nations in taking the necessary measures to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power.'' ``We will certainly try to convince other countries that, at this time, before they cross the technological threshold, that the measures will be taken to stop them,'' Olmert said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Gulf Nations to Send Delegates to Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday May 21, 2006 11:46 PM AP Photo KUW102 By TAREK ISSAWI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Arab Gulf nations plan to send an envoy to Iran to press it to find a negotiated solution to its nuclear standoff with the United Nations in a new diplomatic effort after months of staying on the sidelines, officials said Sunday. The foray comes at a sensitive time. Iran said Sunday it was waiting to see what offer the Europeans present to resolve the confrontation - taking a somewhat more open tone than staunch rejections voiced by officials in recent weeks. Gulf governments, most of them close U.S. allies, have been wary of taking an active role in the dispute. Though they have little desire to see a nuclear Iran, they also fear angering their powerful neighbor by siding too openly with the United States. But the Gulf Cooperation Council, a gathering of the region's Arab nations, will send Omani Foreign Ministry Youssef al-Alawi to Tehran in coming days to relay Gulf concerns about Iran's nuclear program, and its hopes that the standoff with the West would end peacefully,'' Khaled al-Jarrallah, the undersecretary of Kuwait's foreign ministry, told The Associated Press. In Kuwait, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the Gulf Cooperation Council ``is starting its own diplomatic initiative in order to reopen the channels to a diplomatic solution.'' At a press conference with Steinmeier, Kuwait Foreign Minister Sheik Mohammed Al Sabah said the envoy aimed ``to get Tehran to (agree to) comprehensive cooperation with the international community.'' ``The nuclear activities in the Gulf region are a real concern, not just a virtual concern,'' he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. has not offered a guarantee against attacking or undermining Iran's hard-line government in exchange for having Tehran curtail its nuclear program. ``Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table,'' Rice said in Washington. Rice, appearing on Sunday news shows, said European officials have not asked the U.S. for security guarantees as they discuss options for dealing with Iran. She did not say what the U.S. response would be if asked to provide such an assurance. ``What we're talking about is a package that will make clear to Iran that there are choices to be made,'' she said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told CNN's ``Late Edition'' that he believes Iran is just a few months rather than a few years from acquiring the technological expertise needed to build a nuclear bomb. The five U.N. Security Council nations plus Germany are working on a draft proposal that would offer Iran an end to council pressure and offer economic incentives if Tehran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment. But if Iran refuses, it would face sanctions backed by the threat of force. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki cast doubt on the deal Saturday saying ``suspending nuclear activities goes against our legitimate rights'' But on Sunday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran will respond to the European proposal once it officially receives it. ``One should not be hasty,'' he told reporters. ``However, any package has to guarantee Iran's rights. ... The basis of our work is clear. We won't get back to the past. We won't stop uranium enrichment.'' The Security Council has demanded Iran stop enrichment, a crucial process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for a nuclear warhead. The United States accuses Iran of seeking to produce weapons, though Iran insists it intends only to generate electricity. Iran has insisted it will never entirely give up enrichment. But it suspended the process in November 2004 as a gesture to boost negotiations with Europe and to avert U.N. sanctions. It resumed enrichment in February 2006 after it was referred to the Security Council by the U.N. atomic watchdog agency. There was no immediate Iranian confirmation of the visit by the envoy from the Arab Gulf nations. --- AP correspondents Diana Elias and Frieder Reimold in Kuwait and Lara Sukhtian in Dubai contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Head to Meet With Rice Next Week the Associated Press [UP] Saturday May 20, 2006 3:16 AM AP Photo DCMC105 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog plans to urge the Bush administration next week to ease its push for tough U.N. Security Council action against Iran, diplomats said Friday. The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging the confidential information, said Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will meet next week with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and other top U.S. officials to press the administration to moderate its stance. The initiative by ElBaradei, who has repeatedly called for negotiations instead of confrontation over Iran's refusal to give up uranium enrichment, comes at a crucial time. Officials of the five Security Council nations plus Germany plan to meet Wednesday in London to review a package of planned incentives for Iran to agree to renewed talks on the issue - and penalties if it continues to insist on its right to enrichment. Several of the diplomats - all of them accredited to the Vienna-based agency - told The Associated Press that ElBaradei's Washington meetings would be Tuesday. The Americans have swung behind new attempts by France, Britain and Germany to persuade the Iranians to give up enrichment - which can be used to generate nuclear fuel or the core of weapons. But the U.S. insists that the Iran package include the threat of a Security Council resolution that is militarily enforceable if Tehran refuses. Russia and China - the two other permanent Security Council members - oppose any resolution that even implicitly threatens the use of force. One of the diplomats said on Friday that Washington also remained skeptical about the largest incentive being proposed by the Europeans - a light-water research reactor that is less easy to misuse for nuclear proliferation than a heavy-water facility now under construction in Iran. Washington was even more opposed to proposals by some European nations that the Iranians be offered U.S.-backed security guarantees effectively removing the threat of American-backed attempts at regime change, the diplomat said. Concern has built since 2002, when Iran was found to be working on large-scale plans to enrich uranium. Iran insists it is only interested in generating electricity, but the international community increasingly fears ulterior motives. A series of IAEA reports since have revealed worrying clandestine activities and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead. Iran heightened international concerns by announcing April 11 that it had enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges. It has informed the IAEA that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges in the last quarter of 2006. Experts estimate that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for one bomb if it had at 1,000 centrifuges working for over a year. --- On the Net: www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Sec. Council May Alter Involvement in Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday May 20, 2006 10:01 AM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - World powers are considering dropping U.N. Security Council involvement in Iran's nuclear file if Tehran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment but could push for sanctions backed by the threat of force if the Islamic state refuses, diplomats said Saturday. Citing from a draft proposal being considered by the five Security Council nations plus Germany, one of the diplomats said it could still undergo revision before the six nations sit down Wednesday to approve it. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to reveal elements of the draft. The proposal says the international community will ``agree to suspend discussion of Iran's file at the Security Council,'' if Tehran resumes discussion on its nuclear program, suspends enrichment during such talks and lifts a ban on intrusive inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog. It also offers help in ``the building of new light-water reactors in Iran,'' offers an assured supply of nuclear fuel for up to five years and asks Tehran to accept a plan that would move its enrichment program to Russia. If Iran does not cooperate, however, the draft calls for bans on travel visas, freezing assets and banning financial transactions of key government figures and those involved in Iran's nuclear program; an arms embargo, and other measures including an embargo on shipping refined oil products to Iran. While Iran is a major exporter of crude it has a shortage of gasoline and other oil derivatives. ``Where appropriate, these measures would be adopted under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter,'' says the draft, referring to provisions that add the implicit threat of military force to a Security Council resolution. That section - backed by the United States, France and Britain - remains controversial, however, and the head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency plans to urge the Bush administration next week to ease its push for tough Security Council action. Diplomas said that Mohamed ElBaradei would meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and other top U.S. officials to press the administration to moderate its stance. Several of the diplomats - all of them accredited to the Vienna-based agency - told The Associated Press that ElBaradei's Washington meetings would be Tuesday, a day before the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany convene in London. The Americans have swung behind new attempts by France, Britain and Germany to persuade the Iranians to give up enrichment - which can be used to generate nuclear fuel or for making weapons. But the U.S. insists that the Iran package include the threat of a Security Council resolution that is militarily enforceable if Tehran refuses. Russia and China - the two other permanent Security Council members - oppose any resolution that even implicitly threatens force. One of the diplomats said on Friday that Washington remained opposed to proposals by some European nations that the Iranians be offered U.S.-backed security guarantees effectively removing the threat of American-backed attempts at regime change, the diplomat said. Concern has built since 2002, when Iran was found to be working on large-scale plans to enrich uranium. Iran insists it is only interested in generating electricity, but the international community increasingly fears ulterior motives. A series of IAEA reports since have revealed worrying clandestine activities and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead. Iran heightened international concerns by announcing April 11 that it had enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges. It has informed the IAEA that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges in the last quarter of 2006. Experts estimate that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for one bomb if it had at 1,000 centrifuges working for over a year. --- On the Net: http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Plan Floated by Sec. Council From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday May 20, 2006 8:16 PM AP Photo KUW102 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran could be offered an end to U.N. Security Council pressure if it agrees to suspend uranium enrichment but face sanctions backed by the threat of force if it refuses, under a proposal being considered by world powers, diplomats said Saturday. Yet even before the package of incentives and penalties was formally on the table, Tehran appeared ready to opt for the stick instead of the carrot. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told journalists in Kuwait City that while Iran wants the council to end its involvement, ``suspending nuclear activities goes against our legitimate rights and is not part of the NPT,'' or Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The draft proposal on Iran is being considered by the five Security Council nations plus Germany and could still undergo revision before the six powers sit down Wednesday to approve it, said one of the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to reveal elements of the draft. As it stands now, the proposal says the international community will ``agree to suspend discussion of Iran's file at the Security Council,'' if Tehran resumes talks on its nuclear program, suspends enrichment during such talks and lifts a ban on intrusive inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog. It also offers help in ``the building of new light-water reactors in Iran,'' offers an assured supply of nuclear fuel for up to five years, and asks Tehran to accept a plan that would move its enrichment program to Russia. If Iran remains defiant, the draft calls for banning travel visas; freezing assets; banning financial transactions of key government figures and those involved in Iran's nuclear program; an arms embargo, and other measures including an embargo on shipping refined oil products to Iran. While Iran is a major exporter of crude it has a shortage of gasoline and other oil derivatives. ``Where appropriate, these measures would be adopted under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter,'' says the draft, referring to provisions that add the implicit threat of military force to a Security Council resolution. That language - backed by the United States, France and Britain - remains controversial, and the head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency plans to urge the Bush administration next week to ease its push for tough Security Council action. Diplomats said Mohamed ElBaradei would meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and other top U.S. officials in Washington on Tuesday - a day before senior officials of the five permanent Security Council members, the European Union, and Germany convene in London to consider the Iran package. The Americans have swung behind new attempts by France, Britain and Germany to persuade the Iranians to give up enrichment, which can be used to generate nuclear fuel or the core of weapons. But Washington insists that the Iran package include the threat of a Security Council resolution that is militarily enforceable if Tehran refuses. Russia and China - the two other permanent Security Council members - oppose any resolution that even implicitly threatens the use of force. Reiterating Russia's position, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Friday that negotiations with Iran without preconditions were the way to resolve the nuclear standoff, and repeated that Moscow was against sanctions or the use of force against Tehran. Concern has been building since 2002, when Iran was found to be working on large-scale plans to enrich uranium. Iran insists it is only interested in generating electricity, but the international community increasingly fears ulterior motives. A series of IAEA reports since then have revealed worrying secret activities and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead. Iran heightened international concerns by announcing April 11 that it had enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges - although diplomats subsequently said that it appeared to have used Chinese feed stock because its domestically produced uranium gas was too impure. It has informed the IAEA that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges in the last quarter of 2006. Experts estimate that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for one bomb if it had at least 1,000 centrifuges working for over a year. --- On the Net: www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Reports of Gas Enrichment From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday May 21, 2006 8:31 AM AP Photo VAH102 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Sunday rejected reports that it has used Chinese uranium gas for enrichment, saying it used its own domestically produced high-quality gas. Iran heightened international concerns over its nuclear ambitions by announcing April 11 that it had enriched uranium for the first time with 164 centrifuges. Enrichment, in which uranium gas is spun in centrifuges, can produce fuel for a reactor or material for a nuclear warhead. Diplomats in Vienna, where the U.N. nuclear watchdog is based, later said it appeared Iran used Chinese uranium gas obtained in the 1990s to feed into centrifuges because its domestically produced uranium gas was too impure. ``It is not correct. We don't use any foreign materials for enrichment. Uranium enriched at Natanz is from the uranium gas produced at Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. Iran has informed the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges in the last quarter of 2006. Iran's final aim is to install 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz to annually produce 30 tons of nuclear fuel, enough to run a 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 IRNA: No int'l law can bar Iran from pursuing a civilian N-program - MP Qom, May 20, IRNA Iran-Majlis-Nuclear Chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi said here Friday afternoon that no international law or regulation can bar Iran from pursuing a civilian nuclear program. Addressing a national youth gathering in this city, 150 kilometers south of the capital Tehran, the MP reiterated Iran's firm determination "never to give up its nuclear activities," stressing that "uranium enrichment" is the red line which international organizations cannot pass. Stressing that Iran, despite the relentless threats and pressures imposed on it to desist from its nuclear activities, has managed to to complete the nuclear c ycle, Boroujerdi informed it has now successfully enriched uranium beyond the initial four percent. "Tehran is pursuing a nuclear program that is purely for civilian and peaceful purposes and proof of this is the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself has not witnessed any diversion in its peaceful nuclear activities," said the MP. He stressed that abandonment of Iran's peaceful nuclear program would violate its sovereignty and constitution. Moreover, Boroujerdi called on Iranian non-governmental organizations to defend the country in its right to the pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy both at domestic and international arenas. "The active presence of domestic NGOs in the political arena is one indication of the strong will of the nation to achieve development and progress," Boroujerdi said. He then called on the nation to thwart US efforts to prevent Iran from progressing in every possible way. ***************************************************************** 14 IRNA: Germany urges more western concessions on Iranian nuclear row - report - Berlin, May 20, IRNA Germany-Iran-Nuclear Germany has called for more western concessions in the ongoing Iranian nuclear dispute, DPA cited on Saturday a report in the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel made available ahead of Sunday's publication. "In the long run, the West cannot expect Tehran to mothball again its facilities like the research center in Natanz," the German paper wrote without naming any sources. "A realistic offer has to be made (to Iran) which also takes into account the pride of the country," it was reportedly said in Berlin. The report added western countries could be willing to recognize the current scientific level of Iran's uranium enrichment research and development program, if Tehran accepts international controls. According to the magazine, a planned meeting of political representatives of the European Union, US, China and Russia in London on Friday has been postponed following a request by Germany which urged a better western negotiation offer for Iran in the medium-term. ***************************************************************** 15 IRNA: West incentives will not settle Iran's nuclear case - MP Tehran, May 20, IRNA Iran-MP-Nuclear Incentives proposed by the West to Iran would not resolve the country's nuclear case, a member of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Hossein Sobhani-Nia, said here Saturday. Speaking to IRNA, he stressed the importance of following up the case through diplomatic channels and holding negotiations on utilization of industrial-scale uranium enrichment. "The (Europe's) new incentives are not something new. Sale of Airbus and its parts and lifting sanctions against Iran are related to the United States. Europe cannot make any decision in this regard," he said. He added, "Establishment of a fuel bank and heavy water nuclear reactors with participation of Europe, supply of fuel to Iran by Russia and trade issues and exchanges were among the offers proposed by Europe to Iran. "The proposals have no executive guarantee...The Europeans have so far proved they are not reliable. "Iran has a transparent stance. We reached the irreversible point of enrichment." The MP stressed, "It is possible to hold talks just on industrial use of enriched uranium for a specific period of time and upon the West's agreement." "Both China and Russia have adopted stance on this issue. It is still better to follow up the case through diplomatic channels and negotiations. "Iran can hold talks with the Europeans on guarantees demanded by them on peaceful fuel cycle. "It will be impossible to suspend uranium enrichment in return for incentives which have no executive guarantees." ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Iran biggest beneficiary of US-led Iraq war - Albright - News Sun May 21, 7:14 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas benefitted most from the US-led war in Iraq" /> Iraqand would make further gains if the continuing violence ended up dividing the country, former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright" /> Madeleine Albrighthas said. As for the Iranian nuclear row, a "high level" member of the administration should respond to a letter from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushand also engage in direct dialogue with Tehran, Albright told the BBC in an interview while on a visit to London. The former top US diplomat welcomed the formation on Saturday of the first permanent government in Iraq since the ousting of Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam Hussein, but reiterated her deep concerns about the volatile situation. "The main problems that I see are the unintended consequences of this war, the biggest one frankly being at the moment is that the country that gained the most out of this war is Iran so I am very worried about it," she said Sunday. Albright, who served under former president Bill Clinton" /> Bill Clintonbetween 1997 and 2001, highlighted the dangers of an internal conflict between Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority and the Sunni minority. Asked what she thought about the risk of the country being divided into three parts -- the Kurdish north, the Sunni-dominated centre and the Shiite south -- Albright said this would be a dangerous development. "It would have deep implications obviously on Turkey and the Kurdish issue. It would give additional power to Iran in the south with the Shia. Then the centre, which is primarily Sunni, is not homogeneous either, and one is unclear as to what role the Saudis might play or Jordanians," she said. "I think it is better to keep it (Iraq) together, with some understanding that there needs to be local autonomy with some central control and distribution of oil revenues." Albright, 69, has written a book about religion and politics in which she says the March 2003 Iraq invasion may turn out to be the greatest disaster in US foreign policy. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 IRNA: Official urges Russian support for Iran in case of attack Moscow, May 20, IRNA Russia-Iran-Support Director-General of the Center of Studies for Modern Iran Rajab Safarov here Friday urged Russia to support Iran and thereby thwart United States and NATO goals in the East. Speaking to RIA Novosti news agency, Safarov said if Russia reinforces unity with Iran the two countries' combined strength will put an end to a unipolar world under US leadership and establish a Moscow-Beijing Tehran axis. Russia should issue a clear statement that it will provide Iran with military aid in case of a attack on Tehran, the expert on Iran issues in Moscow added. He said his country should prepare the ground for Iran to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) when it meets for its next session on June 15. He maintained that the US does not give importance to violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying if Washington did it would not have signed a nuclear agreement with India, which is not a signatory to the NPT and has nuclear weapons. Safarov, morever, said that the hue and cry raised by the US against Iran's nuclear program is aimed at diminishing Tehran's influence in the region, saying an independent and self-sufficient Iran would be a major threat and obstacle in the way of materializing the `Greater Middle East Initiative'. He stressed that bolstering of cooperation between Iran and Russia would have great prospects considering the two countries' huge oil and gas reserves. ***************************************************************** 18 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: No proposal has been received - Asefi 2006/05/20 Tehran, May 20 - Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said on Saturday that Iran has not received any formal or informal proposal from Europe to comment on. "Things raised so far are mostly media speculations," the Spokesman said. Reffering to a meeting between Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary and IAEA Chief in Vienna Asefi described the bilateral talks as satisfactory. "Iran still considers diplomatic talks as the best way to deal with its nuclear case," he added. Asefi cautioned that media reports are invalid and any party "must wait until a proposal is submitted." "So far, any judgement or comments on this issue is merely based on guesses," he added. SAM Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. ***************************************************************** 19 IRNA: Rafsanjani urges active diplomacy to settle Iran's nuclear case Tehran, May 21, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Rafsanjani Chairman of the Expediency Council (EC) Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani here Sunday said settling Iran's nuclear case requires resistance, tolerance, certain knowledge, high intelligence and an active diplomacy. Rafsanjani made the remark while addressing the First Conference on Oil, Gas and Energy in 20-Year Vision Plan, held at Sharif University of Technology. In order to deal with the world's complicated issues, strategies are needed that not only would not lead to impasse, but also would help resolve them, he said. "Future of humanity depends on energy. The future wars and peace, tranquility or anxiety of the world are all based on energy. "The Iranian nation should not be deprived of nuclear energy," he added. Rafsanjani said Iran is among main suppliers of energy in the world, adding, "Energy is the most pivotal base for the world's development." He assessed the 20-Year Development Vision Plan as a comprehensive document including important points, saying, "Besides this plan, general policies of the system also attache special importance to the issue of energy." The EC chairman noted the issue of energy issue should not be restricted to oil and gas alone rather it should encompass all other matters ranging from production and conservation to consumption. "Iran is among rich states with respect to fossil resources while enjoying an acceptable situation in terms of solar and wind energy," he said. ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: Iran says it will not suspend uranium enrichment by Aresu Eqbali Sun May 21, 6:04 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas said it would not suspend uranium enrichment despite European Union" /> European Unionplans to offer incentives to the Islamic republic if it halts the sensitive nuclear work. "We cannot retreat. The proposal should provide ways to secure our rights," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. "We will not stop enrichment. "The basis of our work is that the Islamic republic of Iran's rights must be recognised in any plan," Asefi added Sunday. In their latest bid to defuse escalating international tensions over Iran's disputed nuclear drive, Britain, France and Germany are preparing a package of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium. Iran says it wants to enrich only to make reactor fuel, although the process can be extended to make weapons. The United States in particular accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for acquiring an atomic bomb. A draft proposal by the so-called EU-3 says world powers should support Iran's building several light water reactors and set up a nuclear fuel bank that would guarantee the country access to reactor fuel but not the sensitive fuel cycle technology. It would also have the United States drop restrictions on Iran's buying US commercial airplanes or parts. But if Tehran does not accept the deal, sanctions should follow. These punitive measures could include an arms embargo, political and economic measures, a visa and travel ban on selected high-ranking officials and a freeze of assets of individuals and organisations connected to or close to the regime. Asefi said it would be "hasty to comment on a raw proposal that has been brought up in the media, and still neither officially nor unofficially given to us." But he also repeated Iran's view that any economic sanctions would leave its foreign trading partners worse off. "We have broad trade and economic ties with European and non-European countries. These ties can be damaged and this damage will harm European countries even more," Asefi said. "It is a pity that these relations are challenged because of indiscretion in the nuclear case." Right-wing Iranian newspapers were also unimpressed by the European proposals, with one influential daily dismissing the cited incentives as "worthless". "Worthless incentives, repetitious threats," headlined the Kayhan newspaper, whose editor is appointed by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "America and Europe should know that Iran will not exchange gold for chocolate," the conservative Resalat paper wrote in an editorial, repeating a metaphor used last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The four-page draft proposal is due to be discussed among the EU-3, plus China, Russia and the United States in London next Wednesday. The Security Council had asked Iran on March 29 to heed International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencycalls for it to suspend its enrichment work and also to cooperate fully with a three-year-old IAEA investigation, which has so far been unable to determine whether the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful or weapons-related. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: Iran says it will not suspend uranium enrichment by Aresu Eqbali Sun May 21, 9:26 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas said it would not suspend uranium enrichment despite European Union" /> European Unionplans to offer incentives to the Islamic republic if it halts the sensitive nuclear work. "We cannot retreat. The proposal should provide ways to secure our rights," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters Sunday. "We will not stop enrichment. "The basis of our work is that the Islamic republic of Iran's rights must be recognised in any plan," Asefi added. In their latest bid to defuse escalating international tensions over Iran's disputed nuclear drive, Britain, France and Germany are preparing a package of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium. Iran says it wants to enrich only to make reactor fuel, although the process can be extended to make weapons. The United States in particular accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for acquiring an atomic bomb. A draft proposal by the so-called EU-3 says world powers should support Iran's building several light water reactors and set up a nuclear fuel bank that would guarantee the country access to reactor fuel but not the sensitive fuel cycle technology. It would also have the United States drop restrictions on Iran's buying US commercial airplanes or parts. But if Tehran does not accept the deal, sanctions should follow. These punitive measures could include an arms embargo, political and economic measures, a visa and travel ban on selected high-ranking officials and a freeze of assets of individuals and organisations connected to or close to the regime. Asefi said it would be "hasty to comment on a raw proposal that has been brought up in the media, and still neither officially nor unofficially given to us." But he also repeated Iran's view that any economic sanctions would leave its foreign trading partners worse off. "We have broad trade and economic ties with European and non-European countries. These ties can be damaged and this damage will harm European countries even more," Asefi said. "It is a pity that these relations are challenged because of indiscretion in the nuclear case." Right-wing Iranian newspapers were also unimpressed by the European proposals, with one influential daily dismissing the cited incentives as "worthless". "Worthless incentives, repetitious threats," headlined the Kayhan newspaper, whose editor is appointed by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "America and Europe should know that Iran will not exchange gold for chocolate," the conservative Resalat paper wrote in an editorial, repeating a metaphor used last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The four-page draft proposal is due to be discussed among the EU-3, plus China, Russia and the United States in London next Wednesday. The Security Council had asked Iran on March 29 to heed International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencycalls for it to suspend its enrichment work and also to cooperate fully with a three-year-old IAEA investigation, which has so far been unable to determine whether the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful or weapons-related. "I have to admit that after two and a half years of negotiations, we are not as far along as we would like to be," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Sunday during a visit to Kuwait. "The situation requires not only creativity on our part, but also more flexibility on the Iranian side." