*****************************************************************
05/25/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.124
*****************************************************************
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 IRNA: Bush, Blair to gloss over Iraq debacle
2 BBC: World 'must stand firm with Iraq'
3 IPS-English POLITICS-US: Pressure Grows on Bush to Engage Iran
4 US spurns Iran concessions
5 UN Nuclear Agency Chief Discusses Iran's Programme With Us Secretary
6 [NYTr] US Digs in Heels, Refuses to Talk to Iran
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, U.S. Talks Appear Distant
8 Guardian Unlimited: U-turn by White House as it blocks direct talks
9 AFP: Afghan leader to travel to Iran, ready to mediate in nuclear st
10 Independent: Progress claimed in bid to halt Iran's nuclear project
11 IRNA: China calls for solving Iran's nuclear issue peacefully
12 AFP: Blair: we don't want conflict with Iran, we're too busy
13 IRNA: IAEA Chief, inspectors, confirm Iran's abiding by int'l laws -
14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Speaker: Scientific progress, a must
15 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA confirm Iran's abiding
16 IRNA: Libyan FM calls for peaceful settlement of Iran's N-case
17 IRNA: Western diplomats: EU3 to propose peaceful solution to Iran -
18 Guardian Unlimited: Seoul Puzzled by North's Train Move
19 Xinhua: US negotiator confirmed to meet Chinese vice FM on nuke talk
20 Xinhua: US chief negotiator indicates no new progress on six-party
21 AFP: US says no compromises on North Korea
22 US: Boston Globe: Bush OKs companies forgoing disclosures -
23 HindustanTimes.com: We can proceed on N-deal: India
NUCLEAR REACTORS
24 US: Groups Respond to Bush's Visit to Limerick Nuclear Plant
25 US: No-fly zones at Disneyworld but not at nuclear power plants
26 SABCnews.com: Hendricks also says Koeberg 'bolt' was no accident
27 US: Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pitches Plan to Expand Nuclear Power
28 US: NRC: NRC Approves Final Rule to Relieve Certain Individuals from
29 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear power and coal competitive - Governme
30 theage.com.au: Study backs nuclear over coal power
31 The Age: General Electric warms up a slice of nuclear pie -
32 US: Philadelphia Inquirer: At Limerick, Bush pushes nuclear power
33 AU ABC: Kingston Mayor caught off guard over nuclear comments
34 US: ENS: Bush Presses Nuclear Power Development Agenda
35 Daily Yomiuri: Fukui gov. to OK restart of N-reactor
36 US: The Herald Energy Life. Captured Every Day. -
37 business.iafrica.com: Koeberg refueling done by August
38 iafrica.com: sa news Koeberg bolt was 'no accident'
39 US: newsobserver.com: Saved by nuclear power? No
40 BBC: Nuclear plant shutdown
41 The Herald: The power struggle ahead
42 US: reviewjournal.com: Senators meet with nominee for NRC
43 Platts: Constuction of fusion energy test reactor could start in 200
44 Independent: ScottishPower chief blasts Blair for pre-empting nuclea
45 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear power is ticket to oil-free future
46 US: Concord Monitor: Nukes will create more problems than they solve
47 US: Rutland Herald: Court denies stay of Yankee power boost
48 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the Jo
49 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the AC
50 US: NRC: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nucle
51 US: The Mercury: President picks local plant to boost energy initiat
52 US: The Mercury: Protesters rally against Bush energy stance
53 US: SouthofBoston.com: Nuclear plant hunting for missing devices
54 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Short cuts VY output
55 US: Public Citizen: President Bush’s Speech Today Ignores the Realit
56 AU ABC: Sunshine Coast politicians oppose nuclear power plant.
57 AU ABC: Safety a main concern in nuclear energy debate
58 Shanghai Daily: Shandong to build nuclear plant
59 canada.com: Caldicott still pushing her anti-nuclear message after 3
60 asahi.com: Governor to approve restarting reactor
61 US: AFP: Nuclear power: safe, inexpensive and environmentally-friend
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
62 US: Las Vegas SUN: Utah opponents get 600 signatures against Nevada
63 US: Deseret News: Test blast protested
64 US: USATODAY.com: Protesters try to stop Pentagon blast in Nevada
65 US: Spectrum: Officials get petition opposing bomb test
66 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Town lives with fear of a cancer epidemic
67 US: New Haven Advocate: Like Pulling Teeth
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
68 US: Deseret News: House OKs funds for temporary nuclear storage
69 US: Deseret News: Monticello wants answers on uranium mill
70 US: AP Wire: Last of most dangerous waste at former uranium plant he
71 reviewjournal.com: Yucca cartoon figure withstands Berkley attack
72 US: Salt Lake Tribune: House approves funds for nuke storage - not
73 US: kgw.com: Judge: DOE must obey agreement with Idaho to remove nuk
74 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
75 US: NIRS: NIRS Asks for Recusal of NRC Commissioner in LES Uranium
76 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: Do not cover up the radioactive waste issue.