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: Hardline Iran papers scorn 'worthless' EU proposal Sun May 21, 3:33 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Right-wing Iranian newspapers have snubbed European Union" /> European Unionefforts to coax the Islamic republic into halting sensitive nuclear work, with one influential daily dismissing the proposed incentives as "worthless". "Worthless incentives, repetitious threats," headlined the Kayhan newspaper, whose editor is appointed by Iran" /> Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "America and Europe should know that Iran will not exchange gold for chocolate," the conservative Resalat paper wrote in an editorial, repeating a metaphor used last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "EU draft proposal: freshly tarnishing the atmosphere against Iran's nuclear programme," the hardline Jomhuri Eslami daily wrote. Britain, France and Germany are preparing a package of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium to defuse an escalating international showdown. The proposal says world powers should support Iran's building several light water reactors, set up a nuclear fuel bank and even have the United States drop restrictions on Iran's buying US commercial airplanes, if Iran takes steps to guarantee it will not make nuclear weapons. But if Tehran does not do this, sanctions should follow including an arms embargo, political and economic measures, a visa and travel ban on selected high-ranking officials and a freeze of assets of individuals and organisations connected to or close to the regime. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 23 AFP: Suspension of enrichment against Iran's legitimate rights - FM - Sat May 20, 11:33 AM ET KUWAIT CITY (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran, in its first reaction to a European Union" /> European Unionproposal aimed at resolving a nuclear standoff with the West, said suspension of uranium enrichment breached Tehran's legitimate rights. "The suspension of nuclear activities is in contradiction with our legitimate rights," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Kuwait in response to a question on whether Tehran was prepared to suspend the enrichment during proposed negotiations. "(This also) is not within the provisions of the (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) NTP," said Mottaki Saturday after talks with his Kuwaiti counterpart, Sheikh Mohammad al-Sabah. The EU draft proposal, prepared by Germany, Britain and France, calls on Iran to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and to continue this during negotiations. The EU offers a package of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium to defuse an escalating international showdown. Mottaki said his country wants the UN Security Council to stop discussing the Iranian nuclear file "because we believe the issue has been politicised by referring it to the Security Council." "We are fully committed to all obligations under NTP ... We are not demanding anything outside our legitimate rights stated in the NTP," he said. Mottaki, who left Kuwait after a one-day visit, also held talks with Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah. "I conveyed to Kuwaiti officials the outcome of negotiations with Europe, Russia and China ... Our position is based on ... taking steps to allay fears of some countries from the Iranian nuclear programme," he said. Asked if the guarantees carried by the Iranian minister were satisfactory, Sheikh Mohammad said the talks did not involve technical details. "The Kuwaiti position is very clear that the party concerned to discuss technical matters is the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA)," he said. Mottaki's visit to Kuwait comes ahead of planned visits by the foreign ministers of Germany, Russia and China, who are expected to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: EU offers reactors to Iran, threatens arms embargo by Michael Adler Fri May 19, 10:13 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - The EU is calling on world powers to help Iran" /> Iran's nuclear and other industries if Tehran stops enriching uranium but wants Russia and China to join in sanctions, including an arms embargo, if Iran does not, according to a copy of a draft proposal seen by AFP. The proposal by the trio of Britain, France and Germany says world powers should support Iran's building several light water reactors, set up a nuclear fuel bank and even have the United States drop restrictions on Iran's buying US commercial airplanes, if Iran takes steps to guarantee it will not make nuclear weapons. But if Tehran does not do this, sanctions should follow including an arms embargo, in an escalating international standoff over an Iranian civilian nuclear power program which the United States claims hides the development of atomic weapons. An arms embargo "would have a significant impact on Russian and Chinese arms sales to Iran," non-proliferation analyst Gary Samore said, referring to the two nations extensive trade ties with their Iranian ally. "The question mark is whether the Russian and Chinese will sign up to the sanctions part," said Samore, a former White House official now at the McArthur Foundation in Chicago. The four-page draft text, to be discussed among the EU-3, plus China, Russia and the United States in London next Wednesday, lists 15 targeted sanctions for the UN Security Council to choose from, doling them out as graduated "proportionate measures," if Iran does not comply. The sanctions are divided into "measures targeted against Iran's nuclear and missiles programmes" and "political and economic measures" and include the arms embargo, a "visa/travel ban on selected high-ranking officials and personalities" and a "freeze of assets of individuals and organizations connected to or close to the regime." But the benefits include Russia enriching uranium for Iran, with Tehran as a partner "in an international fuel cycle center in Russia," the text said. A senior European diplomat noted that the text also "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 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, without elaborating. The European diplomat said Washington needs 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, less of a proliferation risk than the heavy-water type, would not deal with Iran without a green light from Washington, as they have large business dealings with the United States. Samore said Russia and China "may say they can agree to the package but only if the United States agrees to participate in multilateral talks with Iran." "This would put the Bush administration in a very difficult position," Sameore said. 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. But Samore said that if the Russians and Chinese back tough sanctions, "then Iran might sign on to accept conditions for resuming negotiations." Russian and China, however, "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," sanctions could be chosen "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 draft, entitled "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 ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: Iran refuses to comment on EU nuclear proposal Sat May 20, 7:46 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas said it would not comment on an EU proposal aimed at resolving its nuclear standoff before the offer was officially submitted to Tehran. "Any comments or judgment now could complicate future conditions. We have to wait until the proposal is officially made," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told state television Saturday. Britain, France and Germany are preparing a package of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium to defuse an escalating international showdown. The proposal says world powers should support Iran's building several light water reactors, set up a nuclear fuel bank and even have the United States drop restrictions on Iran's ability to purchase US commercial airplanes, if Iran suspends its uranium enrichment and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency. "It is not known yet how much truth there is to this proposal," Asefi said dismissing reports about it as "media speculation". Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 26 IRNA: Asefi: Iran not to suspend uranium enrichment Tehran, May 21, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Asefi Iran on Sunday reiterated that it will not suspend its uranium enrichment. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi made the remark while speaking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press conference. Asked about Iran's response to the Europe's offer if it demands suspension of uranium enrichment, he said, "Let's not make any speculations. Let's wait until the proposal is received." The spokesman stressed, "We will not go back and stop uranium enrichment." ***************************************************************** 27 AFP: Rice: US offers Iran no security guarantees 5-21-06 2 hours, 51 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is not offering security guarantees to Iran" /> Iranto end its nuclear program, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid. "Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table," she told "Fox News Sunday." The top US diplomat spoke as Iran said Sunday it would not suspend uranium enrichment despite European Union" /> European Unionplans to offer incentives to the Islamic republic if it halts the sensitive nuclear work. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert claimed Iran could obtain a nuclear bomb in "months" and vowed that Israel" /> Israelwould take the "necessary measures" to stop this from occurring. Ahead of new international talks on Iran this week, Rice told Fox, "It's obvious that in addition to the nuclear issue, we have other issues with Iran. We have a state in Iran that is devoted to the destruction of Israel. We have a state in Iran that meddles in the peace process" in the Middle East. Britain, France and Germany have drawn up a package aiming to persuade Iran to end its uranium enrichment, which Washington and its allies say hides an effort to build a nuclear bomb. The European proposals are to be discussed at a meeting in London on Wednesday of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany. Iran said its nuclear program remains on track despite the international pressure. "We cannot retreat. The (European) proposal should provide ways to secure our rights," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran. "We will not stop enrichment. "The basis of our work is that the Islamic Republic of Iran's rights must be recognized in any plan," Asefi said. The European package could include trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium. Iran says it only wants to make reactor fuel, but the enrichment process can be extended to make weapons. A draft proposal by the so-called EU-3 says world powers should support Iran building several light-water reactors and should set up a nuclear fuel bank that would guarantee Iran access to reactor fuel but not sensitive fuel cycle technology. It would also have the United States drop restrictions on Iran buying US commercial airplanes or parts. But if Tehran does not accept the deal, sanctions should follow. These punitive measures could include an arms embargo, political and economic measures, a visa and travel ban on selected high-ranking officials and a freeze of assets of individuals and organizations connected to the government. Asefi repeated Iran's view that any economic sanctions would leave its foreign trading partners worse off. But Israel warned Sunday that Tehran was inching closer to developing a nuclear bomb. "The issue of Iran is a very serious one," Olmert told CNN, saying Iran's alleged bid to develop a nuclear bomb "can be measured by months rather than years". "The technological threshold is very close. The question is, when will they cross the technological line that will allow them at any given time, within six or eight months, to have a nuclear bomb?" Asked if he expected US and European diplomacy would stop Iran's uranium enrichment program, Olmert replied: "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous." The Iranian program is likely to be discussed by Olmert and President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushwhen the Israeli leader visits Washington this week. The UN Security Council asked Iran on March 29 to heed International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencycalls to suspend its enrichment work and to cooperate with an investigation, which has so far been unable to determine whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful or weapons-related. "I have to admit that after two and a half years of negotiations, we are not as far along as we would like to be," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Sunday during a visit to Kuwait. Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Sunday on CNN that the UN Security Council, not Washington, should enter direct talks with Tehran. "Both America and Australia believe in trying to achieve a diplomatic solution to this very difficult problem and I think in the first instance we should exhaust the United Nations" /> United Nationsprocess before we start examining alternative approaches," he said Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 28 AFP: Israel's Olmert says Iran could obtain nuclear bomb in 'months' Sunday May 21, 04:36 PM [Ehud Olmert] Click to enlarge photo WASHINGTON (AFP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that Iran could obtain a nuclear bomb in "months" and vowed that Israel would take the "necessary measures" to stop this occurring. "The issue of Iran is a very serious one," Olmert said in an interview with CNN television, saying that Iran's alleged bid to develop a nuclear bomb "can be measured by months rather than years". "The technological threshold is very close. The question is when, will they cross the technological line that will allow them at any given time, within six or eight months, to have a nuclear bomb?" "And this technological threshold is nearer than we anticipated before. This is because they are already engaged very seriously in enrichment," Olmert said. Asked if he expected US and European diplomatic pressure to bring a stop to Iran's uranium enrichment program, Olmert replied: "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous." Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. AFP '); [ src=] ***************************************************************** 29 IRNA: Majlis, gov't will not accept Europe new offer - MP Tehran, May 21, IRNA Iran-MP-Nuclear The government and Majlis would not accept Europe's new proposal on Iran's nuclear program, a member of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Elham Aminzadeh said here Sunday. Aminzadeh told IRNA on the sidelines of Majlis open session that the new offer presented by Europe included no new points upon what Iran can rely. "Europe's previous offer within frameworks of a new proposal just included incentives that are in fact a kind of non-incentives," the MP said. She said there is no balance in Europe's new offer like its previous one, adding, "It just aims to prevent us from our nuclear rights. It's unacceptable." Pointing to Europe's offer on inauguration of light water plant in return for suspension of enrichment, she said, "Experts of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization should make comment whether or not there is a balance between these two issues." ***************************************************************** 30 AFP: Major concern if North Korea launches long-range missile - US Saturday May 20, 06:17 AM [Kim Jong-Il] Click to enlarge photo WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States warned that it would be a major international concern if North Korea launched a long-range missile, amid reports Pyongyang may be preparing to test-fire the weapon. "If in fact North Korea did launch a long-range missile, it will be a real source of concern to the international community," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "They haven't done so since 1998. That was the last time they launched a long-range missile," he said. Japanese officials warned Friday that North Korea might be preparing to test-fire a long-range ballistic missile that could one day be developed to hit the US West Coast. They were responding to media reports from Tokyo and Seoul that satellite data have shown increased movement by trailers and other vehicles near the Musudan-ri missile test site in northeastern North Korea, facing the Sea of Japan (East Sea). Pyongyang, which is boycotting nuclear disarmament talks, could fire for the first time a 35-meter (116-foot) Taepodong-2 in the range of 3,500 to 6,000 kilometers (2,200 to 3,750 miles), the officials said. North Korea is reportedly believed to be developing the missile for a range of up to 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles), which would put the continental United States within striking distance. McCormack noted that since 1998, North Korea has abided by a moratorium on the launch or testing of long-range missiles. He warned that any impending launch of such a missile could also violate an agreement reached in September during the now stalled six-nation nuclear talks. "And we believe that such a launch would also contravene the letter and the spirit of the September 19th, 2005 joint statement which North Korea signed onto," he said. The nuclear talks, involving North 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. North Korea's nuclear program as well as its development of means to deliver potential nuclear weapons were a global concern, McCormack said. If Pyongyang launched a long range missile, it would expose "North Korea's intentions, what it says about their motivations and what it says about their seriousness about abiding by commitments that they've made," he said. Japanese and South Korean officials learned about the increased nuclear site activity from US forces based in the two countries, reports said. North Korea shocked the world in August 1998 by firing a long-range Taepodong-1 missile with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) over Japan into the Pacific Ocean, claiming it was a satellite launch. It has since carried out a series of tests on smaller-range missiles. Washington has denounced Pyongyang as a leading global proliferator of missiles and missile technology. The cash-strapped communist state has refused to stop missile exports, a major source of hard currency earnings. In June last year, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il told a South Korean envoy he would scrap the missiles once diplomatic ties were established with Washington. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. AFP '); [ src=] ***************************************************************** 31 SF Chron: House panel boosts Bush plan to build new nuclear warheads / Many arms control experts say idea is huge waste of money [San Francisco Chronicle] James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, May 20, 2006 A congressional committee took major steps this week toward financing the Bush administration's controversial program to build new generations of nuclear warheads, roughly doubling the budget for the design of the new weapons while reducing the money for maintaining the old stockpile. The House Energy and Water Subcommittee passed on Wednesday a budget that increases funding for what is known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, or RRW, from the roughly $25 million the White House requested to $52.7 million. That is a relatively modest amount of money for a program that could end up costing more than $100 billion over the next several decades. The committee, however, took other steps that suggest a firm transition toward the new program is commencing even though the debate over the need for the warheads remains unresolved. Many arms controls experts have complained that the new RRW program is unnecessary because the existing stockpile is expected to remain in working condition for decades, making the new warheads a huge waste of money. "They are making an error in shifting resources from a well-proven program of maintaining the stockpile to something that is not proven," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, which favors arms reductions. "I think this is premature and will come back to haunt them." Also, some observers worry that production of the first new nuclear weapons in the United States since the Cold War sends a provocative message to other countries, particularly at a time when the Bush administration is struggling to halt weapons programs in North Korea and Iran. The new budget appears to set the country on a course toward producing the new weapons. For instance, $25 million of the funding is contingent on the nation's nuclear administrators finishing a study on how they will transform the facilities for manufacturing and maintaining the new warheads, clearly pushing them to move rapidly to develop their future blueprint for warhead production. The committee also voted to provide $100 million to plan the complex that will consolidate some weapons manufacturing capabilities, a key component of the RRW program. In addition, the budget would reduce a number of the programs for maintaining and upgrading the existing warheads, known as the stockpile stewardship program. There is a $98 million reduction of what is known as directed stockpile work, and the budget eliminates $80 million that was to be used to refurbish a cruise missile warhead, known as the W-80. The full House is expected to approve the committee's budget as soon as next week. The RRW program has been pushed by some Republicans and Democrats on the theory that the existing stockpile of weapons is aging and getting more expensive to maintain. A new generation of warheads, they say, would be safer, more reliable and cheaper to maintain. Congress has insisted, however, that any new warheads must be deployed without underground testing and that they cannot involve new capabilities. But they must also be safer and more reliable. Based on last year's funding, the two weapons design labs, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, produced competing designs in April that would replace the warhead now used on Trident missiles. Those competing designs are now being assessed, and one is expected to be chosen for further development in November. Many scientists who are knowledgeable about the weapons programs have said that the current weapons in the stockpile have proven to be in superb working order and that the radioactive plutonium used in the core of the warheads appears to have an even longer useful life than previously estimated. "The impression that our current arsenal is unreliable is ridiculous and inaccurate," said Stephen Young a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. "They are more reliable than the missiles they fly on." E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com. Page A - 3 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 32 WorldNetDaily: Another 'Coalition of the Willing'? Founded 1997 Sunday, May 21, 2006 Today's Edition [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: May 20, 2006 © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com At last week's Conference on Disarmament, Stephen Rademaker, acting assistant secretary, International Security and Nonproliferation, submitted a draft Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty that would be acceptable to the Bush-Cheney administration. In September 1993, President Bill Clinton had called for a "multilateral" convention banning the production of "fissile materials" for use in nuclear weapons, and in March 1995 the Conference on Disarmament established a committee to begin drafting such a treaty. Then, the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons approved an "action agenda" for "systematic and progressive efforts" to implement disarmament requirements of Article VI of the NPT. Although supported by Clinton, two action steps on that agenda – early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiation of a multilateral, international and "effectively verifiable" fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT) – have not been supported by his successor. In fact, Secretary of State Condi Rice declined to even address the 2005 NPT Review Conference and prevented the final report of the 2000 NPT Review Conference from even being mentioned – especially the "13 steps" to nuke disarmament – much less endorsed. Nevertheless, it was something of a surprise that Rademaker used his introduction of the U.S.-supported FMCT draft to make the following : On Sept. 24 of last year, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a resolution formally determining that Iran was in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations due to its "many failures and breaches." As a result of this finding by the IAEA Board, as well as a separate finding by the Board in that same resolution that Iran's nuclear program raises questions that are within the competence of the U.N. Security Council as the organ bearing main responsibility for international peace and security, Iran was formally reported to the Security Council in February of this year. On March 29, the Security Council, acting by consensus, adopted a Presidential Statement calling on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment-related activities, cooperate fully with the IAEA's ongoing investigations, and enter into good faith negotiations on measures to restore international confidence in Iran's nuclear intentions. The United States expects the Security Council to fulfill its responsibility under the U.N. Charter to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program, and it will be a defeat for effective multilateralism should the Council fail to live up to this responsibility. Now, Rademaker's remarks are outrageously misleading. Moreover, what has the Iran-IAEA issue got to do with the FMCT? In particular, since Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq – allegedly to destroy a nuclear program IAEA inspectors had been unable to detect – Iran has been a principal advocate of the NPT, CTBT and the FMCT. Well – – the problem is that the NPT "has a loophole which has been exploited by nations such as North Korea and Iran. These regimes are allowed to produce nuclear material that can be used to build bombs under the cover of civilian nuclear programs." Wrong! Outrageously wrong! In fact, all NPT-signatories not already having nukes – such as Iran – are required to enter into a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA for the "exclusive purpose" of verifying to other NPT-signatories that no "source or special nuclear materials" are used in furtherance of any military purpose. As best the IAEA could determine, up and until the time North Korea withdrew from the NPT, no NPT-proscribed materials had been so used. And, as best the IAEA can determine, no Iranian NPT-proscribed material has ever been so used. Contrary to Rademaker, according to IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran is in complete compliance with its safeguards agreement. Furthermore, the FMCT – even as drafted by Bush – is intended to prevent countries that are outside the NPT – such as India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – from producing any more fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. No wonder Iran's delegate to the Disarmament Conference – Hamid Eslamizad – noted that Rademaker's call for "effective multilateralism" by signatories to the FMCT to deal with "the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program," which the Security Council has so far declined to so characterize, is strikingly similar to Bush's appeal back in 2003 for effective multilateralism "by a coalition of the willing" to deal with what Bush claimed was the threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq's (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. He also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 1997-2006 ***************************************************************** 33 Xinhua: Israeli PM leaves for Washington www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-21 19:56:51 JERUSALEM, May 21 (Xinhua) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took off Sunday afternoon for Washington for his first official visit to the United States since he took office in early May, Israel Radio said. Olmert, who was formally sworn in on May 4 as the new Israeli prime minister, is scheduled to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday. Political sources in Jerusalem said that the Iranian nuclear issue and Olmert's convergence plan to withdraw settlers from the West Bank will be top on the agenda of Olmert-Bush talks. During his four-day visit to Washington, Olmert is also expected to address U.S. Congress and meet Jewish leaders. It is the first official trip abroad for Olmert, who formed a coalition government along with several other parties following his centrist Kadima party won 29 seats in the March 28 elections. Olmert vows to pull out some 70,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank while keep bigger settlement blocs with or without bilateral talks with the Palestinians. Enditem Editor: Zhu Jin Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Toronto Star: Harper praises non-Kyoto group as `the kind of Sun May. 21, 2006. | Updated at 09:01 PM world needs'May 20, 2006. 01:00 AMGRAHAM FRASERNATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER GATINEAU, QUE.Australian Prime Minister John Howard yesterday welcomed the idea of Canada joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which includes countries that have not agreed to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. "Certainly, we would very warmly welcome Canada to join the partnership," Howard told reporters yesterday, after meeting with Stephen Harper at the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake. Harper said he had discussed with Howard the idea of Canada becoming a participant. "We believe it's the kind of initiative the world needs," Harper said. The Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) was formed last summer by the United States and Australia  neither one of which signed the Kyoto Protocol  and includes China, India, Japan and South Korea. The countries collectively produce 50 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The APP has no compulsory targets for reducing emissions, but focuses on developing new technologies. "Unless you have the involvement of the major polluters, you're not going to have a serious addressing of the problem," said Howard, who added that the partnership is the first international arrangement that includes China, India and the United States. Harper agreed that "if we're serious about climate change and controlling the greenhouse gases we clearly have to have an international regime that includes the largest emitters." He said that China, India, the United States and others are either not part of the Kyoto Protocol or have no targets. "We in Canada certainly welcome the initiative," Harper said. "As a government that finds itself left 35 per cent behind the Kyoto target with a need to do something, we think it's encouraging." Harper said nuclear energy will be "an important part of the mix" in Canada's energy future, and Howard pointed out that Canada and Australia together have 43 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and 52 per cent of the world's uranium production. Harper also said the government is "looking carefully" at a U.S. proposal that would compel uranium exporting countries like Canada to repatriate and dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Additional articles by Graham Fraser Copyright Toronto Star ***************************************************************** 35 [NYTr] Livingstone: Nuke Power Reckless and Wrong Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:11:08 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness ["Sweden and Denmark have been using decentralised energy widely for over 30 years. Last month, I published research that showed how London could relatively easily cut carbon emissions by over 30 per cent in 20 years by employing decentralised energy". - Ken Livingstone. The decentralised generation system that is currently being implemented in Cuba and appears to be yielding similar results to those predicted by the Mayor of London. It is little wonder that US commentators find it hard to believe that Cuba has substantially restructured its entire energy generation system in a matter of months. And why USA's declining heavy industry sector, if the knew about it at all, would be hopping mad that not one cent of Cuba's massive investment was spent in the USA because of US government policy. - Simon McGuinness. ] The Independent - 19 May 2006 http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article546639.ece Op-Ed: The nuclear option would be reckless and wrong Tony Blair needs to appreciate that it would be expensive and dangerous by Ken Livingstone A decision to commission a new generation of nuclear power stations would be the great misjudgement of our generation. Tony Blair and every politician who can influence this decision needs to appreciate that it would be an expensive and dangerous mistake to go back down the nuclear road, and one that will not even solve the stated problem of climate change. Vast resources will be consumed on a project that will do little to tackle global warming, but which will saddle our children and grandchildren with the additional dangers of nuclear disaster and radioactive waste. We have run out of time to make further mistakes in tackling climate change. The danger is now too great. That means we can only consider solutions that cut the most carbon, as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. Our existing nuclear power stations provide just 8 per cent of Britain's total energy (nuclear power cannot fuel transport, and gas is largely used to heat homes) and will have finished their working life by 2025. Even on an aggressive timetable it is highly unlikely that we can do more than replace existing capacity over the next 20 years. Even doubling the current nuclear capacity, it would contribute only an 8 per cent cut in Britain's carbon emissions. We need emission cuts at least three or four times as great if we are to play our part in preventing a scale of global warming that will make catastrophic climate change inevitable. Most of the public are rightly fearful of nuclear power. Only yesterday there were media reports of 57 alerts at nuclear power stations in Britain in the last decade. Fallout from Chernobyl is still claiming lives and contaminating land, 20 years on. A recent poll in London showed over two-thirds of Londoners opposed to the transport of nuclear waste in the city and nearly three quarters opposed to building nuclear power stations in their locality. I am sure these figures would be substantially higher in areas anywhere near where nuclear power stations might actually be built. There is no country in the world where nuclear power is, or has ever, been a commercially viable proposition. Indeed, the UK has never built a nuclear power station on schedule or within budget, and all with huge public subsidy. And the public also has to pick up the bill for cleaning up nuclear waste, now estimated by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority at #70bn. The single biggest cause of carbon emissions in Britain is centralised power generation. Two- thirds of the energy inputted into our centralised power stations, including nuclear, is wasted in the form of heat energy emitted as steam through the huge cooling towers that dot the countryside, and in the process of transmitting energy from rural power stations to the towns and cities where it is largely needed. But by generating heat and power locally through "decentralised" energy systems (often referred to as Combined Heat Power and Cooling), we can slash energy losses to just 10 or 15 per cent. This works by reusing the heat that is generated as a by-product of electricity generation to heat and cool buildings. Sweden and Denmark have been using decentralised energy widely for over 30 years. Last month, I published research that showed how London could relatively easily cut carbon emissions by over 30 per cent in 20 years by employing decentralised energy. Even when energy arrives in our homes and offices, a large proportion of it is wasted. Over 40 per cent of carbon emissions in London comes from homes. If it gets too cold, we simply turn up the heating, and if it gets too hot we increasingly turn on the fan or air-conditioning. Electrical appliances are left on or on stand-by, unused for hours on end. The best new homes, designed by architects such as Bill Dunster, are zero carbon. I will shortly be announcing details of a major zero carbon development in the Thames Gateway, which I intend will be the blueprint for all new build in the capital. There is no reason why this approach could not be adopted nationally. Finally, Britain probably has more opportunities to utilise renewable energy than just about any other country. As an island, we have vast untapped wave, wind and tidal power. And contrary to popular perception, our sunshine patterns are conducive to the widespread use of solar power. In London, we now require that renewable energy is used in all new developments. After a decade of fine rhetoric on climate change, the Government now has to take real steps to implement these kinds of measures. To instead lurch into a reckless decision to build more nuclear power stations would be an expensive and dangerous mistake for which our children and grandchildren will pay a heavy price. The writer is the Mayor of London. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 36 Secret Document Reveals New Breed of Nuclear Reactors Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 01:08:30 -0400 Peak Early Fatalities, Cancers, Injuries & Property Damage In USA: http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html ----- Original Message ----- From: davey garland To: Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 7:51 AM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 19, 2006 5:31 AM CONTACT: Greenpeace Shaun Burnie - Greenpeace International ++31 6290 01133 Helene Gassuin - Greenpeace France - ++33 6738 92314 Dr John Large - ++ 44 7971 088086 Secret Document Reveals New Breed of Nuclear Reactors Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack PARIS - May 19 - A leaked document on the vulnerability to terrorist attack of the new European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) - being considered or already under construction in several countries including UK, France and Finland - reveals a dangerously flawed approach to security, according to a study commissioned by Greenpeace International. (1) The Electricite de France (EDF) document relates to the projected performance of the AREVA designed Generation III European Pressurized Reactor, the first of which is being built at Olkiluoto in Finland with a second planned for a site at Flammanville, Normandy, France. EDF has also submitted proposals to the UK government to build ten such reactors, and is seeking to export the design to China and India. Nuclear engineering consultancy, Large and Associates, in the commissioned study assessed the secret EDF document and concluded that it includes seriously flawed assumptions about whether the reactor could withstand a potential terrorist attack using hijacked commercial aircraft; fallacies include: * the impact of a 250 tonne commercial jet aircraft is considered to be in the same range as a military aircraft (2-5 tonnes) in terms of the energy of impact, despite the greater induced shock from the much greater physical weight; * that up to 100 tonnes of aviation fuel from a commercial aircraft would burn within two minutes - which is both unjustified and unproven. It also ignores the possibility of fuel vapour forming within the reactor structures, the explosion of which could severely damage the shield and the reactor within; * that terrorists would have insufficient skills to pilot an aircraft onto the intended target, despite the deadly accuracy of the 9/11 attacks having proven how well trained and highly skilled they can become. The EDF document also discounts a serious risk of radioactive release from the reactor, whilst also failing to consider potential radioactivity released from damage to spent fuel rods and waste processing and storage sources on site "I am not surprised at the controversy generated by this leaked document. This is not because it reveals some highly sensitive details about the EPR design, which it certainly does not, but more because it reflects what seems to be an almost total lack of preparation to defend against the inevitability of terrorist attack," said Dr Large. "A similar attack on a reactor would cause a total calamity with the release of large amounts or radioactivity." The leaked document was published in full this week by politicians and environmental organisations in France, in protest at the arrest of an activist from the French Nuclear Phase-out network (Sortir du Nucleaire), who was accused of violation of France's nuclear Secret Defence by having a copy of the EDF document.(2) The activist, Stephane Lhomme, was interrogated over 14 hours on Tuesday after ten anti-terrorist police and others raided his home in Paris, removing documents, computers and phones. "France's nuclear state, including EDF, does not like public exposure. Their approach is to intimidate and to seek to suppress information. But these issues are too important to be left to a complacent bureaucracy and a self-interested nuclear company with reactors to sell. The EPR is promoted as the future for nuclear power but in reality it is the same dangerous unacceptable technology that has plagued us for decades. Whatever the terrorist threat and targets a wind turbine or solar panel is not on the list," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. Dr Large and Stephane Lhomme with a delegation from Greenpeace will be visiting the proposed site for the new EDF EPR reactor at Flammanville on Friday, 19 May. ### Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ***************************************************************** 37 Columbian: New nuke plant not on area's horizon Columbian.com - Serving Clark County, Washington Sunday, May 21, 2006 By ERIK ROBINSON, Columbian staff writer Today, shortly after daybreak, the Trojan Nuclear Plant's iconic cooling tower will tumble in a dusty heap along the Oregon side of the Columbia River. Even as Oregon symbolically ends its only foray into nuclear energy, the industry is experiencing something of a public-relations revival with federal legislation providing incentives to build new power plants. Don't expect another cooling tower to rise in the Northwest any time soon, however. Portland General Electric, which operated Trojan for 17 years until permanently shutting it down in 1993, plans to seek out the views of its 780,000 customers before deciding on the type of new energy sources that make the most sense in the future, PGE spokesman Scott Simms said. Nuclear power isn't in the forefront of PGE's thinking, at least for now. "Our focus right now is on some pretty exciting projects we have going right now on wind power and gas-powered development," Simms said. "We're also working with folks, such as Oregon State University, on some wave power research off the Oregon Coast." Even so, utility executives aren't dismissing nuclear power out of hand. In light of heightened concerns associated with other energy sources mainly fossil fuels adding to the greenhouse effect warming the planet some energy analysts say nuclear power isn't looking so bad. "There's definitely renewed interest nationally, maybe even globally," said Jeff King, a senior resource analyst with the four-state Northwest Power and Conservation Council in Portland. "There are pretty good reasons for that." Among the reasons: The rising cost of fossil fuels, such as the natural gas fueling many of the Northwest's newest power plants; the development of more efficient nuclear technologies; and concern about global warming from burning fuels such as coal. Moreover, King said, the region's abundant network of hydroelectric dams are increasingly stretched thin by population growth in the region. If state regulators clamp down on the emission of carbon dioxide from new power plants, coal- or natural gas-fired plants will be less attractive options to meet future energy demand. "I just don't know where we're going to get all the carbon-free power to do that," King said. No 'serious proposals' Nuclear power isn't the answer, said Angus Duncan, a former Oregon representative to the power council who worked with PGE when it determined it would be more expensive to repair Trojan's cracked steam generators than it would to build a natural gas plant. Ultimately, the utility decided to simply replace Trojan's 1,130-megawatt capacity by buying electricity on the open market. Despite the industry's recent revival, Duncan said, "You don't see any serious proposals to build a nuclear power plant." Besides unresolved questions about what to do with the spent fuel, with a radioactive half-life measured in millennia, Duncan contends that basic economics is the main reason there hasn't been a new order for a nuclear power plant in the United States since the 1970s. From an environmental and economic point of view, Duncan said, "there are a lot of resources available before nuclear." Among them is the electricity that never has to be generated at all. In a plan intended to prioritize public and private utilities' investments in new energy resources, the four-state power council set a 2,500-megawatt target for conservation over the next 20 years. It's no surprise that the council deems conservation among the most cost-effective measures, in light of the history that prompted Congress to form the council under the Northwest Power Act of 1980. Spurred by projections of rapidly expanding energy demand, the Washington Public Power Supply System embarked on a plan to build five nuclear plants in the 1970s. The venture collapsed in 1983 with the biggest municipal bond default in American history at the time. The consortium had sold the bonds to fund construction of five nuclear power plants during the height of the U.S. energy crisis in the 1970s. Only one plant was actually finished, at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, but relics of WPPSS' ambitious past remain in the form of a pair of massive cooling towers atop a hill at Satsop near Aberdeen. The Bonneville Power Administration, whose dire projections of energy shortfalls spurred the ill-fated venture, took on $2.5 billion debt. Demand 'didn't materialize' Projections failed to account for the fact that Northwest ratepayers, long accustomed to dirt-cheap hydroelectricity, could conserve relatively painlessly when rates increased. "The demand just didn't materialize," said John Fazio, a veteran analyst for the power planning council. BPA's Northwest ratepayers are still paying the cost. Fazio said that's why the four-state council's 20-year power plan is designed to be both robust, to prevent blackouts, and flexible, to respond quickly to spikes and drops in demand. The council's power plan does not anticipate the need for nuclear energy in the next 20 years mainly because of the high cost and long lead times necessary to build those plants. The plan instead anticipates the development of conservation, wind and a relatively new process of coal gasification, among others. On the eve of Trojan's symbolic demise, Duncan said he isn't sure we'll ever see the day when a new cooling tower rises above the Northwest landscape again. "I would not say, 'Never,' " he said. "But I would say the odds are pretty long." Erik Robinson covers the environment and energy. Reach him at 360-759-8014, or erik.robinson@columbian.com. ©2006 Columbian.com. All Rights Reserved - Use of this site ***************************************************************** 38 UPI: Australian energy may go nuclear United Press International - NewsTrack - 5/21/2006 2:45:00 PM -0400 OTTAWA, May 21 (UPI) -- Australian Prime Minster John Howard said in Canada rising oil prices had changed the economics of energy, causing an "inevitable" shift toward nuclear power. Speaking from Ottawa, Howard said that Australia and Canada -- which own 60 percent of the world's known uranium reserves -- should form a united front on mining and sales, The Australian reported. In addition to economic considerations, Howard emphasized that nuclear energy is both "cleaner and greener," urging opponents of nuclear power to support it. Wherever he travels, the political discussions focus on the price of oil, Howard said. The Australian energy plan devised only 18 months ago will have to be reviewed because of the unforeseen spike in oil prices. Australia and Canada want a stronger voice in how uranium resources will be used globally. Howard plans to discuss the two nations' mutual interest in joining the Asia Pacific climate pact as they seek to develop closer economic ties. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 39 NEWS.com.au: Downer keeps nuclear 'open mind' - From: AAP May 21, 2006 AUSTRALIANS should keep an open mind about nuclear power generation, said Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. In the wake of rising petrol prices and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Prime Minister John Howard last week called for as full-blooded debate on nuclear power. Mr Downer today told the ABC's Insiders program that "people need to have open minds and think about the issue, particularly in the context of climate change." He strongly supported the need for substantial discussion about nuclear power generation. "There's the question about whether Australia ... would eventually, sometime in the far distant future, build nuclear power stations," Mr Downer said. Asked when nuclear power plants could be operating in Australia, Mr Downer replied: "In the end that decision is going to be made as a result of the politics and how the debate goes over the years ahead and partly ... on the basis of the economics of nuclear power stations." He said building a nuclear power plant was very expensive – it could be as much as a billion dollars. ***************************************************************** 40 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate premature - Shorten From: AAP May 21, 2006 THE Labor Party had no interest in discussing nuclear power generation in Australia, said union boss Bill Shorten. Prime Minister John Howard has said the rise in petrol prices and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions meant nuclear power could be used in Australia in the future. Mr Howard said after talks with his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper that it was time for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear power and uranium mining. "We're not interested in running a debate about nuclear power in Australia," Mr Shorten said to the Nine Network today. "I think my view on nuclear power is the debate is premature." Mr Shorten said there were a number of other issues to be discussed that were of much greater importance. "I think in terms of the Labor party's priorities, it's not a key issue for us to be debating internally." He said once Mr Howard had gauged public support of the issue, nuclear power would be quickly off the agenda. "In terms of Australia, if the Prime Minister does some opinion polling, he'll drop this issue," Mr Shorten said. Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said yesterday that nuclear power in Australia was inevitable only if the Coalition was re-elected next year. "John Howard's nuclear fantasy is Australia's nightmare," Mr Albanese said. "Intractable problems with nuclear energy when it comes to economic costs, safety, disposal of waste and contribution to nuclear proliferation remain up to some 50 years." Mr Shorten also refused to commit to a position about uranium mining in Australia. "By the time of the next national conference, the Labor party will have coalesced around a position," Mr Shorten said. Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 41 The Australian: PM flags nuclear future This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP By Peter Veness May 20, 2006 AUSTRALIA and Canada will co-operate to protect their uranium interests, Prime Minister John Howard said after discussions with new Canadian leader Stephen Harper in Ottawa today. He said both countries were deeply interested in the US suggestion of a global nuclear energy partnership (GNEP). The GNEP plan would allow the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, rendering the plutonium in it usable for nuclear fuel but not for nuclear weapons. Between them, Canada and Australia hold more than half the world's uranium reserves. "I think the two countries can work together in partnership to make sure that we not only follow the development of that (GNEP) initiative, but also ensure that the initiative does not work in a way that in any way affects our own interests or the legitimate exploitation of our uranium reserves," Mr Howard said. The conservative Canadian Prime Minister backed his Australian counterpart, saying Canada had considerable interest in the US plan. "We've agreed that we're going to collaborate very closely together to make sure Australian and Canadian interests are closely protected," Mr Harper said. Along with the sale of uranium to other nations, Mr Howard said it was also time for a proper debate on the use of nuclear energy in Australia. "I want a full-blooded debate in Australia about this issue and I want all of the options on the table," Mr Howard said. He said the pressure to use nuclear energy was being driven by environmental considerations and soaring petrol prices. The leaders also discussed the situation in Afghanistan where both countries have troops and climate change. Mr Howard said Australia would welcome Canada joining the six-member Asian-Pacific partnership on climate change. The warm, reinvigorated relationship between the two countries was on display at the press conference, with Mr Howard joking with journalists and Mr Harper offering to act as an interpreter for French journalists. Mr Harper praised the decade-long leadership of Mr Howard, saying the 64-year-old was only finding his form. "My observation is he's only just now hitting his stride so I would encourage him to keep going," the Canadian said. Mr Howard was even more effusive, praising Mr Harper for pulling his recent election victory. The Tories have rarely held office in Canada over the past 70 years. "I congratulate him, in person, in the presence of the Canadian media on his election victory," Mr Howard said. "It was obviously something that I followed very closely and I admire very much the start he's made." Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 42 The Australian: PM's nuke fantasy a nightmare - ALP This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP May 20, 2006 LABOR said it would contest the use of nuclear power in Australia, describing Prime Minister John Howard's nuclear fantasy as "Australia's nightmare". Mr Howard has said the rise in petrol prices and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions meant nuclear power could be used in Australia in the future. He said after talks with his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper that it was time for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear power and uranium mining. But opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said nuclear power in Australia was inevitable only if the Coalition was re-elected next year. "John Howard's nuclear fantasy is Australia's nightmare," Mr Albanese said. "Intractable problems with nuclear energy when it comes to economic costs, safety, disposal of waste and contribution to nuclear proliferation remain up to some 50 years." Mr Albanese said that if Mr Howard was serious about nuclear power he should be forthcoming in saying where a nuclear power plant would be built and where the waste it produced would be stored. "If he's so confident that nuclear energy is safe ... I'm sure he'll have coalition MPs volunteering to have a nuclear reactor in their electorate and to store their waste in the electorate," he said. Mr Albanese said the nuclear power issue had created divisions within the Coalition while current Labor policy remained opposed to nuclear energy in Australia. And it was unlikely that existing policy would change ahead of the 2007 election. "I don't know anyone of any significance in the Labor Party who is arguing for a domestic nuclear energy system for Australia," he said. "There is a debate in the Labor Party in regards to whether Labor should allow any new mines and that's a debate we'll have at the national conference next year." Mr Albanese said he was confident most rank and file members and union affiliates supported Labor's notion that Australia was as far into the nuclear cycle as the public wanted it to be. [»] Print Friendly Version [»] Email this story Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 43 Guardian Unlimited: Cooling Tower at Defunct Ore. Plant Razed From the Associated Press [UP] Monday May 22, 2006 12:16 AM AP Photo ORDR109 By SARAH SKIDMORE Associated Press Writer RAINIER, Ore. (AP) - Demolition crews on Sunday destroyed the 499-foot cooling tower at a defunct commercial nuclear power plant. With a rumble, the tower leaned to the side and collapsed upon itself - leaving a cloud of dust and multi-ton pile of rubble. It took less than 10 seconds and roughly 2,800 pounds of explosives to complete. Portland General Electric ordered the implosion at Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, about 40 miles north of Portland, as part of its decommissioning. Trojan closed in 1993 for financial and safety reasons, and the facility has been decommissioned in stages since then. It was Oregon's first and only nuclear power plant. The tower is the largest in the nation to be destroyed, according to Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland contractor handling the implosion. ``It looks this morning like things went perfectly,'' said Mark Loizeaux, company president. Over the years, Trojan faced a number of opponents concerned about the safety of nuclear power. Activists brought numerous initiatives to voters and petitions to regulators to shut the plant down. Many activists celebrated the demolition throughout the weekend, including throwing a party with cooling tower-shaped pinatas. PGE estimates the plant will not be fully decommissioned until 2024. Remaining buildings will be destroyed gradually through 2008. The spent radioactive fuel rods, which sit above ground, must be moved to a federal repository that hasn't been developed yet. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 44 The Observer: French energy boss in nuclear warning [UP] Oliver Morgan, industrial editor Sunday May 21, 2006 The Observer French energy giant, EDF, owner of London Electricity, is setting stringent conditions before it agrees to a multi-billion pound investment in new British nuclear reactors. The demands throw into question the viability of a new nuclear programme that could cost Ł15bn and shine the spotlight on the willingness of private sector investors to become involved in such a high-risk enterprise without government support. They come as Whitehall sources indicate serious disquiet in the Treasury over the possibility that costs will escalate and that nuclear generation will remain vulnerable to the volatile electricity prices that led to the collapse of British Energy in 2002, leaving taxpayers exposed. EDF is considered one of the most likely players to become involved in any new programme. Following comments last week by the Prime Minster indicating that he favoured new stations, Vincent de Rivas, chief executive of EDF, said several conditions would have to be met if there was to be a realistic prospect of financial backing. These included: · A streamlined planning system allowing approval for new plants within two years - avoiding the six-year marathon that engulfed the Sizewell B reactor in the 1980s · Nuclear power to be counted as a non-carbon-emitting form of generation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme · Political consensus for nuclear power. The last point means that Conservative leader David Cameron would have to back nuclear power before investment is forthcoming. Rivas said: 'Political consensus is one of the key conditions on which investors must make their decisions.' He added that, without cutting safety considerations, 'two years is the right order of magnitude for planning'. He denies that his demands amount to a subsidy although environmental campaigners say that to recognise nuclear as a carbon-neutral generator would be exactly that. A Whitehall source said: 'We all got very badly burnt on the costs last time around. The Treasury has no appetite for a repeat.' [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 45 The Observer: Richard Wachman: Blair's nuclear option reeks of another Eurotunnel [UP] Comment Richard Wachman Sunday May 21, 2006 Has the government thought through the implications of endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations? It is a rhetorical question because I am sceptical that this explosive subject has been given proper consideration. Let's be clear: Tony Blair isn't proposing an extension of our nuclear energy programme, but merely replacing current reactors that will soon come to the end of their natural life. However, the plan is fraught with risk; and I am not talking about the dangers to the environment, which, of course, any responsible government must take seriously. My point is financial: who is going to pay for nuclear stations that cost at least Ł1.5bn to build, making them four times more expensive than gas-fired plant? I have not heard anyone talk about subsidies, an idea that would go down like a lead balloon at the Treasury, so we have to assume that the cost of building half a dozen or more new reactors would be borne by the private sector. But no country in the world has nuclear power stations that have not in some way been funded by regional or central government. These kinds of projects are hugely expensive and almost always cost more than initial estimates. Electricite de France, which owns London Electricity in this country, says it is willing to get involved in a new nuclear build programme in Britain if the planning and licensing processes are simplified. But all EDF's nuclear stations in France are bankrolled by the state. EDF must think twice before taking on extra risk by investing here without the British government agreeing to act as a guarantor of last resort. Allowing the private sector to get involved and keeping the government out smacks of the ideological folly linked to the building of Eurotunnel without recourse to public funding in the 1980s. The consequences of that decision are still with us as Eurotunnel struggles to avoid insolvency. The bill for the current nuclear clean-up operation has risen to Ł70bn, according to the Nuclear Commissioning Authority, and much of that is paid by the taxpayer. Are ministers suggesting that the clean-up costs of new stations be shouldered by private companies and their shareholders? If the answer is yes, this could be a recipe for disaster - the collapse of nuclear group British Energy came about because its balance sheet could not bear the brunt of low electricity prices, and rising decommissioning and clean-up costs. In the end, the government had to step in to rescue the company, costing the taxpayer around Ł2bn. The case for replacing the current generation of nuclear reactors is sound on one level: by 2020 we will be reliant on foreign gas, with about 90 per cent imported from places such as Russia and the Middle East, raising questions about energy security. Another important factor behind the government's thinking is to cut C02 emissions, which contribute to global warming. Nuclear is a carbon-free source of energy. But the government is being disingenuous if it says nuclear reactors can be built without public subsidy or the imposition of a nuclear levy on consumers to cover the industry's hefty liabilities. Going down the private route would put new nuclear groups at risk of bankruptcy because history tells us that infrastructure projects of this scale are notoriously risky investments - as shareholders in Railtrack, British Energy and Eurotunnel discovered to their cost. Resurgent Rose avoids a Leahy moment I bet Sir Terence Leahy, boss of Tesco, regrets boasting several years ago that British shoppers spent one in every eight pounds at his supermarkets. His remarks made people sit up and start questioning why Tesco had suddenly become so powerful, and as the company went from strength to strength, a backlash became inevitable. But you cannot blame Leahy for blowing his trumpet when you recall the landscape that preceded the emergence of Tesco as a dominant force in British shopping. It was trailing Sainsbury until the late 1990s; and then came another threat when Asda was acquired by Wal-Mart in 1999, a move that analysts predicted would see the American-owned chain sweep the board. But just as one could not have foreseen in the 16th century that Portugal and Spain would become European backwaters, there was no way of predicting that Tesco would emerge as a retailing superpower. There are lessons here for Marks &Spencer, which is undergoing a remarkable renaissance under Stuart Rose, as this week's figures will show. But I suspect that Rose is too shrewd an operator to declare that the battle is won. He may even be reluctant to admit that M has turned the corner for fear of making himself a hostage to fortune. He would be right to choose his words carefully: the high street is a ferociously competitive place. Nevertheless, M under Rose is becoming a class act - the resurgent stock price is telling us as much - but managing success is every bit as important as managing failure, as Tesco and Leahy have demonstrated. Studs gave a stuffy business his best shot So it's goodbye to John Studzinski, the former Morgan Stanley investment banker whose more recent role has been building up HSBC's mergers and acquisitions department. Studs, as he is fondly known, doesn't seem to have done as well as might have been expected. HSBC continues to lose out to the competition in the scramble for mandates to advise corporate clients involved in takeovers. Now he is leaving for Blackstone, the private equity group. But I reckon he gave HSBC his best shot. If he missed opportunities, blame the bank. HSBC has never cut it in mergers and acquisitions. It's too stuffy and bureaucratic in a business where fast, aggressive rivals such as Goldman Sachs, UBS and Morgan Stanley rarely miss opportunities. For HSBC it has been a costly lesson as it let Studs poach scores of corporate financiers from the competition at vast expense. With the markets tanking, there may be even less work around for them than when Studs was on board. HSBC has been profligate, with little to show for it. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 46 Guardian Unlimited: The nuclear power debate - handle with care Sunday May 21, 2006 There is nothing more emotive than nuclear power. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island cast long shadows over the debate, as do the leakages and pollution from Sizewell B. Nuclear energy may seem cheap, modern and offer escape from dependence on fossil fuels (and their negative environmental and geopolitical impacts), but one mistake and the consequences could be fatal. Include the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations at the end of their life and on some assumptions (though not all), nuclear energy moves from being cheap to expensive. Which is why the Prime Minister and the government must handle the approaching debate about Britain's energy options with care and transparency. In his speech during the CBI dinner last week, Tony Blair let it be known that he had seen a first draft of the DTI review; the case for nuclear power was 'back on the agenda with a vengeance,' he said. As he knew would be the case, he was reported as backing renewal of Britain's soon-to-be-decommissioned nuclear power stations. The country desperately needs an informed and wide-ranging debate on this issue and it would have been prudent for the Prime Minister to have waited for publication of the review before rushing to judgment. Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, was right to say that the government would damage its credibility if it pre-empted the conclusions of its own energy review with 'premature and insufficiently considered announcements'. This is an argument about risk and reward, where small changes in core assumptions can transform the outcome of debates. For example, by 2020, the Middle East will supply the world with 80 per cent of its oil. How worrying is that dependence? Then there is climate change. Renewable energy and nuclear power both generate negligible carbon, though renewables provoke less antagonism. But can they realistically plug the gap? Finally, projected costs can be massaged to make one or other option look more attractive. Both advocates and opponents of nuclear power are guilty of making assumptions to support their case. But this argument is too important for sleights of hand. The only resolution will be through transparency. Mr Blair has started on the wrong foot. This argument deserves nothing less than utter honesty. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 47 London Times: Focus: How Blair made nuclear power green - Sunday Times - Times Online The Sunday Times May 21, 2006 Ever the salesman, Tony Blair pushed the nuclear button last week, citing the need to lower CO2 emissions. Jonathan Leake tells how nuclear power got sexy again It was nuclear power's lowest moment. The year was 1988 and an industry that had once promised electricity too cheap to meter was reeling from disaster. An attempted privatisation by the Conservatives had forced British Nuclear Fuels to publish its first set of accounts, detailing spiralling costs and managerial ineptitude that had sent the City running for cover. Meanwhile, the world was recovering from the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl power station in Ukraine, where an explosion had released a cloud of radioactivity across much of Europe. In the Commons, Labour's young energy spokesman attacked government claims that nuclear power offered a solution to global warming. "What is unbelievably depressing about the Conservative government is that they see in the evidence about greenhouse gases not an opportunity to promote environmental concern, but a chance to make the case for nuclear power," he said as Labour MPs cheered. The life of Britain's nuclear industry appeared to be coming to an end. All the more surprising, then, that the same man - one Tony Blair - should have last week effectively announced a new British nuclear building programme. Far from being a spent and polluting force, said the prime minister, nuclear power was likely to play an essential role in Britain's energy supply for many decades to come. He cited the government's own energy review, as yet unpublished, as proof. "Yesterday I received the first cut of the energy review," he told the CBI, the employers' organisation. "The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged, there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions; we will become heavily dependent on gas; and at the same time move from being 80%-90% self-reliant in gas to 80%-90% dependent on imports, mostly from the Middle East and Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance." Blair's words were carefully chosen. Labour's formal proposals on nuclear power await publication of the energy review in July, but most experts interpreted last week's comments as giving the green light to a third generation of reactors. This would mean up to 15 new power stations being built next to existing sites around the UK by 2020, collectively producing up to 35% of Britain's electricity. Only a few years ago no senior politician would have dared to be so positive about nuclear power but the mood has changed. Paradoxically, this is due in large part to campaigning by environmentalists on climate change. So apocalyptic have their forecasts about the effects of fossil fuels been that the nuclear power industry, which produces almost no greenhouse gases, has been able to present itself as green. "When you are told the world is going to end; that you will have to give up the car and foreign holidays to save the planet, yes, one does start to warm to the nuclear option," noted one caller to a radio phone-in last week. How has the nuclear industry managed this dramatic image change? And what has turned a politician once so in tune with the green movement into a nuclear evangelist? Most important of all, is it right to think of nuclear power as being green when it leaves waste that will be deadly for many thousands of years? EVEN environmentalists are in disarray over nuclear power, with some now speaking out in favour of the technology. Sir James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia theory, which sees life on earth as an interdependent and self-sustaining network of organisms, believes the dangers from nuclear power are trivial when compared with the risk of climate change. "Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources," he argued. "We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet." Friends of the Earth disagrees. It reacted first with disbelief, then with anger, to Blair's speech. Tony Juniper, its director, said: "We entered this energy review in good faith and spent time and money on it, only to find Blair has made his mind up before it's even been written. The nuclear industry has been spinning and manipulating this debate but the PM should know better than to fall for a public relations offensive." The green lobby feels betrayed by Blair. It points out that in Trust for Tomorrow, a policy document drawn up in 1994, Labour promised: "We will not build any new nuclear power stations." A year before his election in 1997, Blair made a speech at the Royal Society, pledging energy efficiency measures, an integrated transport system and 20% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. All those pledges have since been abandoned. At the time, however, it was enough to persuade the environmentalists to put aside their campaigns on nuclear power and to concentrate on warning the world about climate change. Their focus on climate change won Establishment support at the highest levels. In a recent address to the Royal Society, Lord May, its then president, said bringing greenhouse gases under control was humanity's greatest challenge. "Make no mistake, climate change is undeniably real, caused by human activities and has serious consequences," he said. What was the solution, however: new forms of generation such as wind and solar power or nuclear energy? The growing concern over climate change and energy security in the late 1990s did not immediately convert Blair to nuclear - or at least not openly. The crunch time seems to have come soon after the turn of the millennium. In 2000 a new face appeared among Blair's advisers. Professor Sir David King, a research chemist from Cambridge University, was appointed the government's chief scientist. He brought an in-depth knowledge of the science of climate change - and a near-evangelical conviction that a revived nuclear industry had to be part of the solution. Soon after his arrival Downing Street began organising seminars and briefing sessions on energy and climate change.One scientist who was called in to brief Blair on nuclear waste recalls how "King led the discussion and drove the debate. The PM did not say much. He was just listening to King". Downing Street insiders report that by autumn 2002 Blair's nuclear conversion was complete.Andy Neather, his speech writer from October 2001 to October 2002, remembers sitting with the prime minister, Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Liz Lloyd, another adviser, on the terrace of the Downing Street garden. # If Britain wanted to maintain nuclear's share of the energy mix, currently about 20%, it would need 10-15 new reactors by 2020. Some experts believe nuclear should provide a third of Britain's power. # Construction recently started on Europe's first new nuclear plant for years, in Finland. # The new reactors would most likely be built next to existing nuclear sites to take advantage of links to the national grid. The industry claims they would be smaller and more powerful than past designs and produce less waste. # Disposing of long-lived waste is the industry's most intractable problem. Since it began in the 1940s, it has built up: 102 tonnes of plutonium, 153,000 tonnes of uranium, 10,000 cubic metres of spent fuel, 2,000 cubic metres of high level waste and 350,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste. This is roughly equivalent to a football pitch covered in double-decker buses stacked five high. # The cost of dealing with this waste is put at ś70 billion. Most of this will be met by the taxpayer. # Plutonium is highly toxic, giving off deadly radiation as it decays into other elements. It takes 24,000 years for a given amount of plutonium to decay by half. This means our descendants will be dealing with 51 tonnes of our plutonium in 24,000 years time. # There is still no agreed long-term waste management solution. The government has set up the committee on radioactive waste management (Corwm) to find a solution. Its report is due in July. # Corwm has said it favours a geological repository - burying waste underground. However, such a repository would take three to four decades to bring into use. The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 48 London Times: Nuclear energy and the future of the planet - Comment - Letters to the Editor The Times May 22, 2006 Sir, Nuclear energy on its own will not solve the problem of global warming ("Why nuclear energy produces hot air", Comment, May 19). However, the problem of global warming will not be solved without nuclear being in the equation. Those who ignore this are condeming future generations to an uncertain future of power shortages. The green lobby does not have a monopoly on caring for the environment - my reason for advocating nuclear power is because I care dearly about the future of this planet. When Joan Ruddock says: "But the lights will have to be kept on by other means" it shows a misunderstanding of energy needs and the ability to meet those demands. The Danes and Irish have led on wind power but know that they can't go above 20 per cent of baseload otherwise the lights go out when the wind stops. No one would want to go into a hospital for an operation asking the surgeon: "Is the wind blowing today?". Renewables need to be developed alongside nuclear power. When the holy grail of fusion is finally developed we can then consider phasing out nuclear fusion reactors, but until we can guarantee our grandchildren the same standard of living that we have then nuclear power cannot be ignored. The world still has two billion people without mains electricity; the electricity needs of China and India are expanding at unbelievable rates. They want their TV sets, dishwashers and air-conditioning units, and why shouldn't they? As a former marine engineer I have always believed that to burn gas to generate electricity should be a criminal offence. To see the most natural energy resource we have wasted in this way in recent years has been unforgivable. To scare people away from nuclear without alternatives that will function in a market economy, that is without subsidies, does not do anyone any favours. Pavvo Lippenen, as Prime Minister of Finland, was bold enough to take this issue on and succeeded. Tony Blair is now showing that same boldness. TERRY WYNN, MEP Chairman of the Forum for Nuclear Energy in the European Parliament Sir, While Mr Blair may be right to say that "the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency, . . . (are) back on the agenda with a vengeance" (Comment, May 18), his failure to make any reference to clean coal technology and carbon sequestration is a source of concern. Coal supplied more than 50 per cent of the UK's electricity demand last winter and must be part of the solution to the country's energy needs. As coal will continue to be a major fuel input globally, it is essential to prove such low carbon technologies and encourage their adoption by the developing economies. Further, if public funds are required to develop replacement nuclear capacity this must not crowd out investment in new coal capacity. R. H. G. YOUNG President, British Association of Colliery Management Sir, Given that nuclear power plants use vast amounts of water, it would be interesting to know how the water crisis was solved so quickly. DAVID ADAMS Priors Marston, Warks Sir, I hope that we can expect the same standards of design and landscaping that were applied to the first nuclear power stations. Trawsfynnydd nuclear power station, in North Wales, is a fitting illustration of how two outstanding designers, the architect Sir Basil Spence and the landscape architect Dame Sylvia Crowe, worked together to introduce an entirely new dimension into the landscape. Of the next generation, we will be watching with interest. LIZ WHITTLE Usk, Wales Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 49 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard's uranium debate set to spark a Labor nuclear explosion - www.smh.com.au By Kerry-Anne Walsh, Catharine Munro and Phillip Coorey May 21, 2006 THE Federal Government is poised to announce a study into the feasibility of a home-grown nuclear industry as Labor braces for a brawl over its contested nuclear policy. Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson yesterday declared anyone who didn't acknowledge there was a debate about nuclear energy was " just plain stupid". At the same time, environment spokesman Anthony Albanese declared Prime Minister John Howard's nuclear policy "Australia's nightmare". Mr Howard, on a two-week visit to the US and Canada, has ramped up his rhetoric on the need for debate on the viability of a nuclear industry in Australia. Speaking yesterday from Canada, he said the scene on nuclear energy would change significantly in Australia. "I want a full-blooded debate in Australia about this issue and I want all of the options on the table," he said. It is understood those options are contained in a proposal from Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Science Minister Julie Bishop. The idea for an inquiry into the feasibility of a local nuclear industry was first mooted more than a year ago by Mr Macfarlane and then science minister Brendan Nelson. The escalating debate puts pressure on Labor and the unions, with clear splits emerging in the lead-up to Labor's state conference in NSW next month and Labor's national conference in January when the party's anti-uranium and anti-nuclear energy policy will be tested. Mr Albanese said he did not believe there would be a change in ALP policy. "The simple fact is that in Australia there's not a pro-nuclear vote," he said yesterday at a Sydney press conference. "There are, however, many thousands who have demonstrated their anti-nuclear position over the decades and we need as a party to keep the faith with them." Mr Ferguson echoed Labor Leader Kim Beazley's mantra that the economics of having a nuclear industry in Australia did not stack up because Australia was rich in other natural resources. An advocate of overturning Labor's opposition to opening up new mines, Mr Ferguson told The Sun-Herald: "Anybody who says there's not going to be a debate has their head in the sand." In a taste of what is to come within Labor ranks, the powerful Australian Workers Union is pushing for a debate on Labor's energy policies at the NSW conference. It will move a motion calling on the NSW Government to investigate the viability of "the use of nuclear technology in the provision of energy as a supplement to existing sources to meet the growing energy demands of NSW". After meeting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mr Howard lauded nuclear power as an antidote to environmental concerns and high energy prices. Mr Albanese responded saying that if the Prime Minister considered nuclear energy so safe, he should site a nuclear reactor in one of his MPs' seats. "John Howard needs to come clean and say where a future nuclear reactor would be sited under a future conservative government and where the waste would be sited," he said. Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 50 The Age: Nuclear power 15 years away - minister www.theage.com.au font May 21, 2006 FEDERAL Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane believes it will be at least 15 years before Australia has nuclear power. Mr Macfarlane said the Government would decide how to stimulate further debate about nuclear fuels. "Bar the ALP, the debate on uranium is over and the next issue is nuclear and how that fits in with Australia's energy needs," Mr Macfarlane said. He said the next step would be about how Australia goes nuclear. "Following that, you would have to regulate, legislate and then make an economic case that showed it was viable to build a nuclear plant here, bearing in mind that nuclear energy is significantly more expensive than base-load coal in Australia. "You wouldn't expect there to be a nuclear power station in Australia for probably 15 years." JASON KOUTSOUKIS ***************************************************************** 51 Sydney Morning Herald: Liberals debate a nuclear future - www.smh.com.au May 22, 2006 - 6:29AM Australia is less than a decade away from enriching uranium, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says. Nuclear power was still economically unviable, but enrichment of uranium was feasible, he said. "If it was part of the decision to move to nuclear power - Australia decided to go to value-adding uranium - then we would probably be half a decade, maybe even a decade away from doing it," Mr Macfarlane told ABC radio. Mr Macfarlane called for a full debate on the merits of nuclear power, uranium enrichment, and storing nuclear waste. "What we really need is a full, open, scientifically based, factual debate on the whole nuclear energy issue. "Uranium enrichment is part of that, but so too is the safe disposal of nuclear waste." Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has already called for uranium enrichment - which can be a step on the road to building nuclear weapons - to be canvassed, even as Western nations discourage Iran from heading in that direction. Finance Minister Nick Minchin, meanwhile, says Australia is at least a century away from nuclear power. He told the Sunday Herald Sun it was economically unviable and there was no point having a debate about it. "I don't really see much point to a discussion about nuclear power in this country at the moment, because I cannot see it will be economically viable for a very, very long time," he said. "We have some of the most abundant coal and gas reserves in the world and you'd have to tax them out of existence to make nuclear power viable." Mr Macfarlane agrees with the sentiment. "Nick's saying that the economics don't add up and I agree with that," he said. "The price of nuclear energy at the moment is almost double that of base-load coal. "The thing that will change is that coal-fired power stations will need to be more efficient, will need to capture their carbon, and over the time ahead of us the cost of doing that will push their price up towards nuclear." Mr Macfarlane said Australia needed a wide range of options to secure its energy future. "Australia needs a broad suite of energy supplies, so it needs the fossil fuel loads that we already have, it needs renewable energy, and it needs to consider things like nuclear power because with a broad suite then you're able to consider your options." Prime Minister John Howard has called for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear issues after visiting the United States and holding energy talks there as part of a two week, three country tour. Environment Minister Ian Campbell says Australia should not shy away from considering uranium enrichment. Senator Campbell said Australia may not have nuclear power for 100 years, but it should be an option. "The reality is we've got a lot of uranium here, we have high demand for energy and growing," he told ABC radio. "It shouldn't be ruled out. What I'd say is that we need to have every option to have stable and growing energy availability with much, much lower greenhouse gases and that means you're going to have a mixture of renewables, such as wind and solar." Senator Campbell said uranium enrichment, which can be a step on the road to building nuclear weapons, should also be considered. "I think we have to look at all of the options. "If we're going to provide secure energy for the world and have a massive reduction in greenhouse gases, we need all of these options on the table and to shy away from that means you're not serious about the environment or the economy," he said. Senator Campbell said reducing carbon emissions was the real silver bullet for the greenhouse challenge. "If there's any such thing as silver bullet in the greenhouse challenge, it is capturing carbon off the burning of fossil fuels and stopping the carbon going into the atmosphere." Mr Howard likened the nuclear power debate to the GST, saying governments sometimes had to force difficult issues into the open. He has called for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear issues and flagged an announcement on the structure of that discussion when he returns to Australia later this week. But the Australian Greens say the country does not need nuclear power and could supply its energy needs by harnessing the power of the sun. "Australia doesn't need it. We've got much better options," Greens senator Bob Brown told the Nine Network. "We're the sunny country. We've got an infinite resource coming from the sun through the various forms of renewable energy in this country and energy efficiency. "We simply don't need to be going down the nuclear track." Senator Brown said nuclear power proponents were being driven by greed. "The whole debate ... is about greed. "It's about making money out of uranium resources and exporting that uranium into a world market which is quite dangerous in an age of terrorism and handbag-sized nuclear weapons." Labor is also opposing the adoption of nuclear technology. Opposition treasury spokesman Wayne Swan says the focus must be on other energy sources. "I'm not in favour of Australia adopting nuclear power through the building of nuclear power reactors," Mr Swan said. "We are a country with an abundance of energy, we're are optimistic about what can occur with clean coal technologies, we have an abundant supply of gas - I don't see the need for Australia to go down that road." © 2006 AAP Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 52 AU: The Age: Experts to put nuclear power in spotlight - www.theage.com.au Martin Sevior believes the nuclear industry has made a credible case in spelling out that it could produce power just as cheaply as coal. Photo: AFP By Annabel Stafford, Canberra May 22, 2006 THE viability of a domestic nuclear power industry would be scrutinised by experts set up to advise the Federal Government, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, said yesterday. But Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane tried to hose down hopes that nuclear power could be the answer to soaring fuel costs and climate change. He said its massive cost meant that it would not be a viable alternative to coal-fired power for at least 15 years. Australian Workers Union national secretary Bill Shorten, tipped by some to become the next Labor Party leader, accused Prime Minister John Howard of pushing the issue simply to exploit divisions in the Labor Party. Labor was not interested in "running a debate" on nuclear power in Australia, he said. Mr Shorten told Channel Nine's Sunday program that Mr Howard would drop the nuclear power issue as soon as he realised the public was still not comfortable with the idea. But he appeared open to overturning Labor's "three mines policy", which opposes the opening of new uranium mines, describing the capping of mine numbers as akin to being "half-pregnant". He declared himself "very interested" in the views of Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson, who has called for the "three mines policy" to be scrapped. The Northern Territory's Minister for Mines and Energy, Kon Vatskalis, slammed the proposal for a debate on nuclear power. According to ABC Online, he said Australia had nowhere near the infrastructure required to support uranium enrichment. But Mr Macfarlane said the public's view had moved on significantly in recent years. He said he would have to rethink a proposal for a report into nuclear power which he and former education minister Brendan Nelson put to the Prime Minister more than a year ago, and which the Prime Minister is expected to approve. "What we're going to have to look at is how we get some national debate going on nuclear energy," Mr Macfarlane said. But even if the public backed nuclear energy, it would still be at least 2020 before it became a viable alternative because it could not compete with the price of coal, he said. "At the moment we generate from coal from around $30 a megawatt hour. Nuclear energy is probably $60 plus," he said. Finance Minister Nick Minchin and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have also raised the high cost of nuclear energy as a potential obstacle. A spokesman for Ms Bishop said she was optimistic about the potential for a nuclear power industry in Australia. The spokesman said she was working on setting up a panel of experts to put together the evidence for the feasibility of a nuclear power industry. But Labor's spokesman on arts and reconciliation, Peter Garrett, accused Mr Howard of calling for a debate when he had already made up his mind in favour of a domestic nuclear industry. Mr Howard lacked the imagination or environmental knowledge to recognise there were better alternatives, he said. Mr Garrett said some countries were using nuclear power as "a short-term bridge" to alternative energy, but that was something Australia did not need. WHAT THEY HAVE SAID: INDUSTRY MINISTER IAN MACFARLANE "I'm calling for us to have a debate, and to have that debate based on facts and science, not on emotion and rhetoric, which is where the nuclear debate foundered probably back in the '60s and has only just recovered … And there will be people opposed to nuclear energy. There will be people like myself who are very comfortable with nuclear energy. On that basis, it will be a case of ensuring that everyone moves forward on this issue." PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD "The pressure for change is driven in part by environmental considerations, it's driven in part by the soaring price of fuel, it's driven in part by a realisation that confronting the challenge of high energy pricing is one of the big economic challenges of nations such as Canada and Australia. And I want a full-blooded debate in Australia about this issue, and I want all of the options on the table." FOREIGN MINISTER ALEXANDER DOWNER "People need to have open minds and think about the issue, particularly in the context of climate change." EDUCATION MINISTER JULIE BISHOP (through a spokesman) "The minister has an open mind and is optimistic about the potential for a nuclear power industry in Australia. She is working on setting up a panel of experts to put together the evidence so we can have a fully informed debate. She's very keen to see the evidence with regard to the feasibility of a nuclear power industry in this country." Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 53 HindustanTimes.com: India to double power production from N-plants Sunday, May 21, 2006|17:33 IST Press Trust of India Tarapur (Maharashtra), May 21, 2006 The Government has already chalked out plans to double the electricity production from nuclear power plants by 2030 with the possibility of international cooperation, Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar said in Tarapur on Sunday. "We are trying to realise the target of 20,000 MW and scale it up to 40,000 MW by 2030 with the possibility of international cooperation," Kakodkar said while addressing the media in Tarapur after the third unit of Tarapur Atomic Power Plant attained criticality. "To accelerate the additional capacity in addition to the domestic programme, the government has already defined a profile and the planning commission has also planned a 30-year programme," Kakodkar said. With the 16th nuclear plant getting critical, which is expected to go commercial in July, and with the proven record on management, technology expertise and safety, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India is all set for the international cooperation and "we are already negotiating with the counterparts in France, Russia and US," he said. "We are also equally accelerating our indigenous programmes and the sites are cleared by the government for four 700 MW nuclear power plants (two each) at Kakrapar in Gujarat and Rawatbhata in Rajasthan," the chairman said. "We are also going ahead with all pre-project work at sites in Jaitapur and Kudankulam for getting four 1000 MW light water reactors," he said. When asked about the private participation in the nuclear energy programme, Kakodkar said with the existing framework, only Central government can have the equity of 51 per cent. With the changes in amendment of Atomic Energy Act, "we can do better and lots of scope for all actors to take part," he said. "However, there will be a strict control over the nuclear material by Department of Atomic Energy," he said explaining that the acqusition, merger and joint venture do not work the same way in nuclear plants as in the case of private sector. Answering the queries on the changes demanded by the US in the Indo-US nuclear agreement, Kakodkar said, India was clear and will stick to its July 2005 statement. Asked whether TAPP 3 and 4 units will be under civilian classification when the Indo-US deal comes through, Kakodkar said, "these two units will not be under civilian in the separation plan." Regarding the two nuclear research reactors in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Cirus and Apsara, he said, "the details are already in the public domain and we will be making use of the facilities upto 2010." When asked about making use of spent fuel of Tarapur Units 1 and 2 which are under IAEA safeguards, Kakodkar said "when we decide to reprocess those spent fuel which are stored for the last three decades, we will begin to reprocess. So far we have not thought about it." © HT Media Ltd. 2006. ***************************************************************** 54 Border Mail: Going nuclear? But not near me Mon, 22nd May, 2006 Editorial CALLS for renewed debate on whether Australia should look towards using nuclear power to meets its energy needs are certain to raise considerable debate in the community. As a major producer of uranium which we export around the world, Australia has until now generally been against the idea of embracing the nuclear technology. To some, the fact that we are willing to export uranium used in the nuclear fuel cycle means not joining in the industry smacks of hypocrisy. At the same time, many Australians have viewed nuclear power station disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as good reasons for us to steer clear of nuclear power. For there to be informed debate we need to know whether these safety concerns are still founded. We also need to know how the waste from such plants will be disposed of in the future. And we need to know whether the cost of setting up nuclear power stations really is cost-effective. And therein lies the problem. The amount of propaganda that surrounds both sides of this issue makes it difficult, if not impossible for ordinary Australians to take part in any meaningful discussion. But even if the propaganda can be brushed aside it is likely to take some considerable persuasion to convince any of us that a nuclear plant in our region is a step forward. © 2006 The Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 Sunday Herald: Former minister launches anti-nuclear fight - Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor BACKERS of Tony Blairs push for nuclear power in Scotland will run into serious opposition this week when a former Labour minister nails her colours firmly to the anti-nuclear mast. Sarah Boyack MSP, a former transport, environment and planning minister at Holyrood, is to lodge a motion in the Scottish parliament tomorrow arguing strongly against a new nuclear power programme. Her move reflects growing anxiety in Labours senior ranks that the party could be rushed into a decision on nuclear power without proper consideration of the alternatives. Last week, Blair said nuclear power was back on the agenda with a vengeance. Building more reactors would be inconsistent with environmental sustainability, Boyacks draft motion says. They will add to the existing legacy of highly toxic nuclear waste and the huge public cost of decommissioning and storage. The case for building more nuclear stations has not been made, the motion states. Even with an accelerated planning system, new nuclear power stations could not contribute either to plugging the energy gap or to carbon reductions by 2020, the MSP adds. Boyack, usually a Labour loyalist, is currently convener of the Scottish parliaments environment and rural development committee. It would be a mistake to be sidelined into a debate just about nuclear power and electricity, she told the Sunday Herald. Its vital that we look closely at other solutions, such as heat, and exploit the opportunities for innovation in new technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, and capitalise on the global opportunities for clean coal technologies. Her initiative was welcomed by Labours influential green wing, the Socialist Environment and Resources Association (Sera). It is currently in talks with trade unions over how to make a just transition to a sustainable energy policy without nuclear power. Seras spokeswoman Claudia Beamish said: I would encourage MSPs to sign this motion and to recognise the positive opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency in Scotland in pursuing a sustainable policy without the risks of nuclear power stations. Boyacks motion is closely modelled on one lodged in the House of Commons last week by one of the victims of Blairs latest reshuffle, the former environment minister, Elliot Morley MP. So far it has been signed by 13 MPs, including Mark Lazarowicz, who represents Edinburgh North and Leith. Together, the two motions suggest that Blair is not going to get his way on nuclear power without a fight within the Labour Party. In Scotland, insiders say, there is much argument to be had before the manifesto for next years Holyrood elections is finalised. Meanwhile, the Scottish Executive has come under fire for failing to make a submission to Blairs energy review, despite the fact that consultations closed more than a month ago. Its a disgrace that Scotlands interests will be ignored, said Green MSP Chris Ballance. In its defence, the Executive said it was fully engaged with the review process, and Westminster was aware of its position. Its response was still being finalised and would be submitted before the end of the month. 