77 US: UPI: Nuke plant must clean up radioactive water
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
78 Guardian Unlimited: Nevada Lawmaker Rips Energy Dept. Cartoon
79 AP Wire: Highlights of Fernald history and cleanup
80 Seattle Times: Opinion: Hanford plant must be built, but it must be
81 DOE: 18 CFR Part 358
82 Platts: Bush urges House to fully fund GNEP for FY-07
83 Tri-City Herald: Cantwell questions DOE proposal
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IRNA: Bush, Blair to gloss over Iraq debacle
London, May 25, IRNA
UK-Blair-Bush summit
Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Washington on Thursday to hold
a delayed summit with US President George W Bush in an attempt
to gloss over the Iraq war debacle.
Blair has been waiting for months to see the formation of the
new Iraqi government before making his trip, so he can now
finally complete the third of three major foreign policy
speeches which were launched on the third anniversary of the
Iraq invasion in March.
formation of the new Iraqi government has "provided a context
in which the Prime Minister could then speak about other
matters, so that was what we were waiting for," his official
spokesman said last week.
With public support for the two leaders at an all-time low and
their meeting being dubbed as a "lame duck summit," both Bush
and Blair are hoping to put behind them a succession of
humiliations in Iraq and gloss over their retreat.
The original justification for the invasion proved false
shortly after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, when it
was found that his alleged arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction were non- existent.
Unlike the US, Blair was unable to claim that the real motive
for the war was regime change because of its illegality in
international law.
It is also seen as ironic that the British premier now tries to
context the invasion as part of the "war on terrorism," which
the US president has always maintained but without seemingly
being aware of the quagmire being created.
According to reports, Blair is intending in his foreign policy
speech on Friday to finally attempt to defend the Iraq war on
humanitarian grounds by linking it with previous interventions
such as Kosovo.
The BBC recalled Friday that if the British premier's speech
had to be compared with the one he gave in Chicago at the height
of the war against Serbia in April 1999, his call then for a
ground invasion of Kosovo was much to the "horror" of President
Bill Clinton.
Although both Bush and Blair are reluctant to announce any
fixed dates for the retreat of their troops from Iraq, they are
expected to pave the way by using last week's formation of a new
government even though its nature and composition are not as
envisaged in 2003.
It also remains questionable whether any of the other original
aims, like establishment of permanent US bases and control over
the country's oil resources, are equally just desirable dreams.
*****************************************************************
2 BBC: World 'must stand firm with Iraq'
Last Updated: Friday, 26 May 2006
[UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George
W Bush]
Mr Blair and Mr Bush have both seen their popularity fall
Tony Blair and George W Bush have called for the international
community to give its full support to the new Iraqi government.
The British prime minister said it was important to Iraq's
leaders to know that "we will stand firm with them" against
"terrorism and violence".
The US president defended the invasion, but admitted there had
been "setbacks".
The talks in Washington also focused on Iran, with Mr Bush
offering rewards for Tehran if it ends uranium enrichment.
The two leaders will hold further discussions on Friday.
Both have seen their popularity drop and are keen to ensure a
positive legacy as their terms draw to a close, correspondents
say.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Iraq has cast a
shadow over the leaders' careers and both were seeking to play up
the potential for change afforded by the new
democratically-elected government in Baghdad.
'Daunting' challenge
Mr Blair, who held talks with new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
Maliki in Baghdad this week, said: "I came away thinking the
challenge is still immense, but I also came away thinking more
certain than ever that we should rise to it."
I want him to be here so lo as I'm president George Bush, on Tony
Blair
That challenge, he said, was "daunting... but inspiring".
Whatever people's misgivings about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he
said, "our duty, but also the duty of the whole international
community, is to get behind this government and support it".
However, neither man would set a timetable for the withdrawal of
troops from Iraq.
Asked about mistakes in Iraq, Mr Bush brought up the prisoner
abuse scandal at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.
"We've been paying for that for a long period of time," he said.
Iran 'isolated'
They also discussed Iran's nuclear programme, and its refusal to
suspend uranium enrichment. The US suspects Iran of seeking
nuclear weapons, although Tehran says its work is for peaceful,
energy purposes.
[UK troops in Basra]
Both leaders refused to outline a timetable for withdrawing
troops
Mr Bush said the US was "going to continue to work with a
government [in Iran] that is intransigent, that won't budge"; but
that in order to qualify for an "enhanced package" of diplomatic
benefits, "they have to suspend, for the good of the world".
Otherwise, he said, Tehran would be "isolated" by the
international community.
The leaders meet again on Friday after Mr Blair's foreign policy
speech at Georgetown University.
In his speech, the UK leader is expected to focus on the values
of democracy and reform of the post-World War II institutions,
such as the UN and International Monetary Fund.
Congressional medal
Mr Blair has pledged to resign before his third term ends, which
will be in May 2010 at the latest. Mr Bush leaves office in 2009.
The prime minister was given wholehearted support by the
president, however. Asked by a journalist what Mr Bush wanted to
see in Mr Blair's successor, Mr Bush replied: "I want him to be
here so long as I'm president."
The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says one piece of business
on the trip will remain outstanding.
Mr Blair will not be picking up the US congressional medal he was
awarded for his support in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Our correspondent says Mr Blair clearly does not think this is
the best time to receive a medal over an issue that has already
cost him, and the US president, support.
*****************************************************************
3 IPS-English POLITICS-US: Pressure Grows on Bush to Engage Iran
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:08:59 -0700
ROMAIPS EU MM NA HD IP BW NC NU=20
POLITICS-US: Pressure Grows on Bush to Engage Iran Directly
Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, May 25 (IPS) - The administration of U.S. President George W.=
Bush is under increasing pressure -- both here and abroad -- to engage I=
ran in direct talks despite the continued opposition of pro-Israel neo-co=
nservatives and Vice President Dick Cheney.
In recent weeks, a growing number of prominent Republicans, as well as De=
mocrats, have been urging Bush to pursue face-to-face negotiations on a r=
ange of issues.
At the same time, Washington's European allies, which have acted as the a=
dministration's surrogates in talks with Iran on its nuclear programme fo=
r the last three years, are rapidly losing patience with what they increa=
singly see as U.S. intransigence.
=94The Europeans are jumping up and down telling the U.S. it's time to en=
gage,=94 said Charles Kupchan, director of European Studies at the Counci=
l on Foreign Relations (CFR) here.
=94If the United States doesn't engage in some sort of negotiation, the l=
ikelihood of a major bust-up across the Atlantic is very high,=94 he adde=
d.
Some signs that the pressure is being felt in the White House emerged her=
e this week when Bush's new spokesman, Tony Snow, told reporters Washingt=
on may be willing to talk directly with Iran about its nuclear programme =
if Tehran suspends its uranium enrichment activities.
=94When that happens ...then there may be some opportunities (for discuss=
ions),=94 he said, suggesting that any such contact would likely take pla=
ce within a larger multilateral context, presumably involving at least th=
e EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), and possibly Russia and China.
Diplomats from those five powers met with their U.S. counterparts in Lond=
on this week in an effort to fashion a new package of carrots and sticks =
that they hope will persuade Iran to halt its enrichment activities as a =
first step toward an agreement that would ensure that Tehran could not bu=
ild a nuclear weapon.
The package is likely to include providing Iran with light-water nuclear =
reactors, trade and other economic incentives, and discussion of a =94fra=
mework=94 to address Iran's security concerns.
According to published reports, however, U.S. diplomats opposed inclusion=
of the last item on the agenda, apparently due to a continuing impasse w=
ithin the administration between Cheney and his allies, who favour =94reg=
ime change=94, and other officials, notably in the State Department, who =
believe that goal to be both unrealistic and possibly counter-productive.
=94Security guarantees are not on the table,=94 one anonymous =94senior S=
tate Department official=94 told Thursday's New York Times, which also no=
ted that the Europeans have advised Washington that, in the absence of su=
ch guarantees by the U.S., Tehran is unlikely to make concessions on its =
nuclear programme.
The administration, which in 2002 labeled Iran a charter member of the =94=
Axis of Evil=94, has pushed for the U.N. Security Council to approve sanc=
tions against Iran for alleged violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferatio=
n Treaty (NPT).