21 May 2006 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 56 Independent: Don't rush to nuclear power, warns Blair's environment adviser By Marie Woolf, Political Editor Published: 21 May 2006 Tony Blair's own environmental adviser has warned him that building more nuclear power stations could "drain resources" from developing renewable energy and other green forms of fuel. In a report to the Government's energy review, the Environment Agency has warned that no more power stations should be built until the Government has devised a strategy for disposing of tons of nuclear waste. It warns that new power stations "would add to the UK's existing nuclear waste inventory" and says it is important that Britain does not rely on nuclear power to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. The submission will prove an embarrassing setback to the Prime Minister, who last week gave the green light for a new generation of nuclear power stations and said the issue was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". But the Environment Agency, a neutral body, has warned against rushing to build a new generation of nuclear power stations until a number of serious issues, including flooding of nuclear sites, are resolved. The report also says a dedicated subsidy for nuclear new build "could drain resources from investment innovation and development of a whole range of promising low-carbon emissions. These include energy efficiency, renewable energy and potentially carbon capture and storage." The submission was made available to Mr Blair before he gave his approval to new nuclear power stations. It said nuclear power needed to be compared, on cost, safety and security grounds, with other ways of reducing carbon emissions. Clive Bates, head of environmental policy at the Environment Agency, said: "We think it is wrong to be either for or against nuclear in principle. They have to show they can deal with waste and safety, and that security and proliferation risks are acceptable." © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 57 Independent: Energy: Going nuclear A new generation of reactors is suddenly likely. But at what cost? And what will happen to the waste? By Cole Moreton Published: 21 May 2006 In a pool of cold water in west Cumbria sit hundreds of metal flasks, silently oozing heat. Each contains enriched uranium removed from the reactors of nuclear power stations after use. It remains highly radioactive. Exposure to the contents of one flask would be followed quickly by death. There are 2,000 cubic metres of high-radiation nuclear waste in Britain, some kept in cooling pools near reactors but most stored at Sellafield. A terrorist attack here would be a disaster to dwarf the meltdown at Chernobyl two decades ago, says the campaign group Greenpeace. Two million people could die. Some people say this deadly waste should be fired into space. Others say bury it deep underground and wait tens of thousands of years for its radioactive strength to decay. But the people who matter, the ones who stop it from leaking and killing people, are waiting for the Government to tell them what to do. Or they were, before the rules changed. The Prime Minister surprised the nuclear industry last week by saying that its form of energy - underfunded for years, feared by many - was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Suddenly it is assumed that a new generation of reactors will be built to replace the existing ones that are being prepared for shutdown. There now seems no need to wait for the energy review due to be published in July. Nuclear enthusiasts are glowing with pleasure. But more power means more waste. Even if none of the expected 10 new power stations is built, this country will still produce enough highly radioactive nuclear waste to fill 14 Olympic swimming pools. "For 50 years the UK has been creating radioactive waste without any clear idea of what to do with it," says Professor Gordon MacKerron, chair of the expert Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which will also report in July. "Whether we like it or not, waste exists and we have to deal with it." Only now the problem is even more pressing. Mr Blair can hardly declare a new nuclear dawn without saying where the waste will go. Investors - along with many of his own MPs and even ministers - wait to be convinced. Two-thirds of the existing fuel is being kept in steel-lined, concrete-encased cooling pools until it can be treated. This means pouring it with molten glass into steel containers to cool and solidify. These canisters are kept in concrete storehouses. They have higher radiation levels than the old reactor parts and nuclear sludge that make up what is called intermediate-level waste. It is still very dangerous, so robotic arms pour on concrete and seal it in vaults. There will be 350,000 cubic metres of this stuff (or 116 swimming pools) even if all but one of the existing power stations are closed down by 2023 as expected and no more built. Then there are the 75,000 cubic metres of uranium which potentially could be used in another reactor. And 4,300 cubic metres of plutonium sitting in storage waiting to be recycled. Or blown up. Or stolen and used to construct devastating bombs. The solution is to bury it all half a mile underground, according to Professor MacKerron's committee. This is already being done in Finland, where they are building a pressurised water reactor that is likely to be a model for the new ones in Britain. Canisters will be transported to tunnels deep underground and buried even deeper in holes filled with clay. But building such a subterranean site would take years, not least because of planning permission. Would you like it where you live? And that is also the problem with the new power stations. Sizewell B, the last to be built, was held up by planning inquiries lasting six years. The companies that will compete for permission to build its successors responded to Mr Blair's words by pleading with the Government to cut the red tape. Nobody will want to invest unless they are sure the project can be finished on time, they said. And the precedents are terrible. "The UK has never built a nuclear power station on schedule or within budget," says Walt Patterson, associate fellow in energy and the environment at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The cost of the first is estimated at Ł2bn and it will take 10 years to put up even if the builders work like the clappers and the Government finds a way to ignore all those pesky protests and legal challenges. To build 10 will take at least two decades. But critics say that blows a hole in Mr Blair's argument for having them. The severe energy shortage that Britain is facing will occur in the next 10 to 15 years. Environmentalists say spending the same billions on the speedier (and cheaper) harnessing of renewable sources such as wind would be better. The problem Mr Blair set out for the Confederation of British Industry last Tuesday is that North Sea gas is dwindling and supplies from elsewhere are pricey and unstable. The nation is also falling way behind on its targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewable and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance," the Prime Minister said. Keith Parker heard the news on his car radio. "I was surprised," says the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, which represents the groups involved in building and maintaining reactors, "but there is nothing we can do about it until we see the fine detail." Ten more will produce only 10 per cent more waste, he says. But how would the man from the NIA feel if all Britain's nuclear doings were buried near his house? "Clapham Common is the nearest green field," he says, smiling uneasily. "I don't think I would have too much concern." Not too much? "You always have some concern about any large industrial facility being built near you. I might have concern about the effect on property prices." That is disingenuous. "I don't think I'd have a concern about safety." Nuclear power stations work by splitting the atoms of enriched uranium. If the atoms split slowly, in a controlled chain reaction, you have a powerful source of energy. If they split quickly you have a bomb. Twenty years ago the reaction inside the Soviet power plant at Chernobyl was allowed to race out of control, creating the worst nuclear disaster in history. It is now estimated to have caused 100,000 deaths. British land is still contaminated and children here have cancer as a result of the fallout. Elena was five years old and lived close to the reactor. She remembers the clouds darkening, the wind blowing and a few drops of rain beginning to fall. "It was only later we found out that the rain was radioactive." So was the water in the river where they played, and the mushrooms they liked to eat from the forest. Both she and her sister spent their teenage years fighting brain cancer that nearly killed them. These days she campaigns against nuclear energy with Greenpeace. "Chernobyl poisoned my youth." Such a tragedy "just couldn't happen here", says Keith Parker of the NIA. "The design at Chernobyl would not have been licensed." Modern systems shut themselves down if there is a problem. Still, it is hard to shake off Elena's story on the drive south, down to the coast. There the sky is on fire, the sunset apocalyptic. The wind is racing in from the sea over a wide expanse of sandy, grassy shingle, clacking ropes against the masts of a few beached boats. The scattered huts and low clapboard homes that seem to perch on the shore waiting to be swept away could be on a remote spit in New England, but Dungeness is in Kent, beyond the marshes. France is out there somewhere, through the sea mist. Turn to face the west and the scene changes in a breathtaking way. Behind the silhouette of the old lighthouse looms a sight as alien and shocking as a spacecraft: a huge grey-green shadow of a building bigger than several tower blocks. Pipes crawl over its surface; clouds of steam leak through the walls. As the darkness deepens this windowless building begins to glow with pulses of golden light. Now you notice the noise: a perpetual high-pitched metallic whine, and also the sound of air under pressure like the jets of an airliner preparing to taxi. "Sometimes," says Joe Thomas, a fisherman who grew up here, "it sounds like a kettle boiling." Dungeness B, the second plant on the site, has been supplying the National Grid with electricity since 1983. British Energy announced last year that its life would be extended to 2018. This was greeted as good news by locals, not least because the plant provides 550 full-time jobs. People living within a mile of it have have been issued with potassium iodate pills to take in the case of a nuclear emergency, but Louisa Whenday of the Dungeness Residents' Association says: "Most people aren't worried [about safety] because you wouldn't move here if you were." She told the BBC: "I find it no threat at all. The greatest fear for us is terrorism but even that would take something really big, much bigger than an aeroplane or a bomb. To be honest, everyone is so used to seeing it that they'd miss it. I think it's really quite gorgeous, especially at night when it's lit up. It looks like a ship at sea." Signs warn that "the wildlife of the shingle is extremely rare and easily damaged". There are 600 plants growing among the pebbles, including sea kale and lichens on dwarf blackthorn "only found at Dungeness". Roger Higman of Friends of the Earth says: "The English Channel is washing away the peninsula the power station sits on. It was a stupid site for a power station in the first place." The eerie, isolated atmosphere is part of what made it attractive to the late film director Derek Jarman. Visitors can walk from his tiny cottage right up to the concrete perimeter fence of the power station, where the only warning is "please take your rubbish home with you". The visitor centre was shut after the 9/11 attacks. From the beach it is too easy to imagine a jet coming low over the Channel. Then Dungeness would not be a refuge from the horrors of city life; it would be hell on earth. Friends of the Earth say a direct hit from a jumbo would cause a disaster 40 times worse than Chernobyl. Nuclear power stations were designed to withstand such an accident even before 11 September, protested Keith Parker back at the NIA in London. "The studies that have been done show that the jet would vaporise. In terms of physical damage to the reactor there would be very little. And there would not be the release of radiation." Whatever Mr Blair says, it will take time to overcome the legacy of safety scares and sci-fi thrillers, overspends and environmental fears. "It's not going to happen unless we have public support," says Mr Parker. "But if you put the proposition 'Would you support nuclear as part of a mix, with renewables?' then 60 per cent of people say yes." The residents of Dungeness would, it seems. But to stand in the half-light looking up at the vast power plant is to remember that for many people the nuclear debate is settled in the pit of the stomach. So which do you instinctively fear more: global warming or radiation poisoning? Either way, from here on the shingle the future looks, and feels, quite frightening. How a nuclear power station works 1. The reactor core produces heat. It contains hundreds of fuel rods, metal tubes filled with ceramic pellets. Inside each of these is uranium enriched for high concentrations of the atom U-235. The atoms split, throwing off neutrons at 10,000 miles per second, creating a chain reaction. 2. Control rods slow down the reaction. They are made of cadmium or boron and are lowered into the reactor core to absorb some of the neutrons being released, reducing the heat to the required levels. This process is also moderated by water. 3. The water is pressurised. It is pumped in a closed loop around the system at a very high pressure so that it will not boil even at 300C. It cools the core and helps to slow the nuclear reaction. 4. The flowing water carries heat from the core to the steam generator. If the Government approves 10 new power stations, as expected, they are likely to be pressurised water reactors like this. The only one in the UK at present is Sizewell B. 5. The steam generator works like a kettle. The water heated by the core is pumped through it in a pipe. This heats up water being pumped at a lower pressure around a second circuit, which turns to steam. 6. Thick concrete encases the system. This is to prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. If something goes wrong modern power stations are designed to shut themselves down. 7. Turbines are driven by the steam. This is then cooled by yet more pipes and condenses before going back round the system. The industry says its low carbon emissions make nuclear a green option. Environmentalists say wind farms produce less CO2 and no radioactive waste. 8. The transformer turns energy from the turbine into electricity. This can be sent on to the National Grid. Nuclear power stations generate about 20 per cent of the UK's electricity. If no new reactors are built then the output will fall dramatically, as all but one of the sites in operation close by 2023. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 58 ABC: Greenpeace: nuclear energy no good for Australia The environmental organisation, Greenpeace, says Australia's Prime Minister should have used his trip to Canada to learn why nuclear power isn't a viable alternative energy. Prime Minister John Howard has said he wants a full debate about the use of nuclear energy in Australia. But Steve Shallhorn from Greenpeace says, in Canada, nuclear power has driven up the price of electricity and created dangerous amounts of waste. Mr Shallhorn says: 'Nuclear power can only solve a very tiny portion of greenhouse gas problems because electricity is only one source of the problem.' 'Nuclear power is not going to solve emissions from aircraft, from the industrial sector or from industrial processes,' he says. ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia ***************************************************************** 59 Sheboygan Press: NRC eyeing Kewaunee nuke plant Plant facts + The Kewaunee Power Station is located in the town of Carlton, nine miles south of Kewaunee. + Commercial operation of the plant began June 16, 1974. + Power generation: 568 megawatts via a one-unit pressured water reactor. On the Web + Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov + Dominion's Kewaunee Power Station hom page: www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/kewaunee/index.jsp Posted May 20, 2006 Commission has questions about changes in plant's startup sequence this week From staff and wire reports KEWAUNEE — Federal regulators will look into whether operators of the Kewaunee Power Station followed procedure when they started up the nuclear reactor this week. The nuclear plant, owned and operated by Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond, Va., was shut down April 26 for equipment repairs. At that time, a problem during the shutdown process caused the plant to be put on alert status for several hours. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday the agency and Dominion have questions about actions taken by a plant operator when starting up the reactor Wednesday. The operator had a problem with the sequence of steps, changed the procedure and continued with the startup, the commission said. The changes made were not unsafe, the commission said. The commission said it also had concerns about Dominion's procedures, which had recently been revised. Dominion spokesman Jim Norvelle said the company is reviewing the incident. "We just want to make sure that we've reviewed everything we need to review before startup," Norvelle said. The NRC special inspection team's report should be available about 30 to 45 days after the inspection is completed. The reactor remains out of service, he said. The 31-year-old plant is located on the shore of Lake Michigan about nine miles south of Kewaunee, or about 15 miles north of Two Rivers. Dominion bought the plant last summer. The plant was placed on alert status for several hours April 26 due to a problem as it was being shut down for repairs. Emergency response teams in Manitowoc and Kewaunee counties, along with state and federal officials, mobilized due to the alert, but there was no release of radioactivity or threat to public safety. The day after the alert, the NRC said it would investigate the incident. Contact us at 920-457-7711. sheboygan-press.com is a Gannett Companywebsite. ***************************************************************** 60 Times Herald-Record: Indian Point 2 open after refueling ends May 21, 2006 Buchanan The Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant returned to service Friday night, ending a scheduled monthlong outage for refueling. Plant owner Entergy said the next scheduled refueling is in two years. Workers replaced 92 of the 193 fuel assemblies in the reactor and did other tasks that can be done only when the plant is shut down, including replacing both of the plant's power transformers, inspecting the reactor vessel and inspecting and cleaning the four steam generators. One employee was exposed to a higher level of radiation than expected while replacing a steel sleeve at the bottom of the reactor on May 4. Entergy said there were no lasting health or safety consequences for the worker, but it is reviewing practices to make sure the problem doesn't recur. Entergy Nuclear Northeast President Mike Kansler said in a statement that this plant and Indian Point 3, which has been in continuous operation for 227 days, are now ready to provide New York City and Westchester County with power during the high-demand summer months. Michael Randall Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. © Orange County Publications. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 Deccan Herald: City firm builds nuke technology - Sunday, May 21, 2006 Bangalore, DHNS: Bangalore-based Avasarala Technologies Ltd, announced on Saturday, that it will hand over the first Fuelling Machine Head (FMH) to Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) on May 23, 2006. FMH is a special purpose machine used for handling the fuel and related sub-assemblies in the nuclear reactor. This FMH will be installed at Rajasthan Atomic Power project, said the company in a press release. Avasarala took two-and-half years to indigenise FMH, an extremly critical component in nuclear power plants, and thus became the first company in the country to manufacture this equipment. The Rs 141 crore company has executed several projects for NPC at various atomic power stations in the country. Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G. Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523 ***************************************************************** 62 Brattleboro Reformer: Douglas inks bill on VY license By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff Saturday, May 20 BRATTLEBORO -- The state Legislature will soon make a decision about whether to allow Vermont Yankee to extend its operating license past 2012. On Thursday, Gov. James Douglas signed into law a bill that calls for the state's general assembly to take a vote on the issue. Legislators have until July 2008 to make a decision. "This is an important issue for Vermont," Douglas said Friday. "I don't think it's at all unrealistic that elected officials should weigh in." The law sets forth a public decision-making process for legislators and regulators, intended to determine whether nuclear power should be a part of Vermont's energy mix in the future. That process will involve at least three public meetings across the state. It will focus on both environmental and economic issues, including the storage of nuclear waste. It will also include a discussion of what the state might do without the power Vermont Yankee generates. Rob Williams, spokesman for the plant, said officials were pleased with the law. He said it gave Vermont Yankee a process to follow that is not overly complicated. "We commend the Legislature, especially the House Natural Resources (and Energy) Committee, for putting a lot of effort into drafting a bill that should serve the state well," he said. "They recognized the importance of fully addressing the question of Vermont's future energy supplies." Gov. Douglas said the law "is not too onerous to the applicant or the state, but preserves the legislative prerogative to determine relicensure." Williams said it makes sense for the questions of waste storage and relicensing to be addressed in one vote. Previous versions of the bill had those topics split between two votes. Windham County Reps. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, and Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, sat on the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which drafted a final version of the bill. It was changed slightly by both chambers of the Legislature before it hit the governor's desk, to preserve a separation of powers between legislators and regulators. Under the new law, Darrow said, the Department of Public Service has the power to arrange the studies that will aid in the legislative decision. He said he would have liked to see the Legislature get the power to veto decisions about the studies, but the Legislature ultimately decided that a law to that effect might not survive a legal challenge. Sen. Roderick Gander, D-Windham, said the passage of the law is a victory for Windham County, in that it has the state thinking about Vermont Yankee, an important local issue. "Until the last year or two, no one was paying much attention, except in the Southeastern part of the state," he said. "The grassroots movement got people up there (in Montpelier) thinking about the issue." Gander and Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, along with Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, co-sponsored the bill that eventually became law. Andy Rosen can be reached at arosen@reformer.comor (802) 254-2311, ext. 275. New England Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 63 Boston Globe: Douglas signs bill giving lawmakers say in nuke's future - Boston.com Associated Press May 20, 2006 BRATTLEBORO, Vt. --The state Legislature will get to decide whether to allow Vermont Yankee to extend its operating license past 2012. "This is an important issue for Vermont," Gov. James Douglas said Friday, a day after signing a bill to give lawmakers until July of 2008 to decide the future of the state's lone reactor. "I don't think it's at all unrealistic that elected officials should weigh in." The new law sets out a study process, including three public hearings, and says storage of nuclear waste, what the state might do to replace Vermont Yankee power if the plant shuts down and other environmental and economic issues should be examined. Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said officials at the plant like the law, in part because it sets out a process that isn't overly complicated. "We commend the Legislature, especially the House Natural Resources (and Energy) Committee, for putting a lot of effort into drafting a bill that should serve the state well," he said. "They recognized the importance of fully addressing the question of Vermont's future energy supplies." Douglas said the law "is not too onerous to the applicant or the state, but preserves the legislative prerogative to determine relicensure." Sen. Roderick Gander, D-Windham, hailed the law's passage, saying it would get the whole state thinking about the nuclear plant, an issue that often is front-and-center only in southeastern Vermont. "Until the last year or two, no one was paying much attention, except in the Southeastern part of the state," he said. "The grass-roots movement got people up there (in Montpelier) thinking about the issue." Gander and Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, along with Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, co-sponsored the bill. ------ Information from: Brattleboro Reformer[ /] © Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. More: ***************************************************************** 64 deepikaglobal.com: 'Amendment to Atomic Energy Act mooted for private cooperation' Tarapur, Thane, May 21 (UNI) Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman Dr Anil Kakodkar today said the Government is considering a proposal to amend the Atomic Energy Act to enable opening up of civilian nuclear power programme for domestic private sector. Addressing a press conference after witnessing the first criticality of Tarapur Atomic Power Project (TAPP-3), Dr Kakodkar said nuclear power was being looked upon as an important energy source. Electricity requirements are quite large in present times and there was plenty of scope to augment the nuclear power capacity with co-operation. As per the existing provisions of Atomic Energy Act, only a government company, in which 51 per cent equity is held by the Central Government, can enter nuclear power business. The government is considering amendment to the Act to enable opening of more opportunities, Dr Kakodkar said. Nuclear technology has specific aspects like strict control on nuclear material and rigid physical protection. Once started, production can be stopped but the reactor cannot be locked. Once the nuclear plant has been set up, there is a specific responsibility right upto decommissioning. Nuclear power business does not work on just acquisition and merger, Dr Kakodkar said. He said the NPCIL is working on a plan to increase its installed nuclear power capacity upto 20,000 MWe by 2020. We are on the course of realising the target. The target to be achieved may go upto 40,000 MWe by 2030 with the civilian nuclear co-operation deal with the US, he added. Dr Kakodkar said TAPP 3 and 4 are not in civilian domain under the civilian nuclear co-operation deal while TAPP 1 and 2 are open to international safeguards. He also added that TAPP has the capacity to go beyond unit 4 but no decision has been taken in this regard. He said the experience gained in design, construction and commissioning of the 540 MWe units is being effectively utilised to upgrade the unit size to 700 MWe. Four Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR), each of 700 MWe, are proposed to be set up. Of these, two will be at Khakrapar in Gujarat and two others at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan. He said the Centre has given its approval to 1000 MWe plant at Jaitapur in Ratnagiri district. He said the site development activities have begun and talks have started with French, Russian and American agencies to decide on the type of reactors. Dr Kakodkar said acceleration of domestic programme in nuclear power sector will go on irrespective of nuclear co-operation deals with the other countries. He said India had mastered the PHWR technology and could compete with the best in the international market. He said the next stage will be fast breeder reactors which will be launched after a few years. Site Designed &Maintained by © Copyright DeepikaGlobal.com 1997-2005. All rights reserved Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is ***************************************************************** 65 Hudson Valley News: Entergy returns IP2 to service following refueling outage Saturday, May 20, 2006 Copyright © 2006 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide News Network, Inc. Entergy returned the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant to service Friday night following the plants seventh refueling outage, which began on April 19. The plant is expected to reach full power over the weekend. Workers replaced 92 of the 193 fuel assemblies used in the reactor. They also performed scheduled equipment maintenance and inspection that can only be done while the plant is shut down. Work included replacing the plants two main power transformers, using robots to inspect the reactor vessel, and inspecting and cleaning the four steam generators. Both Indian Point 2 and 3 are now prepared to provide New York City and Westchester the electricity it needs during the critical summer months when demand stretches the limits of New York States capacity to provide it, said Entergy Nuclear Northeast President Michael Kansler. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 66 kgw.com: Demolition of Trojan power plant nears | News for Oregon and SW Washington | Local News 06:05 PM PDT on Saturday, May 20, 2006 By KRISTINA BRENNEMAN, kgw.com Staff The clock is ticking for the demolition of a Northwest man-made landmark. The Trojan nuclear power plant is hours away now from being imploded. Oregon History Project photo Trojan Nuclear Plant The crews who prepared the 500-foot tower for demolition on Sunday morning, say they have never taken down a nuclear cooling tower before. Thirty years after the Trojan nuclear power plant went into service, it will come down in less than 10 seconds  if all goes according to plan. Mark Loizeaux, who lead the team at  Controlled Demolition in planting the 2,700 pounds of dynamite, said they will be watching the implosion Sunday along with everyone else. Construction of the tower is very robust, he said. Its a very strong tower so we literally have twice the level of reinforcing in this. Portland General Electric, which owns the tower, said if they didnt demolish it now it would fall into disrepair. And the longer it waits the more expensive it will be. When it's in disrepair we dont know what were looking at, said PGE spokesman Scott Sims. It would be more effort, more money. It makes more sense to take it down now. Now, many peregrine falcons and other birds roost on the tower. Thats why two minutes before the explosives go off, the crew will put out a scare charge to warn the birds to fly away. Police also will close down a stretch of Interstate 5 and Highway 30 for 15 minutes during the implosion. The biggest worry is rubber necking, they say. Others have reserved hotel rooms to watch the implosion from nearby. I grew up here so we went to field trips there, said Elizabeth Alt. So its something to watch. To not see it when you drive to Seattle will be a little odd. KGW will cover the implosion starting at 6 a.m. (KGW reporter Jane Smith contributed to this report.) This text © 2006, KGW-TV ***************************************************************** 67 Telegraph: Poll reveals safety fears over new nuclear reactors By Melissa Kite (Filed: 21/05/2006) Tony Blair's plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations have sharply divided public opinion, with almost half of Britons doubtful and anxious about their safety, writes Melissa Kite. The Prime Minister's strong suggestion last week that Britain needs to build more nuclear reactors in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and avoid relying on gas and oil took Westminster by surprise, not least because it pre-empted the outcome of his own energy review due to report later this year. [Graphs] Asked whether they supported or opposed the building of new nuclear power stations, 40 per cent of people in an ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph said that they supported the policy, with 47 per cent opposing. Twelve per cent said they did not know. Support was far greater among men, with 56 per cent supporting new reactors compared with 26 per cent of women. Asked how fearful they were over the safety issue, 49 per cent of people said they were fearful while 47 per cent said they were not. Women were most afraid, with 60 per cent saying they were fearful of nuclear power stations. The poll found a substantial degree of environmental awareness, with four in five people (79 per cent) saying they had taken practical steps to reduce energy consumption, such as insulating or replacing light bulbs, within the past 12 months. Only 21 per cent said they had not done anything. The poll suggests that the Prime Minister will have a battle on his hands to convince those who remain sceptical of the need to build new reactors. He told the CBI last week that the nuclear issue was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Mr Blair revealed he had seen a "first cut" of the Government-commissioned energy review, due by the end of July, and said that Britain faced the prospect of being largely reliant on foreign gas imports for its future energy needs. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,004 adults aged 18 and over by telephone on May 17-18 2006. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms & ***************************************************************** 68 Telegraph: 'A good safety record, though it's not perfect' [telegraph.co.uk] (Filed: 21/05/2006) Critics of nuclear power last week seized on reports that ministers had been alerted to 57 safety-related incidents at nuclear installations since 1997. The incidents included a large leak of highly radioactive liquid at the Thorp reprocessing plant in Cumbria in April last year and a release of radioactivity at the Bradwell plant in Essex in 2004. Norman Baker, a Lib-Dem MP, described the litany of incidents as "extremely worrying". The reality, however, is somewhat less alarming. None of the incidents came remotely close to breaching international safety standards for radiation dosage to either workers or the public. The official Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report on the Thorp incident - by far the most serious of the 57 - pointed out that none of the liquid had escaped from the containment cell designed precisely for such incidents, adding that: "No workers or members of the public have been affected." According to the HSE, the number of incidents reflects the extraordinarily strict safety standards applied to the nuclear industry. One such incident, in January 2002, involved water leaks from a fire-spraying system at a nuclear power station - which was completely shut down by its managers as a precaution. "The industry actually has a pretty good safety record - although it's not perfect," said a spokesman for the HSE. "The number of incidents has dropped quite drastically in recent years, and we are now at the level of a few each year. They were in double figures during the 1990s." The most recent quarterly report, about to be issued next week, shows that there were no incidents at all at any of the 30 licensed sites across the country. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms & ***************************************************************** 69 Daily News: Trojan trivia By Amy M. E. Fischer May 19, 2006 - 11:28:45 pm PDT You got up early to stake out a prime viewing spot, and now you've got time to kill before the 7 a.m. implosion. Chew on these tidbits and impress your friends with your knowledge of everything Trojan. Cost of Sunday's cooling tower demolition: $3.9 million Number of sticks of dynamite used: 3,300 Weight of tower: 41,000 tons Height of tower: 499 feet Bird species that must be discouraged from roosting on cooling tower: Endangered peregrine falcon Noise level of implosion: Less than 150 decibels at the tower base, which is about as loud as a summer thunderstorm. Number of nuclear cooling towers that have been imploded in the United States: 0 Cost of decommissioning entire Trojan site: $429 million Years of Trojan's operation: 1975 to 1992 Why the plant shut down 20 years early: The plant was plagued by a series of problems, including an accidental release of radioactive gases, cracked steam generator tubes and a faulty safety system that drew federal fines. Where the spent radioactive fuel rods are: Sealed in steel-lined concrete casks about 900 feet north of the cooling tower. When a federal nuclear waste depository opens, tentatively in 2024, Trojan's spent fuel rods will be shipped there. Where the 950-ton nuclear reactor is: Buried in a 45-foot-deep trench at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Eastern Washington. Risk of tower debris falling on the concrete casks and breaking them open: Extremely low. The casks are designed to withstand a direct hit from a bomb. What will happen to the debris: The concrete and steel tower will fall onto its own footprint. Most of the dust will dissipate quickly within a half-mile of the tower. The steel will be recycled and the concrete debris will be left on site. Will the debris or dust be radioactive? No. Number of people who showed up to watch a 2 a.m. building implosion in Las Vegas last week: 10,000. © 2006 The Daily News Lee Publications, Inc. Contact Us 770-11th Avenue • P.O. Box 189 • Longview, WA 98632 • 360-577-2500 • webmaster@tdn.com ***************************************************************** 70 Daily News: Day of destruction for Trojan cooling tower nears By Amy M. E. Fischer May 20, 2006 - 12:06:42 pm PDT The chance to watch a nuclear power plant cooling tower packed full of dynamite collapse like a giant pop can happens perhaps once in a lifetime, if you're lucky. Sunday morning, thousands of local residents and tourists who want to witness the historic Trojan implosion in person will be competing for a good view. Trojan Nuclear Plant owner, Portland General Electric, chose not to designate a public viewing area. However, local officials realize not everyone will be content to watch the 7 a.m. demolition at home on TV, even with the forecast of cloudy skies and a chance of rain. Capt. Mark Nelson of the Cowlitz County Sheriff's Department said law enforcement agents plan to take an advisory role with the public. "I mean, gosh, we totally understand that people want to see this event," he said Friday. "The only thing we ask is people park properly and they are courteous to one another." Planning to check it out? Here's the deal: • No one is allowed within a half-mile radius around the cooling tower. The land is owned by PGE. • Roughly 90 percent of the property in the vicinity is privately owned, and public access to views of the tower are limited. • The Washington State Patrol will require rolling slowdowns on Interstate 5 to clear the area starting at 6:45 a.m. Traffic will come to a complete stop during the implosion and for about 15 minutes afterward. The closures will be at mileposts 28 and 34. Everything Trojan At , find answers to your Trojan questions, read our archived Trojan articles and see what your neighbors are saying about the implosion. (One reason for stopping I-5 traffic, Nelson said, was to ensure that drivers who don't know about Trojan demolition plans won't be alarmed at Sunday's unusual sight. "All of a sudden they look out the side window, and there's a nuclear plant exploding," he said with a laugh.) • Highway 30 will be closed at 5 a.m. at Jack Falls Road, west of Trojan, and Neer City Road, east of the site. Pilot cars will be used to control traffic. No one is allowed to stop along the roadside. • If the dust cloud goes straight up or toward the river, the Oregon Department of Transportation will reopen Highway 30 immediately. If the plume drifts over the highway, ODOT workers will keep the road closed until the concrete dust settles and is swept off the highway. • Air Traffic Control at the Port of Portland will enforce a temporary flight restriction over the area. Regular air traffic in and out of Portland will not be affected. • The Port of Kalama's RV park already is completely booked for the weekend and has no additional parking. Also, all of the port marina's 222 boat slips are booked. • All the port's industrial sites north of the marina are closed to the public. • The U.S. Coast Guard will block traffic on the Columbia River for 30 minutes prior to demolition. Boats will be banned from river mile 70 to 75. That line hits the middle of Cottonwood Island. People are allowed on the island as long as their boats are out of the water or beyond the restricted zone, according to a Coast Guard spokesman. • The Coast Guard will be handing out flyers advertising the river closure and boating regulations. • The best public places to watch the implosion are the day-use areas at the Port of Kalama, including Marine Park and a picnic area south of the port offices. Also, spectators may drive under I-5 at West Frontage Road, park in the large, sandy area, cross the railroad tracks using the pedestrian overpass and head for the riverbank. No overnight parking is allowed. Road closures The following roads, with one exception, will be closed at 5 p.m. today in preparation for Sunday's 7 a.m. Trojan demolition. They will reopen Sunday at 9 a.m. • West Kalama River Road, from Fishermans Loop Drive to the end of County Road. • Fishermans Loop Drive, from West Kalama River Road to the end of County Road - Closure began at 5 p.m. Friday. • Hendrickson Drive, from the intersection with Wilson Drive to the Port of Kalama. • North Hendrickson Drive, from the Port of Kalama to the intersection of West Kalama River Road. • Wilson Drive, from Hendrickson Drive to the end of County Road. Source: Cowlitz County Department of Public Works © 2006 The Daily News Lee Publications, Inc. Contact Us 770-11th Avenue • P.O. Box 189 • Longview, WA 98632 • 360-577-2500 • webmaster@tdn.com ***************************************************************** 71 Scotsman.com: A return to nuclear power could be good for Scotland Opinion - "Edinburgh Evening News" />Sat 20 May 2006 SCEPTICS at Westminster believe that Tony Blair's sudden decision to preempt his own energy review in favour of a new generation of nuclear power stations is more to do with his short-term political problems than the nation's future needs. Many detect the hand of his former spin doctor Alastair Campbell as the Prime Minister attempts to create a smokescreen to mask his more immediate difficulties. A row with his own left wingers, the environmental lobby and the Liberal Democrats is seen as being preferable to further analysis of recent disastrous events. But whatever the reasons few doubt Mr Blair genuinely does believe that nuclear power is the best way to meet the nation's future power needs. Former Linlithgow MP Tam Dalyell summed up the thinking by welcoming the intervention, but questioned why Mr Blair had chosen to wait until the twilight of his premiership and had not acted years ago when he was at the peak of his power and able to override opposition to the controversial idea. Now as a Premier clinging on to power by his fingertips things are less certain, although the longer term arithmetic in Cabinet seems to support the nuclear solution. Only a small number of senior ministers - led by new Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, whose move from environment is now seen as significant - are seriously opposed. The majority of heavyweights, including Chancellor Gordon Brown, new Environment Secretary David Miliband and Trade and Industry supremo Alistair Darling, are sympathetic. But that won't stop claims that a new generation of atomic stations is a recipe for disaster. One of the ironies of nuclear power is that those who represent constituencies in which stations are sited are least bothered. It's no accident that Anne Moffat MP is demanding a new nuclear plant on the site of the existing one at Torness. Many jobs, businesses and families in East Lothian depend on the money it generates. And a return to nuclear power generation could be good for Scotland whatever scaremongering Nationalists may claim. Certainly it will put pressure on the Executive coalition where the Liberal Democrats, strong nuclear opponents, may find it difficult to swallow without big concessions on wind and wave power investment north of the Border. That may bring benefits in the long run, but as Torness and Hunterston are run down, a new generation of Scottish nuclear power stations could bring a massive economic boost in the mid-term that would be good for the nation, and potentially good for Labour. Opponents highlight the problems of nuclear waste and the 57 alerts at nuclear power stations in Britain in a decade. However the safe storage of nuclear waste - which is less dangerous the longer it remains radioactive - appears to have been solved. Britain's scientific chiefs are quick to point out the 57 incidents are tiny and have been discovered through a far more rigorous regime of safety than in other dangerous industries. The two major disasters are unlikely to be repeated - Chernobyl was created by poor design, Soviet incompetence and human arrogance, and at Three Mile Island vigilance saved a similar meltdown. As demand for energy grows in the UK and worldwide we will see an increased emphasis on harnessing wind, wave and solar power. But such schemes cannot be constructed on a scale that will meet future needs. Dependence on oil and gas imported from unstable regimes opens Britain up to economic blackmail by which we could be held to ransom both financially and politically. While the lights need to go on above the heads of environmental extremists, Mr Blair may have to take one of his famous "tough decisions" if his legacy is not to see the lights going out. Last updated: 20-May-06 12:24 BST ©2006 Scotsman.com| contact ***************************************************************** 72 Scotsman.com News: Nuclear stations 'too costly' for Scotland [Scotsman.com News] Monday, 22nd May 2006 EDDIE BARNES POLITICAL EDITOR NEW nuclear power stations for Scotland have been all but ruled out because the costs of transporting electricity south is too high, Scottish Executive ministers have claimed. Changes to national grid connection fees aimed at persuading generators to locate closer to consumers are piling extra costs on to any Scottish-based stations that might envision sending energy to the more crowded south. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that any nuclear power company will base a new station in Scotland, as it will prefer a site in England where costs are lower. A senior Scottish Executive source told Scotland on Sunday: "In the current commercial environment, they simply won't be built up here. "This all comes down to the connection charges to the grid which apply whether it is for nuclear or renewables. Any commercial drive for a new nuclear station as a result is not going to happen up here," the source added. The changes to the National Grid system were brought in last year when OfGem, the electricity regulator, created a flat UK market. Figures produced by one Scottish generator estimate that while a power station in the central belt of Scotland will pay around ÂŁ12 a kilowatt in charges, a power station in the north of England will pay just ÂŁ5. The claims come with the issue of nuclear energy at centre stage after Tony Blair claimed last week that the matter was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". All Britain's nuclear stations are scheduled to shut by 2023, leaving a huge gap in the county's energy production, and requiring the UK to rely on foreign countries for imports of gas. The Prime Minister has all but confirmed that he will support a new generation of suppliers, leading to the question of where the new stations will be placed. Scotland has two nuclear power stations, at Hunterston in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian, which between them produce 40% of Scotland's energy needs, employing hundreds of people. Energy industry insiders agree that to replace either one would be more expensive in the long term than an alternative south of the Border. "It would undoubtedly be more expensive the further you are from the market. The logical place to build new reactors is in the south. The first place you would look is not Scotland," the source said. A new generation of nuclear stations in Scotland is deemed all the less likely because UK ministers are ruling out offering any subsidies to firms. "They [the nuclear industry] will pay all their own costs and the Treasury wants to be sure of that," said energy minister Malcolm Wicks. Furthermore, the prospects look dimmer still because the Scottish Executive is still refusing to say whether it will give planning consent to new nuclear building work. Up to 20 new modern reactors might be built across Britain if UK ministers give the go-ahead. Ministers have spelled out the implications for the looming energy crisis if they are not built, warning Britain will have to rely on fuel from unstable areas in the Middle East, Africa and Russia to meet up to 90% of its demands by 2025 if nothing is done now. Ministers in Scotland say they are determined to close the energy gap by finding 40% of Scotland's energy needs by 2020 from alternative energy sources such as wind and wave power. Of the claims that the regulations will deter new nuclear building in Scotland, SNP MP Mike Weir said: "If this is the case, then it would be an unexpected benefit but it doesn't alter the fact that there will be no renewables available either. I think the Scottish Executive are grasping at straws." Scotland on Sunday also understands that ministers in Whitehall are now planning to 'fast-track' new nuclear stations by watering down existing controls on the establishment of new generators. Under the plans, long- winded planning regulations would be short-circuited so that developments could get off the ground far more quickly. In France, which has a highly-developed nuclear industry, with pre-licensed sites and designs, the average planning approval is four months. The planning process for the Sizewell B installation in England took six years. ©2006 Scotsman.com| contact ***************************************************************** 73 AU ABC: Nuclear energy debate call 'a sham'. 20/05/2006. ABC News Online Greens Senator Bob Brown says the PM has already made up his mind on nuclear energy. (ABC) Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has described as "a sham" the Prime Minister's call for a debate on nuclear energy. Australia and Canada have announced they will cooperate to protect their uranium interests. Prime Minister John Howard says along with a full-blooded debate on the issue, he wants to keep an open mind on the development of nuclear energy in Australia. But Senator Brown claims the Prime Minister has already made up his mind. "His talk about a public debate is a complete sham, he's made up his mind," he said. "He's had no mandate, but he's got control of the Senate and therefore we are going headlong into becoming a major agent in the nuclear proliferation right around the world." The Federal Opposition has also condemned the Prime Minister's comments. Environment spokesman Anthony Albanese says nuclear power would be a nightmare. "The problems of waste and contribution of proliferation, particularly in the climate of terrorism, where we're not just worried about states, but worried about organisations and individuals, are more dangerous than it's ever been," he said. "We souldn't have a part of this and Labor won't have a part of this." Greenpeace says the Prime Minister should have used his trip to Canada to learn why nuclear power is not a viable option. Steve Shallhorn from Greenpeace says in Canada nuclear power has only driven up the price of electricity and created dangerous amounts of waste. He says its effect in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also negligible. "Nuclear power can only solve a very tiny portion of greenhouse gas problems because electricity is only one source of the problem," he said. "Nuclear power is not going to solve emissions from aircraft, from the industrial sector or from industrial processes." ***************************************************************** 74 AU ABC: PM at odds with Minchin on nuclear power costs. 22/05/2006. ABC News Online By Europe correspondent Rafael Epstein in Dublin Prime Minister John Howard has disagreed with a senior cabinet minister over the likelihood of nuclear power in Australia. In Ireland on the last leg of his two week trip, Mr Howard distanced himself from comments made by Finance Minister Nick Minchin, who said the costs of nuclear power meant it was not viable. Senator Minchin said nuclear power would not be viable in Australia for 100 years. His comments were published yesterday but they were made in an interview given before Mr Howard last week said nuclear power in Australia was inevitable. In the Irish capital, Mr Howard said the Government still does not know the reals costs. "Until you have a proper examination and a proper testing of assumptions, you can't be certain that the economics haven't shifted from what we might thought they might have been only a short while ago," he said. Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says Australia could be enriching uranium within five to 10 years, but a development of a nuclear power station is further away. Mr Macfarlane says he wants to have a scientific and economic debate on the uranium issue. He says he agrees with Senator Minchin that the costs will delay the development of a nuclear power plant. "The economics of nuclear power just don't add up and it's unlikely that we would see a nuclear power station sited in Australia, even with the population support, inside the next 15 years," he said. ***************************************************************** 75 South Florida Sun-Sentinel: For energy future, think nuclear [Sun-Sentinel.com] Henry Meudt Boca Raton Posted May 21 2006 Taking the emotion, politics and demagoguery out of the energy issue are the following facts and solutions: A recent South Florida Sun-Sentinel chart shows that nearly 50 percent of our electricity is generated by burning coal and 18 percent by natural gas. Most of both can be eliminated by nonpolluting nuclear plants. Replacing coal would clean up emissions better than removing all the automobiles. Substituting nuclear for natural gas frees it up to replace much oil for home heating. The result is more oil availability and along with increased supply from a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and new offshore deposits will reduce price and decrease foreign dependency. Yes, we should also conserve by migrating to high mileage vehicles. But what about nuclear waste? Well, it came out of the ground in the first place and we have already spent a lot of tax money to prepare a safe site to return it to the ground. Those who don't buy this direction are reactionary anti-capitalists, or just blind to logic. Copyright 2006, Sun-Sentinel Co. & South Florida Interactive Inc. Sun-Sentinel.com, 200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 ***************************************************************** 76 IBNLive : Army trains to fight nuclear attacks Vishal Thapar CNN-IBN May 20, 2006 Punjab: â€Sanhge Shakti’ is the biggest military exercise for the Indian Army in five years to rehearse offensive operations in enemy territory. The nuclear overhang on the Western Front is on top of the mind of military planners who have masterminded the exercise in the plains of Punjab. The exercise simulates an enemy attack with weapons of mass destruction on advancing Indian forces. The scenario is officially described as a chemical weapons attack on a regiment-sized force. However, senior officers admit that the training is really directed at war fighting in a nuclear shadow. "The drills will be similar in terms of whatever is functional to move out of that place and to go to an area for a subsequent revival an dame operationally fit to be launched for subsequent operation," Brigadier Commander, 2 Corps, Ranjan Bakshi says. An elaborate drill for prompt withdrawal of forces from the hazard area, followed by decontamination of both troops and equipment has been organised. The drill is meant to revive surviving forces and sustain military operations despite a tactical nuclear strike. The declaration of low nuclear threshold levels across the Punjab border has for almost two decades weighed heavy on India's policy options. Through Exercise Sanghe Shakti, 22,000 Indian troops are now conveying a signal. And it's about an ability to launch a blitzkrieg that can rip through the nuclear shroud over the Western Front. Eight years after declaring itself capable of nuclear war fighting, India is finally equipping its frontline troops with protective equipment to face a possible nuclear attack. It's going to cost the nation a Rs thousand crore over the next three years. However, this protection is going to add to the credibility of India's nuclear deterrence. Copyright © IBNLive.com. All rights reserved. 2006, Global Broadcast News. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 77 Pasadena Star-News: Nuclear watchdog regulates colleges Article Launched: 05/20/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT Radioactive lab testing moderated By Elise Kleeman Staff Writer PASADENA - New regulations for the use of radioactivity at universities include a background check on researchers, a prospect that has some Caltech scientists concerned that their work - or that of their students - will become mired in red tape. "It's hard to assess what the real risk is. I don't want to blow it out of proportion, but we don't want to be inundated in useless paperwork either," said Caltech Provost Paul Jennings. The strengthened rules, a requirement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are a product of increased concerns over homeland security. "Prior to 9/11, the NRC had strict regulations regarding the security, storage and the use of radioactive materials," said NRC spokesman Victor Dricks. "Since that time we've made many changes, and we continue to review aspects of our program where we could improve safety." The new requirements, which vary based upon the strength of the radioactivity, also include lock and key systems, alarms and other devices to prevent unauthorized access to radioactive materials, Dricks said. Some of the most tightly regulated academic sources are the approximately 50 research and test reactors in universities around the country, two-thirds of which are operational. Caltech does not have a reactor, but has many much smaller sources of radioactivity on campus. Radioactivity has numerous applications in fields from biology to physics to geology. Its uses range from mimicking the low-level radiation that some rocks receive over millions of years to labeling chemical compounds in reactions. Most of these sources, though, are too weak to be affected by the tightening regulation. "There is just not enough plutonium out there in teaching labs to put together a bomb," said Caltech physicist Eric Black. "If you really want to do some damage, you'd have to go to every university physics lab in the country and scour any source we have," he said. Black runs a undergraduate physics class in which students use the element Californium to study neutron physics. The changing rules have not had any impact on the class, he said. In other departments, though, the sources of radioactivity are larger and the rules stricter. Caltech's Caz Scislowicz, director of the Environment, Health and Safety Office, declined for security reasons to give any details about the regulations or the number of labs on campus that would be affected by them. He predicted, though, that the new rules would not slow the pace of research on campus. The information needed for the background checks, he said, was already documented in other places on campus such as employment or admissions applications. elise.kleeman@sgvn.com (626) 578-6300 Copyright © 2006 Pasadena Star-News Los Angeles Newspaper Group Feedback ***************************************************************** 78 Deseret News: Bomb tests? Not again in our back yard [deseretnews.com] Sunday, May 21, 2006 By Jay Evensen Deseret Morning News Dear Uncle Sam, You may have a tough time figuring us out here in Utah. Generally speaking, we are a patriotic bunch. We tend to vote for law and order, and it takes more than a couple of military setbacks or insurgent strikes to make us back away from our commitment to a war — even if people in the rest of the country are more easily swayed. Most of us still support the president, despite his low approval ratings everywhere else. Folks here don't even seem to mind much that he wants to eavesdrop on telephone conversations without a warrant. They trust that whoever he has doing it will focus only on the bad guys, not on what people here happen to be saying to their friends. Some may call this naivete. Many people here prefer to think of it as healthy optimism, or just faith in the virtue of the greatest nation on earth. But Uncle, don't even think about setting off any more big bombs in Nevada. Even if they aren't nuclear — go blow them up in someone else's back yard. Even if you argue that testing is important to the nation's security in an age that is growing more dangerous by the day — go set 'em off in the Poconos. If they're so safe, let 'em rip under the Allegheny Mountains. We don't want 'em. If there was one moment in modern history when you betrayed us, it was during those frantic Cold War years when you set off nuclear bombs in Nevada and the wind was blowing north. Don't worry, you said. So folks here used to sit on the hoods of their cars and watch the mushroom clouds and ooh and ahh at the pretty colors overhead. Then, not long after, they started dying of strange cancers at rates far above normal. It took many years for you to fess up to this and begin making money available as reparations. But of course, no amount of cash could bring a life back or restore a family or erase the suffering. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., recently called it "a very unfortunate history that many families are still living with in this state." He said this while explaining why he, too — the Republican leader of a conservative pro-military state — doesn't want any more bombs going off in Nevada. We may love you, but we have long memories. And, frankly, we suspect you love all those people in the big cities back east a little more than us. In reality, we weren't the only ones harmed by those tests, but you still don't want to come to terms with that. A recent study estimated that, nationwide, 11,000 cancer cases above and beyond what normally could be expected were caused by exposure to fallout. Virtually everyone who has lived in the lower 48 states since 1951 has been exposed to radiation to one degree or another. But the bulk of it was felt here. Later, you got smart and started exploding nuclear bombs underground in Nevada, to keep the fallout from spreading. When I lived in Las Vegas in the '80s, we would regularly receive warnings, then feel the tiny, almost imperceptible shivers in the ground when these went off. But let's be serious here. The radiation may not have escaped into the air, but it didn't just disappear. Now you want to explode 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil near the places where you used to explode those underground bombs? You want to create huge mushroom clouds and you want us not to worry because you're certain it won't kick up any of that old radiation? Do you also have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd like to sell us? We'll keep supporting the war and the president, even if gas goes to $4 a cup and we start hearing strange clicking noises on our phones. But frankly, we're not in a mood to buy any more of your sweet talk about bombs. Sincerely, Your real-life nephew Recent Jay Evensen columns © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 79 reviewjournal.com: Warnings for emergency responders kept from Area 51 workers May 21, 2006 A pair of F-117A Nighthawks taxi Feb. 13 at Nellis Air Force Base. Photo by Gary Thompson. In legal battles that spanned a decade, the government refused to acknowledge that fumes from open-pit burning of stealth coatings used on its radar-evading warplanes harmed workers at the secret Area 51 installation along the dry Groom Lake bed where high-tech aircraft are tested. Yet in an unclassified May 19, 2005, "Safety Supplement" that was pulled along with other technical documents last month from a Web site at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., emergency responders are warned about the danger of inhaling "hazardous byproducts of burning wreckage" of F-117A Nighthawk fighter jets. "Do not use portable gas rescue saw in an explosive atmosphere. This may cause ... (a) fire resulting in injury or death to pilot and rescue personnel," the supplement warns. The nation's fleet of 52 of these black jets are coated with the same hazardous materials -- stuff that gives off cancer-causing dioxins when ignited -- that former Area 51 workers have said were stored in 55-gallon drums and hauled from Lockheed hangars in Southern California to the Groom Lake installation during the 1980s and burned in open pits. The acts have been contended to be criminal violations of Environmental Protection Agency laws in a pair of lawsuits filed in 1994 by George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley on behalf of former Area 51 workers and the widows of two whose deaths, Turley says, were spurred by their exposure to fumes from the burning of stealth coatings. In September 2004, President Bush, like his predecessor, sent a memorandum to the chiefs of the EPA and the Air Force, saying it was of "paramount interest" to exempt the Groom Lake installation from adhering to federal, state, interstate or local laws regarding solid waste or hazardous waste if classified information would be disclosed. In April 2003, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found the Justice Department did not abuse national security when information was struck from court documents in the 1994 cases. The same panel ruled in 1998 that Turley's clients were not entitled to learn what hazardous materials were used at Groom Lake or how they were disposed. That same year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the ruling sought by Turley. In interviews last week, Turley, one of the former workers, and other open records advocates viewed the once-public existence of the F-117A emergency responders' safety supplement as an admittance the Pentagon was wrong when Justice Department attorneys succeeded in keeping pertinent information redacted in the name of national security. Instead, they said, the government was trying to hide embarrassing and potentially damaging information. In light of the "Safety Supplement" that was marked "Approved for public release; distribution unlimited," Turley said he is "looking at the possibility of renewed litigation related to Area 51." "There are some cases pending that may assist us in that effort," he said in a telephone interview. "In the interim, this type of report should renew calls for the Nevada delegation to hold hearings on what occurred at Area 51. "This document indicates they are attempting to warn workers about any future such burning," Turley said. "The problem is we have a host of workers who may have been injured or killed by this very same conduct and we are still hoping that Senator Reid will use his authority in the Senate to hold hearings on the issues." A spokeswoman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate minority leader, said she couldn't provide a reaction from the senator last week to Turley's comment, other than to say his office was "still looking into the issue." An Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon, Capt. Olivia Nelson, said the technical order that contained the safety supplement on the F-117A and other sensitive information about Air Force One shouldn't have been posted on the Robins base's Web site because it was "not intended for a general public audience." "It sounds to me like somebody made a mistake putting it up there in the first place and we corrected the mistake," Nelson said. Mike Coonfield, the civilian Web site administrator at Robins Air Force Base, said Thursday he was asked by Air Force officials to remove the document about a month ago. "I was asked because of the lack of a better term, the furor of some other base that described things that may or may not be publicly accessible," he said. "I was asked to remove that TO (technical order) and a couple others off the Web site to avoid any future problems." The existence of the F-117A safety supplement surfaced last month after an April 8 story in the San Francisco Chronicle claimed the Web site posting of the technical order exposed the defenses of the presidential jetliner, Air Force One. A few days later, an independent writer and policy analyst, Stephen Schwartz, said he "started poking around the Web" to explore the Air Force One documents and found a technical order that dealt with rescue and mishap response information pertaining to stealth jets, particularly the F-22A Raptor and the F-117A Nighthawk. That order contained a list of documents dated, Feb. 1, 2006, about two weeks before Air Force officials revealed that F-117A fleet was destined for the "boneyard" in 2008 because Nighthawks have become too expensive and difficult to maintain and better replacements such as the Raptor are available. Schwartz, former publisher and executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, drew the connection to the stealth hazardous materials warning and the Area 51 workers' cases. He found the safety supplement April 12 on a Web page maintained by the Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency. It was removed a few days later. "It listed all the different materials they're made of and what happens to them when they burn so that you have to know what happens when you breathe it," he said by phone Wednesday from Chicago. To not have given the Area 51 workers the same information and then for the government to go to great extent to have similar information redacted from court documents "is incredibly wrong and quite unfair," he said. "The people who built the planes were told, 'Forget it. You're not going to get this information because it's classified,' and yet it's not," he said. For the F-117A, the safety supplement lists "hazardous byproducts of burning wreckage" as hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, phosgene and formaldehyde. A former Area 51 worker who was on the list of plaintiffs in Turley's cases said Thursday he is angry that the Air Force warns emergency responders about these hazardous byproducts but won't compensate him and his former co-workers. "It pisses me off to no end," said the worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity. His identity was protected in the lawsuit as well. "What is the secrecy surrounding settling up with these workers who were injured by open-pit burning?" asked the former Area 51 worker who suffered lung damage. He noted that Lockheed, the aircraft manufacturer, "has admitted they destroyed that material in that fashion, trucked it across state lines and disposed of it by orders of the Air Force." Lockheed compensated its injured workers, he said, so "what is the big mystery?" Steven Aftergood, with the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit policy research and advocacy group, said the existence of the safety supplement "tells me that the Air Force doesn't have a clear understanding of what is truly sensitive and what is not." "Removing this document from easy access may actually reduce safety and security by making the job of the emergency responders more difficult," Aftergood said. "They are making up the rules as they go along." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 80 News & Star: N-plant women’s knickers in a twist over underwear cash Published on 20/05/2006 By Nick Griffiths WOMEN agency workers at Sellafield are getting their knickers in a twist amid claims of “discrimination” over underwear at the nuclear plant. An employee says female agency staff are getting a raw deal over underwear allowances and supplies at the West Cumbrian site. Women workers employed by outside organisations have to buy their own for use in hot conditions in potentially radioactive “active” areas. But female employees of British Nuclear Group (BNG), which operates the plant, get an annual allowance of ÂŁ70 for this purpose. Every man – agency or otherwise – can use free underwear available in changing rooms for use in active areas. This is a long-standing arrangement from an era when there were not many women workers at the site. Unions say free underwear was never later considered for women on this basis as it was felt female sizes were “less straightforward” than men’s to supply. Instead they were given an allowance, following an earlier campaign, for underwear. Now, in a letter to the News &Star’s sister paper, The Whitehaven News, a female agency worker has raised claims about double standards on the issue. She wrote: “As agency/contracting females working in an active area we are not entitled to the underwear allowance. Why not? “Don’t we also have to provide and launder our underwear? “Males, whether they are BNG, contractor or agency are provided with underwear. Surely this is discrimination?” But Peter Kane , GMB union convenor at Sellafield, said: “The female underwear situation is down to each individual company. “It is for these workers to discuss with their own companies. I don’t see how any of them can complain to BNG. “If they can negotiate an allowance for themselves, then that’s great. I just don’t see how BNG can make someone else provide something.” ***************************************************************** 81 NEWS.com.au: Australia considers uranium enrichment By Samantha Maiden May 22, 2006 AUSTRALIA will consider enriching uranium and storing the waste products to deliver value-added exports to the world in preparation for the age of nuclear power. Opening up a new front in the nuclear energy debate, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said yesterday that voters were ready to confront uranium enrichment after years of simply digging it up and selling it overseas to be processed. The move would bring the option of nuclear power a step closer in Australia because enriched uranium is a key component of nuclear energy, but it could also be established much earlier than the estimated 2020 timeline for power plant options. Uranium enrichment would also raise environmental concerns and spark national debate on how to store and secure the toxic waste generated by uranium enrichment. "It's a debate that Australians are ready to have," Mr Macfarlane said. "That's based on the rising cost of energy and the fact that nuclear energy provides an answer to the climate change issue. Enrichment is value-adding and in the context of a nuclear debate there will be a series of issues. "My understanding is enrichment of uranium doesn't produce a radioactive by-product but it does produce waste that is toxic. Uranium enrichment is the next step in terms of the exporting of uranium." Enriched uranium is not the highly enriched or weapons-grade uranium used to produce nuclear weapons. Large commercial enrichment plants operate in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Britain, the US and Russia. Australia produced about one-fifth of the world's uranium output last year and stands to reap multi-million-dollar profits as China embraces nuclear power. However, it has always outsourced the job of creating enriched uranium, which is required by most of the commercial nuclear power reactors operating or under construction. As John Howard called for a "full-blooded" debate, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer also backed a discussion over uranium enrichment yesterday. "There's the question of whether Australia itself would eventually, some time, no doubt in the far distant future, build nuclear power stations. There's a question of whether Australia would ever enrich uranium - in other words, we go up the processing chain, rather than just dig it out," he said. However, the enthusiasm is not shared by Finance Minister Nick Minchin, who is concerned nuclear power plants would be too expensive to establish as an alternative to coal and finding a site to dispose of the waste would be too politically difficult. Mr Macfarlane conceded dealing with the by-products of a nuclear industry in Australia was a key consideration. "Whilst the environmentalists argue what it leaves is a legacy of radioactive waste, the reality is the Swedes are storing it in deep-buried stable rocks. We could do that if we're talking about our own nuclear waste from our own nuclear power stations," he said. The nation's premier science agency, the CSIRO, is working on ways to use a synthetic rock known as Synroc to immobilise some forms of high-level radioactive wastes for disposal. Australia demands assurances exported uranium and its derivatives cannot benefit the development of nuclear weapons or be used in other military programs. A spokesman for Education Minister Julie Bishop said she was optimistic about the potential for the nuclear power industry in Australia. She is working on establishing a panel of experts to consider the issue. Mr Howard's decision to talk up Australia's nuclear future has been interpreted as an attempt to exploit tensions within the ALP. New candidate and Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten said yesterday the jury was still out on nuclear power. Search for more stories on this topic on SitemapCopyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 82 NEWS.com.au: Macfarlane joins unranium debate - From: AAP May 22, 2006 INDUSTRY Minister Ian Macfarlane has joined Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in opening a new front in the nuclear debate. Both senior ministers say Australia needs to consider whether it should enrich uranium. Prime Minister John Howard has called for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear power and uranium mining. Mr Macfarlane said Australians are ready to debate adding value to its uranium through enrichment, and storing the waste it generates. "That's based on the rising cost of energy and the fact that nuclear energy provides an answer to the climate change issue," Mr Macfarlane said. "Enrichment is value-adding and, in the context of a nuclear debate, there will be a series of issues. "My understanding is enrichment of uranium doesn't produce a radioactive by-product but it does produce waste that is toxic. "Uranium enrichment is the next step in terms of the exporting of uranium." Mr Downer canvassed the prospect of uranium enrichment as a way to add value to the fuel resource. "There's a question of whether Australia would ever enrich uranium - in other words, we go up the processing chain, rather than just dig it out," Mr Downer said. "There needs to be at least a debate and some consideration about that." Australia has between 30 and 40 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves. Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 83 Sydney Morning Herald: Australia, Canada to hold uranium talks www.smh.com.au 20, 2006 - 6:04AM Soaring petrol prices and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions could lead to nuclear power being used in Australia, Prime Minister John Howard said. Speaking after talks with his new Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper, Mr Howard said it was time for a "full-blooded" debate on nuclear power and uranium mining. "The scene on nuclear energy is going to change significantly in our country," Mr Howard told reporters. "The pressure for change is driven in part by environmental considerations, it's driven in part by the soaring price of fuel, it's driven in part by a realisation that confronting the challenge of high energy pricing is one of the big economic challenges of nations such as Canada and Australia. "I want a full-blooded debate in Australia about this issue and I want all of the options on the table." Australia and Canada are considering setting up a uranium exporters' group to combat an American proposal which could limit sales of the radioactive element. The US wants to set up a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to limit the number of countries using nuclear technology. Part of the plan could also involve uranium exporters having to take back spent nuclear fuel rods for disposal from the countries which have used the fuel. Australia and Canada hold the world's largest reserves of uranium and are concerned the GNEP could hurt exports. "We have agreed that our officials will get together to further discuss this issue," Mr Howard said. "I think the two countries can work together in partnership to make sure that we not only follow the development of that initiative but also ensure that the initiative does not work in a way that in any way affects our own interests or the legitimate exploitation of our uranium reserves." Mr Harper said Australia and Canada, as the world's two major uranium players, had a considerable interest in whatever the US and the international community had in mind for future uranium development, production and marketing. "We've agreed that we're going to collaborate very closely together to make sure Australian and Canadian interests are closely protected while the Americans and others discuss the future of that industry," Mr Harper said. © 2006 AAP Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 84 Daily Sentinel: Rifle mill tailings sites annexed By By MIKE McKIBBIN The Daily Sentinel Friday, May 19, 2006 RIFLE Two parcels of land near Rifle that once contained millions of cubic yards of low-level radioactive uranium mill tailings were annexed into the city Wednesday night. The Rifle City Council hopes it can put both sites to public use. Groundwater contaminated by decades of uranium mining on a 142-acre parcel west of Rifle may reach acceptable levels within 50 years, according to Department of Energy Project Manager Rich Bush. Land use of the site now is controlled through zoning restrictions and a ban on new drinking water wells, he said. The DOE oversaw the removal of the tailings from that site and a 22-acre parcel just east of Rifle in the 1990s. Rifle City Manager John Hier said in a memo to the City Council that a public works site is planned for a portion of the East Rifle site. A park-and-ride lot may be built there, pending discussions with the Colorado Department of Transportation, he said. The larger West Rifle site had been considered in the past for relocation of the Garfield County Fairgrounds, a new wastewater treatment plant, energy park or golf course, Hier said. Recently, an official with Apollo Energy told the City Council it is interested in drilling natural-gas wells on the property. Bush said Thursday he was aware of the talk of gas drilling on the site. I hope theyll come talk to us, he said. We dont want to see the whole area disturbed, but there are areas out there that can be drilled for gas, if they do it right. Bush said the most recent talks he had with city officials about the site was for a new wastewater treatment plant, a top capital priority for the city. Whatever uses the site is put to will need permission from the Union Pacific Railroad to cross their tracks on the north side of the site, Bush said. Mike McKibbin can be reached via e-mail at mmckibbin@gjds.com. Cox Newspapers, L.P. - The Daily Sentinel - ***************************************************************** 85 Green Left Weekly: Nuclear dump plans on shaky ground www.greenleft.org.au Justin Tutty, Darwin Since the Country Liberal Party’s federal MP David Tollner first proposed plans to dump nuclear waste in the NT, fierce opposition has grown. The Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 identified three sites (none of which are in Tollner’s electorate): Harts Range and Mt Everard, both near Alice Springs, and Fishers Ridge near Katherine. Locals in Alice were quick to mobilise, staging public meetings and protests, and forming an action group that continues to build and reflect the widespread public opposition to the nuclear waste dump. Locals from Katherine, the NT’s third-biggest town, also formed an action group, which has warned that seasonal inundation of Fishers Ridge should warrant its immediate disqualification. These warnings were brought home when Katherine flooded in April; the margins of Fishers Ridge went under water, rendering the site totally inaccessible. At the time, the federal government refused to rule out Fishers Ridge as a potential dump site. But it now appears to be looking to Muckaty Station, north of Tennant Creek, as a potential alternative. The trouble is that the Tennant district is prone to the most intense earthquake activity in the NT. Tennant Creek’s first documented quake was recorded at magnitude 5.4 on the Richter scale on January 8, 1987. Aftershocks continued throughout that year, and one year later, on January 22, there were three large quakes with magnitudes 6.3, 6.5 and 6.7, which were followed by many smaller aftershocks. The three main events were felt in Darwin, while the largest was felt as far as Cairns and in high rise buildings in Perth and Adelaide. The quakes left large, long ground ruptures and a 35-kilometre fault. A seismic station was subsequently established, and hundreds of events have been recorded since. Activity in the area continues at a high level to this day. More than a dozen tremors were recorded last year, including a magnitude 4.4 quake felt up to 100km from its epicentre. When the Commonwealth decided to dump its unwanted nuclear waste on some of the country’s most vulnerable communities, it threw technical, environmental and scientific criteria out the window, along with its promises. During the 2004 federal election, then federal environment minister Ian Campbell gave voters an “absolute, categorical assurance” that there would be no nuclear dump in the NT. During the 2005 NT election, CLP senator Nigel Scullion boldly pledged: “Not on my watch.” Now, the same politicians are promising communities, faced with housing the nation’s nuclear waste, that legislation would protect them from ever having to take international nuclear waste. Perhaps the politicians making these promises haven’t been speaking to their PM. While John Howard was in Washington in the second week of May, his acting PM Mark Vaile was talking up the prospect of Australia “leasing” vast reserves of uranium. Nuclear leasing would allow the sale of uranium to countries that have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on condition that they use the uranium for power plants and return spent nuclear fuel to the country of origin. The “total product stewardship” scheme promoted by the federal government is really a means of bypassing international obligations under the NNPT, to allow nuclear trade with non-signatories such as India. It would allow Australia to lease a shipment of uranium to India, strictly for “peaceful” nuclear power reactors. The next shipment wouldn’t be provided until India returned the full complement of waste, thus ensuring that no materials, such as uranium or plutonium, could be diverted to weapons. Apart from the dangers associated with the mining of uranium, critics warn that, even if strictly enforced, nuclear trade with India for power generation would simply free up other sources of uranium for weapons’ production. Local communities in the NT are also concerned about the very real prospect of their immediate environment becoming a dumping ground for the global nuclear industry. From Green Left Weekly, May 24, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ***************************************************************** 86 Spectrum: Walk mile in West's shoes St. George UT. - www.thespectrum.com - There are a few things that our friends along the East Coast have a problem understanding about life in the Desert Southwest. Many of them don't seem to understand the financial problems caused by having so much undevelopable land. Many don't understand the problems associated with the wide, irresponsible use of the Endangered Species Act. They have a hard time seeing why we wouldn't want nuclear waste stored above ground on an American Indian reservation. And they can't seem to understand why we don't want a 700-ton bomb - the non-nuclear Divine Strake test scheduled for late June - detonated upwind from us. The latest example comes from an editorial published by The Daily News in Jacksonville, N.C., about 110 miles southeast of Raleigh near the Atlantic coast. In an editorial dated May 5, the newspaper said, "The test, dubbed 'Divine Strake,' is a necessary step toward developing a non-nuclear method of knocking out hardened underground facilities - a capability that certainly seems desirable at the moment. The government says the blast effects won't extend beyond the site." What our friends along the East Coast don't realize is that the government has proven to those of us who live here that it can't be trusted. We learned long ago - during the nuclear tests of the 1950s and 1960s - that what the government says might not necessarily be true. Certainly, there are people and some scientific studies that dispute the idea that the above-ground tests from 50 years ago caused any harm. There are just as many - if not more - people saying that a non-nuclear test will not stir up radiated dust from the previous tests. But we have met the people who live in our community who have faced rare cancers and even rarer diseases. We've seen the effects. Anecdotal? True. But devastating just the same. We also have reason to fear that the tests for these bombs, which might be useful in the war on terror, could someday open the door again to nuclear testing - something that was planned in this test until public outcry forced the government to change it to a non-nuclear test. So, to our friends on the East Coast who don't understand our concerns, please consider what you would feel like if the test bomb were to be detonated just off the Atlantic Coast. Or, think about what you would feel like if an endangered species, like a desert tortoise or prairie dog, were discovered to be living at the test site. Originally published May 21, 2006 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum. ***************************************************************** 87 AFP: Canada, Australia seek to protect uranium exports by Michel Comte Fri May 19, 10:54 PM ET OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada and Australia, which hold the world's largest uranium reserves, have agreed to work together to protect their nuclear exports which may be threatened by US energy security proposals. "I think the two countries can work together in partnership to ensure that the (US) initiative does not work in a way that in any way affects our own interests or the legitimate exploitation of our uranium reserves," Australian Prime Minister John Howard told reporters in Ottawa at the close of a two-day official visit that included talks on trade, security and climate change. Canada and Australia have a combined 43 percent of the world's uranium reserves and 52 percent of the world's uranium production. The White House in February unveiled a strategy to promote nuclear energy worldwide as a means of reducing air pollution and US reliance on foreign oil imports. The so-called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) also includes a plan to keep nuclear materials "out of the hands of terrorists" or "rogue states" and encourage nuclear non-proliferation, a US department of energy official told AFP. "The United States would work with nations to develop a fuel services program, so it would give them nuclear fuel to use for energy and in turn, they would refrain from developing enrichment and recycling technologies," she said. The United States has held "initial dicussions" with Japan, Britain, France and Russia to support the plan, the US official said. Howard, who met with US President George W. Bush" /> in Washington earlier this week, planned to keep "an open mind" about whether Australia should process uranium to provide nuclear fuel to other nations, he said. "We don't approach this American-inspired proposal with antagonism. We approach it with interest," he said. Under the proposal, the United States would also build more nuclear power plants and better storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel, and seek to beef up nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Harper noted: "We have agreed that we are going to collaborate very closely together to make sure that Australian and Canadian interests are closely protected while the Americans and others discuss the future of the industry." The two conservative leaders of Commonwealth countries also agreed to closer security ties, and Harper said Canada may opt to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), a non-binding alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, much to the horror of environmentalists. "I know that the Australians and others are looking at really focusing on dealing with this through the application of technology and technological development. This is very much the path our government is looking at," Harper said. Australia did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming, but Howard indicated it would still meets its emissions reduction targets under the protocol. Harper has said repeatedly since his Conservative government swept to office in January it would be "impossible" for his country to meet its emissions reduction targets. Canada's emissions are now 35 percent above its 1990 base levels. Its protocol target is six percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Greenpeace this week called the six-country APP "a fraud" because it relies only on voluntary measures and contains no targets, timetables or financial mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. But, Howard dismissed naysayers as too "ideological". Australia is a key APP member, along with the United States, Japan, India, China and South Korea" /> . Both Harper and Howard complained that China, India and the United States, the world's biggest polluters, were not part of Kyoto Protocol or had no emissions reduction targets under the accord. "If we are serious about climate change, and controlling the greenhouse gases we clearly have to have an international regime that includes the largest emitters," Harper said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 88 Daily Times: N-waste dumping taking toll Monday, May 22, 2006 * Patients of scabies, cataract and cancer rising in Dera Ghazi Khan By Shakeel Ahmed DERA GHAZI KHAN: The fallout of dumping ‘radio active nuclear waste’ by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in Dera Ghazi Khan has taken toll, as a large number of people are suffering from several diseases, Daily Times learnt. The number of patients suffering from scabies, a skin disease, has increased in the past three years. Although the disease used to occur in winters, but surprisingly scabby patients visit the District Headquarters Hospital throughout the year, most of them come from the tribal area, Dr Ghulam Shabir Birmani, a skin specialist, said. Patients of cataract have increased in past three years also, an eye specialist at the District Headquarters Hospital in Dera Ghazi Khan told Daily Times. “We operate 3,000 to 4,000 patients of cataract annually,” he added. Sterility is another rapidly spreading disease in Dera Ghazi Khan, a gynaecologist at the DHQ hospital said. The gynaecologist said mostly women did not like to discuss such problems with doctors and if the condition becomes unbearable, they visit quacks. Two sample collecting laboratory centres of cancer hospitals are working in Dera Ghazi Khan. After taking samples from patients, these centres send the samples for testing to their headquarters in Lahore and Karachi. Daily Times learnt that the centres were collecting 60 to 70 samples for biopsy (examination of served tissues for diagnosing cancer) tests every month. Patients come for uterus biopsy, intestinal biopsy, stomach biopsy, liver biopsy, thyroid biopsy, lymph node biopsy, breast biopsy, lymphoma biopsy, eudiometrical biopsy, lung biopsy and bone biopsy. It was ironic that there were dozen of medical facilities of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission working in different cities of Pakistan but none in Dera Ghazi Khan. There are no treatment facility and doctor available for cancer patients in Dera Ghazi Khan. Radiation syndromes — a group of concurrent symptoms of a disease – is described a deadly disease with harmful effects acute, delayed, or chronic produced by exposure to ionising radiations. Tissues vary in response to immediate radiation injury of lymph cells, reproductive organs, proliferating cells of the bone marrow, epithelial cells of the bowel, top layer (epidermis) of the skin, liver cells, epithelium of the little lung sacs (alveoli) and bile passages, kidney epithelial cells, endothelial cells of the membranes around the lungs, lining the chest cavity (pleura) and the abdominal cavity (peritoneum), nerve cells, bone cells, muscle and connective tissue. Generally, quicker the turnover of the cell, the greater the radiation sensitivity. Radiation can and usually dose lead to all sort of health related problems such as cancer including blood cancer, skin cancer, mussels cancer, bone cancer, thyroid cancer, chest cancer, skin diseases, all kind of tuberculosis (TB) including bone TB, baldness, sterility (in men and women), vomiting, watery motion, fever, deafness and cataract, Dr Zulfikar Malik told Daily Times. The people of Dera Ghazi Khan are frightened after finding out about the dumping of nuclear waste in Baghalchur, said Hameed Asghar Shaheen, the president of the Seraiki Qaumi Movement. He condemned the dumping of nuclear waste. He claimed that nuclear borne diseases had increased in the area since the dumping began. He stressed the need to carry out a radiochemical analysis of the area, a complete medical check up of residents and demanded an independent inquiry commission to look into dumping of radioactive nuclear waste in Dera Ghazi Khan. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 89 u.tv: Campaigners call for Sellafield closure SATURDAY 20/05/2006 14:29:48 Campaigners attempting to force the closure of the Sellafield nuclear power station have claimed its existence could jeopardise the health of generations to come. By:Press Association Warnings were also issued against any move to build further plants across Britain. Today, at a conference held by Sinn Fein in Dundalk, County Louth, the party insisted the controversial facilities in Cumbria still posed dangers across the Irish Sea and discussed how to organise its shutting. Arthur Morgan, a member of the Irish Parliament, claimed: "This is the most discredited nuclear facility in Western Europe. "The people of County Louth and indeed the whole island have always had serious health concerns around Sellafield. "We want a complete closure of the plant, on a phased basis. We want a proper clean-up operation and we want more openness and no more cover-ups from the British Government on this issue." Mr Morgan also told how the prospect of new power plants being erected posed grave concerns. "On a recent visit to Brussells it was evident to me that there is a very large pro-nuclear lobby at work promoting nuclear energy," he said. "Nuclear power can never be a viable option. The devastation caused twenty years ago at Chernobyl and the after-effects, which will be felt for many more generations should be enough to make us stop in our tracks and think again." Other speakers at the conference, Sellafied - Still a Danger, included Lennart Varmby, Board Member of the Swedish Energy Agency; George Regan, the Scottish Vice-chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities and a Dundee City Councillor; and Rea Street, Vice-chair of CND. Sinn Fein MEP Bairbre De Brun chaired the session on why Sellafield must close. ¦ ¦ u.tv Journalism ¦ Copyright © 2006 UTV Internet and the UTV plc Group. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 90 globeandmail.com: Harper rethinks nuclear policy "globeandmail.com"> Canada, Australia share concerns over U.S. uranium cartel plans JEFF SALLOT OTTAWA -- Canada is rethinking the question of nuclear co-operation with India in light of concerns about that country's nuclear weapons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says. The Liberal government announced in September that Canada would resume trade in nuclear technology with India. Yesterday, however, Mr. Harper suggested that his Conservative government might impose a moratorium because of worries about the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Mr. Harper and visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard share concerns about a U.S. plan to establish a uranium cartel to supply nuclear reactor fuel to other countries. The United States says its plan is a non-proliferation initiative to keep tight control on nuclear fuel that could be reprocessed to manufacture warheads. Even so, Mr. Howard said, Washington's plan could freeze Canada and Australia out of global markets for uranium nuclear fuel. Australia and Canada are the world's largest suppliers of uranium, but have not been included in the talks to establish the cartel. Mr. Harper, speaking at a joint news conference with the Australian leader, said the Conservatives have not yet established a nuclear policy. But he believes nuclear reactors will be an important source of energy in the decades ahead. But the question of supplying India is another matter, he suggested. "It's an issue we are looking at with some degree of caution." Canadians are particularly sensitive on this point, he said, because India used Canadian-supplied technology in the early 1970s to put together its first crude nuclear bomb. Mr. Harper said Canada will be looking to see if India signs on to international non-proliferation agreements as Ottawa decides whether to supply that country with nuclear technology. Canada and many other countries clamped a moratorium on nuclear-technology sales in 1998 when India resumed tests of nuclear warheads. Pakistan, India's neighbour and political rival in southern Asia, followed suit and tested its own nuclear weapons. Australia is eyeing China and India as potentially important markets for its uranium. Australia has no nuclear power reactors, but Mr. Howard suggested this might change. "The scene on nuclear energy is going to change in our country," he said. "I want a full-blooded debate in Australia on this issue and I want all the options on the table." Mr. Howard is the first foreign head of government to visit Ottawa since the Harper government came to office in February. The two leaders share a small-c conservative view on many economic and political issues. Australia will soon be sending troops to Afghanistan, joining Canada and other countries in the task of trying to provide security so that reconstruction can take place in that war-ravaged country. Mr. Harper told Australian journalists it's not too early to begin reconstruction work, even though conditions on the ground can still be dangerous. An army officer from Manitoba, Captain Nichola Goddard, was killed on Wednesday in a grenade attack. Parliament voted this week to extend Canada's deployment to Afghanistan by another two years. Mr. Harper said he did not expect the number of Canadian troops would go above the 2,200 range even in the third year when a Canadian general takes command of the entire international force. Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher --> --> ***************************************************************** 91 AU ABC: Power system can't handle enrichment - NT Govt. 21/05/2006. ABC News Online Nuclear waste ... NT Minister says Australia does not have the infrastructure needed for enrichment. The Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy says Australia does not have anything like the power infrastructure needed to enrich uranium. The Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has raised the idea as part of a broader debate on domestic nuclear power and uranium exports. But Kon Vatskalis says the Territory Government wants to know where the waste would go. He says enriching uranium requires abundant cheap electricity that is not available in Australia. "We've got nothing in place," he said. "Let's not forget that everything that has to be established of that magnitude in that kind of facility has to go through a lot of processes, a lot of environmental processes. "I bet you you'd get a lot of reaction from people in Australia if they tried to do something like that, especially if they still insist to re-import everyone's nuclear waste back to Australia." The comments were sparked by a call from the Prime Minister John Howard for a "full-bloodied" discussion about nuclear power. High-profile Labor figure Bill Shorten has accused the Prime Minister of playing "wedge politics" on nuclear issues. Union chief and Labor candidate at the next election, Mr Shorten has told Channel Nine it is an attempt to divide Labor. "I don't really think that we will fall for wedge politics," he said. Mr Shorten says the nuclear power debate is premature. But Mr Downer has told the Insiders program that Australia has a responsibility because it has more then a third of the world's uranium reserves. "We need to have a substantial discussion about it," he said. Mr Downer says there also needs to be a debate about whether Australia should enrich uranium and not just dig it up. ***************************************************************** 92 Knox News: Filter problem leads to shutdown of uranium work 'Safety issue' found in operation_for the second time in a month By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 20, 2006 OAK RIDGE - A uranium casting operation was shut down at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant after workers determined there was an excessive accumulation of uranium in a filter system. The problem was discovered in late April, and the equipment - including a melting furnace - remains shut down, a plant spokesman confirmed Friday. BWXT Y-12, the contractor that manages the government facilities, declared a "criticality safety issue" in the uranium operations for the second time in a month. That means the situation exceeded one of the precautionary guidelines in place to prevent a nuclear criticality - a serious event involving an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. Mike Monnett, public affairs director for BWXT, said the uranium "hold-up" in the filter never posed a criticality threat. He said the situation is well controlled, although the enriched uranium - 1.4 kilograms, according to a safety report - has not yet been removed from the filter. "We're going to have to clean it up," Monnett said. Oil also was found in the filter housing, which poses an additional safety issue and complicates the removal, he said. Monnett said the filter system did its job, accumulating the enriched uranium particles coming from a furnace used in casting operations. However, there's a concern because the uranium in the filter exceeded the established threshold even though all work procedures were followed correctly, he said. "We're reviewing those procedures to see if they need to be adjusted," Monnett said. "We didn't like the results we got." Y-12 manufactures parts from highly enriched uranium and other materials, specializing in so-called secondaries - the second stage of nuclear warheads. The Oak Ridge plant is the nation's principal repository for weapons-grade uranium. Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the federal agency that oversees Y-12 operations, said, "The most important thing is that this process equipment is in a safe and stable condition." Wyatt said the necessary actions have been taken. He said there is no harm to workers or potential for a nuclear reaction. "The issue is of significant concern to us, however, and we are closely monitoring and evaluating BWXT Y-12 actions to ensure a safe recovery and adequate corrective actions to prevent reoccurrence," he said in an e-mail statement responding to questions. Monnett said Friday he expects the situation in Y-12's enriched uranium area to be resolved soon. He said any time there's a shutdown of equipment there's potential impact on production schedules. While the filter situation is a little unusual, Monnett said it reflects the type of challenges that must be dealt with regularly at Y-12. "This is day-to-day operations in the nuclear weapons complex," he said. Earlier in April, another "safety deficiency" was issued after holes were found in a stainless-steel floor where enriched uranium is handled. Transfer of enriched uranium in a liquid form was restricted temporarily because a spill might allow material to seep under the floor and breach safety controls. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 93 Coastal Post Online: Privatizing The Apocalypse-Bechtel To Run US Nuke Labs Article May, 2006 MARIN COUNTY'S NEWS MONTHLY - FREE PRESS (415)868-1600 - (415)868-0502(fax) - P.O. Box 31, Bolinas, CA, 94924 By Frida Berrigan Started as the super-secret "Project Y" in 1943, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has long been the keystone institution of the American nuclear-weapons producing complex. It was the birthplace of Fat Man and Little Boy, the two nuclear bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Last year, the University of California, which has managed the lab for the Department of Energy since its inception, decided to put Los Alamos on the auction block. In December 2005, construction giant Bechtel won a $553 million yearly management contract to run the sprawling complex, which employs more than 13,000 people and has an estimated $2.2 billion annual budget. "Privatization" has been in the news ever since George W. Bush became president. His administration has radically reduced the size of government, turning over to private companies critical governmental functions involving prisons, schools, water, welfare, Medicare, and utilities as well as war-fighting, and is always pushing for more of the same. Outside of Washington, the pitfalls of privatization are on permanent display in Iraq, where companies like Halliburton have reaped billions in contracts. Performing jobs once carried out by members of the military -- from base building and mail delivery to food service -- they have bilked the government while undermining the safety of American forces by providing substandard services and products. Halliburton has been joined by a cottage industry of military-support companies responsible for everything from transportation to interrogation. On the war front, private companies are ubiquitous, increasingly indispensable, and largely unregulated -- a lethal combination. Now, the long arm of privatization is reaching deep into an almost unimaginable place at the heart of the national security apparatus --- the laboratory where scientists learned to harness the power of the atom more than 60 years ago and created weapons of apocalyptic proportions. Profane Problem or Prolific Profit? Nuclear weapons are many things to many people -- the sword of Damocles or the guarantor of American global supremacy, the royal path to the apocalypse or atoms for peace. But in each notion, they are treated as idols -- jealously-guarded, shrouded in code, surrounded by sacred secrecy. That is changing. Private companies have long played a role in the nuclear complex, but it's been a peripheral one. For example, Kaiser-Hill, a remediation company, is cleaning up radioactive waste at Rocky Flats, the Denver, Colorado complex that manufactured nuclear weapons. At Idaho Falls, another company, CH2M, is mopping up the mess left behind after the construction of 52 nuclear reactors. BWX and Honeywell formed a new company along with Bechtel to manage and operate the Pantex Plant in Texas which assembled nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. At least ten different subcontractors are involved in managing the Hanford nuclear complex. But the famed nuclear laboratories, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia -- where the high priests of nuclear physics are free to explore the outer realms of their craft -- have long been above prosaic bottom-line or board-room considerations. Until this year, that is. At Los Alamos, the University of California has already been replaced by a "limited liability corporation," says Tyler Przybylek of the Department of Energy's Evaluation Board; and, more generally, the writing is on the containment wall. Nuclear laboratories are no longer to be intellectual institutions devoted to science but part of a corporate-business model where research, design, and ultimately the weapons themselves will become products to be marketed. The new dress code will be suits and ties, not lab coats and safety glasses. Under Bechtel, new management will lead to a "tightly structured organization" that will "drive efficiency," predicts John Browne, who directed the lab at Los Alamos from 1997-2003. "If there is a product the government wants," he concludes, "they will necessarily be focused on that. A lot more money will be at stake." Los Alamos was the first to go. Now, the management contract for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is on the auction block as well. Bechtel's Boondoggles Many say strong corporate oversight will correct a legacy of embarrassing missteps at Los Alamos. The keystone of the nuclear complex, it has been dogged by missing classified computer disks, cost overruns on its expensive new projects, and an outspoken cadre of scientists who found their voice on LANL: The Real Story, a blog where once deferential employees blew off steam and exposed lapses in lab management. The idea is that, under private management, this legacy of money wasted and dreams deferred can do an abrupt u-turn. But the question is: Can Bechtel (or any other private military contractor) usher in a new era of nuclear responsibility? Pete Domenici, Republican Senator and Chairman of the powerful Energy and Water Committee, thinks so. In January, he claimed that "this great lab will thrive under the management team led by Bechtel." But a look at Bechtel's record might not inspire others to Domenici's confidence. The California-based construction giant has a long history of big projects, big promises, bigger budgets and even bigger failures. In Boston, Bechtel was put in charge of the "Big Dig," the reconstruction of Interstate 93 beneath the city. In 1985, the price tag for the project was estimated at about $2.5 billion. Now, it is a whopping $14.6 billion (or $1.8 billion a mile), making it the most expensive stretch of highway in the world. Near San Diego, citizens are still paying the bills for cost over-runs at a nuclear power plant where Bechtel installed one of the reactors backwards. In 2003, Bechtel took this winning track record to Baghdad, where it blew billions in a string of unfinished projects and unfathomable errors. The company reaped tens of millions of dollars in contracts to repair Iraq's schools, for example, but an independent report found that many of the schools Bechtel claimed to have completely refitted, "haven't been touched," and a number of schools remained "in shambles." One "repaired" school was found by inspectors be overflowing with "unflushed sewage." Bechtel also has a $1.03 billion contract to oversee important aspects of Iraq's infrastructure reconstruction, including water and sewage. Despite many promises, startling numbers of Iraqi families continue to lack access to clean water, according to information gathered by independent journalist Dahr Jamail. The company made providing potable water to southern Iraq one of its top priorities, promising delivery within the first 60 days of the program. One year later, rising epidemics of water-borne illnesses like cholera, kidney stones and diarrhea pointed to the failure of Bechtel's mission. Outside of its ill-fated reconstruction contracts in Iraq, Bechtel is not known as a large military contractor, but the company has been quietly moving into the nuclear arena. It helped build a missile-defense site in the South Pacific, runs the Nevada Test Site where the United States once performed hundreds of above-and underground nuclear tests. Bechtel is also the "environmental manager" at the Oak Ridge National Lab, which stores highly-enriched uranium, and is carrying out design work at the Yucca Mountain repository where the plan to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste has environmentalists and community activists up in arms. At Washington State's Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, Bechtel is working on technology to turn nuclear waste into glass. But the estimated costs of building the facility to do that have doubled in one year to about $10 billion while the completion date slipped from 2011 to 2017. Members of Congress have proposed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take over management of the project from Bechtel because of its cost overruns and delays. Proliferation's New Meaning Given this track record, it's hard to make the case that Bechtel assumes the helm at Los Alamos out of an altruistic, even patriotic, desire to impose clean, lean corporate management on a complacent institution long overfed at the public trough. The question remains: Why this urge to privatize the apocalypse? To answer that question, you have to begin with the post-Cold War quest of the nuclear laboratories for a new identity and raison d'ętre. The dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the loss of the other superpower as a nuclear twin and target, and an international shift in favor of nuclear disarmament sent Los Alamos and the whole U.S. nuclear complex into existential crisis: Who are we? What is our role? What do we do now that nuclear weapons have no obvious role in a world of, at best, medium-sized military enemies? Throughout the Clinton years, these questions multiplied while the nuclear arsenal remained relatively stable. More recently, with a lot of fancy footwork, a few friends in Congress, and the ear of a White House eager to be known for something other than the Long War on global terrorism, the labs finally came up with a winning solution that has Bechtel and other military contractors seeing dollar signs. They found their salvation in a few lines of the Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, where the Bush administration asserted: "The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing if required." There's gold in that there sentence. During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a year (in current dollars). Almost two decades after the "nuclear animosity" between the two great superpowers ended, the United States is spending one-and-a-half times the Cold War average on nuclear weapons. In 2001, the weapons-activities budget of the Department of Energy, which oversees the nuclear weapons complex through its "semi-autonomous" National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), totaled $5.19 billion; and a "revitalized nuclear weapons complex," ready to "design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads," means a more than billion-dollar jump in spending to $6.4 billion by fiscal year 2006. And that's just the beginning. The NNSA's five-year "National Security Plan" calls for annual increases to reach $7.76 billion by 2009. David Hobson, Republican congressional representative from Ohio, calls this kind of budgeting "the ultimate white-collar welfare," saying that the weapons complex can be "viewed as a jobs program for PhDs." He's right. That's a lot of money for a few labs and a few thousand scientists. And private military contractors large and small are all over it. Entering Acronym Land To justify this huge jump in spending, the nuclear laboratories have cooked up plans for an alphabet soup of projects as part of the SSMP, scientists are pushing -- to mention just a few of the acronyms on the table right now -- ASCC, MESA, the RRWP, the ICFHY campaign and the RNEP. In the interest of not putting everyone to sleep, we can take a closer look at just a few of the Bush administration's proliferating nuclear projects. Under the umbrella of Stockpile Stewardship Management (SSMP), scientists are working to safeguard the stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials so it is not ravaged by time and neglect. The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program (RRWP) will exchange existing warheads for more "reliable" (read: more powerful) ones. There are plans underway to develop the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and other "useable" new nuclear weapons supposedly to meet new threats by new enemies -- "rogue states" like Iran -- in future preemptive anti-proliferation wars. Under each of these programs are many other acronym-heavy, cash-rich programs that seem to lead nowhere -- except toward further nuclear proliferation. The Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign is just one of the more outlandish and expensive of these projects. It proposes using lasers to replicate what happens inside an actual nuclear explosion in weapons labs. Sounds simple enough, right? The Nuclear Ignition Facility -- where the lasers will do their work -- is the single largest project in the NNSA budget and, according to analyst Christopher Paine, "quite possibly the most expensive experimental facility ever built." The Department of Energy projects $3.5 billion in costs for this alone, but the independent environmental group, the National Resources Defense Council, puts the figure higher yet -- at $5.32 billion -- and that money will be spent before anyone can even demonstrate that the system works. The Age of Nuclear Terror? Do nuclear weapons have a role in the "Age of Terror" -- other than as potential weapons for terrorist groups? In a new and ever-shifting environment of emerging regional powers and wars that transcend national boundaries, the Bush administration is taking a have-it-both-ways approach: It is pushing aggressive non-proliferation policies for chosen enemy nations and embracing a policy of accelerated nuclear proliferation for itself. How much harder will it be in the future to dissuade other powers from building nuclear weapons when the American nuclear industry and its weapons labs have switched even more fully into private mode and the profit-motive is increasingly at stake in global nuclear planning? These and many other questions unfortunately remain unasked. Yet, a new era of nuclear weapons for profit threatens to turn Armageddon into a paying operation. During the height of the Cold War, when competition between the nuclear laboratories seemed to rival the superpower stand-off, a Lawrence Livermore scientist posted a sign that read: "Remember, the Soviets are the Competition, Los Alamos is the Enemy." In a new era of potential corporate antagonism over apocalyptic weaponry, will there be a sign at the Bechtel-run nuclear lab emblazoned with: "Remember, the Terrorists are the Competition, Lockheed Martin is the Enemy"? Frida Berrigan (berrigaf@newschool.edu) is a Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center. Her primary research areas with the project include nuclear-weapons policy, war profiteering and corporate crimes, weapons sales to areas of conflict, and military-training programs. She is the author of a number of Institute reports, most recently "Weapons at War 2005: Promoting Freedom or Fueling Conflict." ***************************************************************** 94 Houston Chronicle: Energy secretary says coal, oil will power U.S. for decades Chron.com May 21 20:46:32 2006 Samuel Bodman makes the remarks in speech to South Texas College of Law graduates Oil and coal will continue to power the U.S. economy for many years, even as more emphasis is put on developing alternative sources of energy, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said Saturday in Houston. "Fossil fuels will continue to dominate ... for several decades at least," Bodman said during a commencement address to about 350 members of the South Texas College of Law 2006 graduating class at the George R. Brown Convention Center. Bodman, who was sworn in as energy secretary in February 2005, said alternative forms of energy such as wind and ethanol fuel made from corn would contribute to the country's energy future. But one of the most important sources of energy will be nuclear power, along with the means of safely operating the plants and disposing of nuclear waste, he said. President Bush's administration goal is to replace 75 percent of the United States' Middle East oil imports with alternative fuels by 2025. Bodman has told Congress that part of the solution will come from increased research on hydrogen, solar and biological fuels, and fusion, a nuclear reaction that produces no radioactive waste. z The linchpin to the administration's energy policy is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a plan for developing new technologies in partnership with other countries that will make conventional nuclear power safer. ***************************************************************** 95 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL: UC offers $12 million to settle By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican May 20, 2006 The University of California has agreed to pay some Hispanic and female employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory $12 million as part of a settlement proposal resulting from two class-actions lawsuits alleging job discrimination. If U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson approves the settlement proposal, the money will be shared by female and Hispanic employees who worked at the lab between December 2000 and the present, according to plaintiff's lawyer John Bienvenu of Santa Fe. "We are confident that this settlement will send a message to the current and future operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well as other government contractors, that women are entitled to equal pay for equal work," plaintiff Laura Barber said in a statement. As part of the settlement, the lab "expressly disputes any allegation of discrimination or wrongdoing and does not admit any liability," lab officials said in a news release Friday. Lab spokesman James Rickman said the settlement was reached "to avoid millions of dollars ... in legal fees and years of time and effort spent on defending costly lawsuits." The University of California operates the lab for the federal government. One lawsuit was filed in state District Court in January 2004 by six plaintiffs: Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria Bennett, Yvonne Ebelacker, the Hispano Roundtable of New Mexico and the University Professional and Technical Employees Association. The action claimed violations of federal and state civil-right laws and the federal Equal Pay Act, according to Bienvenu. The second suit was filed by Barber in December 2003 in U.S. District Court. She alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act and breach of contract. Both suits were consolidated in U.S. District Court. Bienvenu said the plaintiffs "succeeded in forcing the University of California to acknowledge that it owes compensation to the women and Hispanic employees that have been treated unfairly." In January 2004, the lab gave raises ranging from $170 to $10,000 to 670 employees in an effort to deal with pay disparities. Then-lab Director Pete Nanos pledged to address the issue. In 2003, a study known as the Welch Report established that Hispanics and women earned less money than white men in certain jobs at the lab. "The salary initiative was an attempt to correct that," Rickman said. He said the Welch Report did not show any pattern of discrimination. But the report "never went far enough," Manny Trujillo of the University Professional and Technical Employees Union said. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com. ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 96 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL, Japanese scientists team up for hydrogen project By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican May 20, 2006 Scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory and Japan have formalized a working relationship to share information on hydrogen technologies, which could someday reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels to power cars. The lab's work in that area currently specializes in hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen storage tanks, said Bill Tumas, director of the lab's Institute for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Research. "It's an international problem, so international collaborations are important," Tumas said. Two Japanese institutes have signed a memorandum of understanding with the lab: the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization and the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. Hydrogen-powered cars have been pushed as a possible alternative to vehicles dependent on gasoline. But they cost a lot to make, and certain parts don't last as long as they need to. "We need improvements in cost and durability and that's exactly what the lab is trying to address," Tumas said. Scientists are working on how to store enough hydrogen on board a car so that it can travel more than 300 miles; making a fuel cell that will last more than 5,000 hours; and reducing the cost of making that fuel cell. "The individual units are quite expensive right now," said Ken Stroh, a lab group leader working on fuel-cell research. "The fuel cell is three to four times more expensive than it has to be to start to penetrate the market," he said. Tumas said the lab is making significant progress in these areas. "We still need to overcome some of the technical challenges," Tumas said. A workshop featuring research on hydrogen technologies has been scheduled for this August in Santa Fe and will include scientists from the United States and Japan. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 97 Hanford News: Hanford health, safety event set Tuesday, Wednesday at TRAC This story was published Thursday, May 18th, 2006 By the Herald staff The 12th annual Hanford Health and Safety Exposition is planned from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday at TRAC in Pasco. The free event draws thousands of Hanford workers and members of the public to exhibitions focusing on safety and health on the job and at home. Topics range from child safety to ergonomics and stress awareness in the 202 exhibit spaces at TRAC. Police officers will offer police dog demonstrations. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., has announced that her staff will have a booth to help with questions or concerns from ill nuclear workers or their survivors who are struggling with a federal program to provide compensation, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Appointments may be made from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. both days by calling 946-8106. Safety and health presentations are scheduled from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. both days, including a camping safety demonstration by Sportsman's Warehouse, a "Stretch for Life" program and a Seasoned Steppers performance. Vehicle crash demonstrations are planned at 10 a.m., 2 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. both days with fire, police, coroner and funeral officials participating. The scenario will include law enforcement officers arresting a drunken driver, using the jaws-of-life to free people from the wreckage and administering medical care. A bicycle rodeo will be from 4:30 to 5 p.m. each day. A drawing for a bike giveaway is planned. Those participating in the rodeo must have helmets. Some helmets will be given away as long as supplies last, but children must be present to be fitted to receive a helmet. A complete schedule of events is posted at www.hanford.gov. Click on the Richland Operations Office in the center of the screen and then click on "Communication" on the list on the left of the screen and look for the "Safety Expo" link. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 98 Tri-City Herald: House OKs funding to finish B Reactor study Published Saturday, May 20th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The U.S. House has approved spending $365,000 to finish a National Park Service study on preserving Hanford's B Reactor. In addition, next week the House is likely to consider the Department of Energy's budget, which proposes spending $500,000 on B Reactor repairs or improvements in fiscal year 2007. "The B Reactor story deserves to be told, and I'm pleased to be a part of the preservation efforts," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., in a statement. The atomic age began in large part at Hanford as workers raced to build the B Reactor to produce plutonium before Nazi Germany could produce an atomic bomb during World War II. B Reactor was the world's first full-scale production reactor and produced the plutonium for the first nuclear explosion in the New Mexico desert. Less than a month later, plutonium from the reactor was used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, that helped end World War II. The National Park Service is determining whether the reactor should be preserved as a museum and what role the federal government should play. Other options for preserving the reactor also are being studied. For instance, B Reactor might become a museum as part of the planned Hanford Reach National Monument Heritage and Visitor Center in Richland. The National Park Service then might provide technical support or develop educational materials. The study was the result of a bipartisan bill sponsored by Hastings and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., in 2004 enabling the National Park Service to study preserving Manhattan Project sites across the nation. For the current fiscal year, Congress budgeted $1 million for preserving B Reactor. That money is being spent to replace the reactor's roof and do structural work needed to help the reactor withstand an earthquake, said Hank Kosmata, acting president of the B Reactor Museum Association. But more work remains to be done. The 3-mile road from the Vernita Bridge area to the reactor needs to be improved, said Michele Gerber, a board member of the Reach visitor center. Supporters would like a graded stretch of road with shoulders that would allow a full-sized tour bus to reach the reactor -- which is near the western edge of the nuclear reservation -- without having to drive across much of the reservation, which is closed to the public. The museum association agrees that improving the road is a priority, Kosmata said. In addition, a metal air vent that snakes around the outside of the reactor needs to be replaced, and the replacement will have to be manufactured to match the original and go through a historical review process for approval, Gerber said. If support cannot be found to save the reactor, it will meet the same fate as the other eight plutonium-production reactors along the Columbia River. They have been or likely will be torn down to little more than their radioactive cores and then sealed up to let their radioactivity decay over the next 75 years. The Senate also must pass budget bills for both the Department of Energy, which includes work to preserve the reactor, and the Department of Interior, which includes the study. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 99 Tri-City Herald: Nuclear reservations tours planned Published Sunday, May 21st, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Public tours of Hanford that will include a look inside B Reactor have been scheduled for June 21-23. Tours of the nuclear reservation are infrequent, and these are the first scheduled in 2006 for the public. Because of the tours' popularity, signups will be done on the Internet and will not begin until 8 a.m. Wednesday. Seats on the tour buses will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis with no advance waiting list. The last tours offered in fall 2005 filled up through Internet registrations 35 minutes after registration opened. The high point of the tours, which last about four hours, is a visit to B Reactor, the nation's first production-scale reactor. It looks much like it did when it produced plutonium during World War II for the first nuclear explosion and the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, to help end the war. An effort is under way to save B Reactor as a museum. Participants will tour the B Reactor on foot, but most of the rest of the tour will be on a bus. It will pass by Hanford's 300 Area just north of Richland where fuel was manufactured for irradiation in Hanford's reactors. North of the 300 Area are the Hanford and White Bluffs townsites. Residents of those small villages were forced to leave their homes, businesses and farms during World War II for the secretive Manhattan Project that created Hanford. The tour also will include a drive-by of former plutonium production reactors along the river. Several of those reactors have been "cocooned," or torn down to little more than their radioactive cores, sealed and reroofed for long-term storage. In central Hanford, the irradiated fuel was processed to chemically remove plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Underground tanks that hold 53 million gallons of radioactive waste from that process are in central Hanford, and the vitrification plant to treat those wastes is being built nearby. The free tours will start from the Volpentest HAMMER training center at 2890 Horn Rapids Road, Richland. They will begin at 7:30, 9 and 10:30 a.m. each day. As with any Hanford tour, there will be plenty of rules. Tour participants must be U.S. citizens who are at least 16 and who carry a current driver's license, military identification or passport on the tour. A security check is required and tour participants must provide their name as it appears on the identification they will carry on the tour and their birth date. Hanford employees may use their current DOE badges. Tour participants will be required to wear clothing suitable for an industrial environment, which means no shorts or sleeveless shirts. Hard-soled or closed shoes are required. For more information or to register Wednesday for the tours, go to www.hanford.gov and click on "information" on the lefthand side. Then click on "site tours" on the lefthand side, then "public road tour." Or go to www.hanford.gov/information/sitetours/?tour=saturday. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 100 lamonitor.com: House panel cuts CMRR funds The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor A House of Representatives subcommittee working up a version of next year's budget for the nuclear weapons program proposes deep cuts in a key construction project at Los Alamos National Laboratory. In a report the committee called for cutting $100 million from the FY2007 budget for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility, a billion-dollar project that has been in the works for a number of years. The old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building plays a role in the stockpile stewardship program that certifies the nation's nuclear weapons inventory. It has been high on the list of aging buildings that the lab wants to replace. In January, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the $157 million first phase of the project. The funds were restored to the DOE's FY2006 bill in conference committee, after having met disapproval in the House. A spokesperson in Domenici's office said the committee chaired by the Senator is beginning its budget deliberations, but that the senator still supports the building project. The House subcommittee report, influenced by its chair, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, noted that consolidation efforts for the nuclear weapons program that the committee has directed in the National Nuclear Security Agency have been embraced "in only a very limited manner." A complex-wide plan prepared by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board last year mapped out a new, more financially sustainable weapons complex based on the concept of a Reliable Replace Warhead. The RRW is meant to be a more useful, less costly and all-around more appropriate nuclear weapon that will be phased in to replace existing warheads, as they grow older, less reliable and more expensive to maintain. The transformation of the complex envisions co-locating nuclear materials processing capability like the CMRR together with a new plutonium pit manufacturing facility, where the triggers are made for the weapons. LANL currently has interim responsibility for making a limited supply of nuclear pits, but no decision has been made about where that job would be performed in the future. The site is supposed to include nuclear materials consolidated from around the nation, "It is conceivable that Los Alamos could be that consolidated production center," said Matt Letourneau in Domenici's office, "That's still on the table and either way we're going to need the CMRR project. We're going to work with NNSA to see what they want to do." Although RRW is the centerpiece of NNSA's consolidation initiative, the Committee said that a $25 million increase proposed for the warhead next year would be contingent on receiving a more detailed transformation plan from the department. LANL and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are currently involved in a design competition for an optimum blueprint for the replacement weapon. The House committee report called for bringing in the JASON Defense Advisory Group as an outside review team on the RRW and warned NNSA that the Government Accountability Office would be particularly tasked to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of building the CMRR for what may only be a decade of operation. Brian Wilkes, speaking for NNSA, said, "It's early in the appropriation's process, and we're going to continue to work with congress to insure that they proceed with our plan." He said the three phases of CMRR would enable the safety and basic materials science needs to be met in the first two phases, and that the third phase was deferred for later, when longer term issues will have been decided. "Canceling the CMRR as some have proposed would leave the nuclear complex with no viable pit manufacturing and certification ability," he said. "That would be bad for the complex, bad for LANL and bad for national security." Nuclear watchdogs in New Mexico have been especially vigilant about the CMRR project, alert to any sign that it will lead to a massive new plutonium project at Los Alamos. Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico said Domenici would have to make a choice. "He needs to either drop his support for the CMRR project, or acknowledge that Los Alamos is destined to become this country's super plutonium pit production center," said Coghlan in a press release Wednesday. © 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: *****************************************************************