While the European members of the Council have generally backed the effor=
t, Russia and China, concerned about both the impact of such a resolution=
on their own strategic and commercial interests and the possibility that=
Washington could use Iran's refusal to comply with its terms to justify =
an eventual military attack -- much as it did in Iraq's case three years =
ago -- have dragged their heels.
Even the Europeans, however, are skittish about the kinds of sweeping san=
ctions, such as a ban on imports of gasoline or exports or Iranian oil an=
d gas, that Washington wants to see imposed, according to Kupchan. He pre=
dicted that trans-Atlantic unity will remain strong through the impositio=
n of =94light sanctions=94, such as bans on arms sales and visas for Iran=
ian leaders, but is likely to =94disappear=94 beyond that, particularly i=
f the U.S. resorts to military force.
=94At the end of the day, the U.S. wants regime change, and the EU doesn'=
t,=94 he said, adding that an eventual resort by Washington to military a=
ction against Iran had virtually no support in Europe. =94I have yet to f=
ind a European policymaker who thinks war is preferable to a nuclear Iran=
.=94
But it is not only Washington's European allies, Russia and China that ar=
e urging Bush to change course by engaging directly with Tehran. Other ke=
y regional allies, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have made similar a=
ppeals.
Here at home, Bush, already battered by record-low approval ratings, is a=
lso under pressure from some fellow Republicans.
In the last two months, two former political appointees who served in top=
State Department officials in Bush's first term, Middle East specialist =
Richard Haass and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, call=
ed for talks on the full range of issues -- including Iran's nuclear prog=
ramme, its alleged support for terrorism, and its regional policies that =
Washington finds objectionable -- that have separated the two countries s=
ince 1979.
They have been joined by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Com=
mittee, Dick Lugar, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, a possible Republican president=
ial candidate in 2008, as well as a number of prominent Democrats, includ=
ing Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and secretary=
of state, Madeleine Albright, and influential lawmakers, such as Sens. J=
oseph Biden and Dianne Feinstein, both considered pro-Israel moderates in=
the party.
Perhaps most impressive, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who s=
upported Bush's invasion of Iraq, also called earlier this month for dire=
ct negotiations with Iran, at least over the nuclear issue, which he argu=
ed in a lengthy Washington Post column was too important to U.S. security=
to be =94negotiate(d) through proxies, however closely allied=94.
These appeals have also been bolstered by signals, including President Ma=
hmoud Ahmadinejad's unprecedented letter to Bush -- which, according to K=
issinger, may have been designed =94to get the radical part of the Irania=
n public used to dialogue with the United States=94 -- that Iran itself f=
avours direct talks.
That interpretation of Iran's intent has since gained credence by the pub=
lication in Time magazine of a two-page memorandum by Hassan Rohani, the =
chief national security representative of Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali K=
hameini, on a proposed solution to the nuclear issue. Messages have also =
reportedly been sent to U.S. officials through intermediaries by the chai=
rman of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, regarding Te=
hran's willingness to engage in comprehensive talks.
Against this tide, neo-conservatives, whose influence in the administrati=
on runs chiefly through Cheney's office, have been fighting back, warning=
that direct talks with Tehran would be a trap from which Washington woul=
d find it difficult to extricate itself and declaring that recent ethnic =
unrest inside Iran showed that its population was ready to rise up agains=
t the regime.
=94The question before the world now is: Can Iran be coerced by any means=
short of force (to halt its nuclear programme),=94 wrote David Frum of t=
he American Enterprise Institute. =94There's only one way to find out -- =
and it is not by talking.=94
*****
+POLITICS: Reversing Policy, U.S. =94Froze=94 Iran Talks in March (http:/=
/ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33303)
+POLITICS: Iran's Snub Calls for New EU Offer (http://ipsnews.net/news.as=
p?idnews=3D33295)
(END/IPS/NA/MM/EU/IP/HD/NC/NU/BW/JL/KS/06)
=20
=3D 05260341 ORP003
NNNN
*****************************************************************
4 US spurns Iran concessions
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 21:25:46 -0500 (CDT)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33350
-----------------------------------------------
Iran proposal to U.S. offered peace with Israel
-----------------------------------------------
by Gareth Porter* . InterPress Service . 24 May 2006
Washington--Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with
Israel, cut off material assistance to Palestinian
armed groups, and pressure them to halt terrorist
attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to a
secret Iranian proposal to the United States.
The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement
covering all the issues separating the two countries,
a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to
the United States in late April or early May 2003.
Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced
International Studies who provided the document to
IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier
this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.
The two-page document contradicts the official line of
the George W. Bush administration that Iran is
committed to the destruction of Israel and the
sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more
detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned
about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried
it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss
Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The
intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified,
according to Parsi.
The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly
that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a
supporter of armed groups in the region in return for
a larger bargain with the United States. What the
Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the
document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian
policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition
of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.
Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab
governments which had supported the Israeli-
Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document,
however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut
declaration," which it also referred to as the "Saudi
initiative, two-states approach."
The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab
League's first official acceptance of the land-for-
peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with
Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the
territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.
Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have
aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi
Arabia, among others with whom the United States
enjoyed intimate relations.
Another concession in the document was a "stop of any
material support to Palestinian opposition groups
(Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along
with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent
actions against civilians within borders of 1967".
Even more surprising, given the extremely close
relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based
Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to
take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political
organization within Lebanon."
The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much
tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to
peaceful nuclear technology." It offered "full
cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all
relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA
protocols)."
That was a reference to protocols which would require
Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any
facility they might request, whether it had been
declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much
more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret
nuclear activities without being detected.
In return for these concessions, which contradicted
Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli
forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S.
agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included
a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of
status of Iran in the U.S.," as well as the
"abolishment of all sanctions."
Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of
Iran's legitimate security interests in the region
with according defense capacity." According to a
number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an
official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional
power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad
agreement with the United States.
Negotiation of a deal with the United States that
would advance Iran's security and fundamental
geopolitical political interests in the Persian
Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of
Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been
discussed among senior Iranian national security
officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of
Iranian national security policy.
An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major
propaganda theme of the Bush administration for
months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president
has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So
when you start listening to what he has said to their
desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to
see an issue of grave national security concern."
But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the
Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would
have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett,
then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the
National Security Council staff, recalled in an
interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days"
between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the
dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador
expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to
Washington.
Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in
Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the
2003 proposal. Turkish international relations
professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University
writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that
"senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that
"the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be
possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be
achieved between the U.S. and Iran."
The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of
Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be
strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives
among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the
reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.
However, many conservative opponents of the reform
movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal
with the United States that would benefit Iran,
according to Paul Pillar, the former national
intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the
hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike
a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an
interview with IPS last month.
The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a
deal with the United States but with the fact that it
was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres.
Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the
breakthrough, Pillar said.
Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's
foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian
proposal, according to the senior Iranian national
security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has
aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the
prodemocratic movement.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security
policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance:
Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam,"
was published in June 2005.
*****************************************************************
5 UN Nuclear Agency Chief Discusses Iran's Programme With Us Secretary Of State Rice
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:00:14 -0400
UN NUCLEAR AGENCY CHIEF DISCUSSES IRAN’S PROGRAMME WITH US SECRETARY
OF STATE RICE
New York, May 25 2006 12:00PM
The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency is in Washington
for talks with senior United States officials on a raft of
issues ranging from Iran’s controversial nuclear programme to the
recent US-Indian cooperation deal to new ways of containing sensitive
nuclear technology.
“I believe that it’s very important for Iran to take whatever measures
required for the international community to have confidence
that its programme is peaceful in nature,” International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei told reporters
after a meeting yesterday with US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice.
“I believe also it’s very important that Iran goes back to the negotiating
table with the Europeans,” he added, referring to European
Union (EU) efforts to reach a diplomatic package solution to
the issue. “My preferred solution, obviously, to the Iranian issue,
is a negotiated solution.”
Earlier this year, the IAEA referred the issue of Iran’s nuclear
programme to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, after
Mr. ElBaradei repeatedly reported that although the Agency had
not seen any diversion of material to nuclear weapons or other
explosive devices, it was still not able to conclude that there were
no undeclared nuclear materials or activities.
Iran says its activities are solely for energy purposes but the United
States and other countries insist it is clandestinely seeking
to produce nuclear weapons. Last August, Iran rescinded its voluntary
suspension of nuclear fuel conversion, which can produce
the enriched uranium necessary either for nuclear power generation
or for nuclear weapons.
Mr. ElBaradei called the India-US pact on nuclear cooperation “a
win-win agreement,” voicing the hope that the US Congress will approve
it and that the deal can ensure that India becomes a partner
in the non-proliferation framework.
Earlier this year, Mr. ElBaradei said the agreement reached was a
milestone that could consolidate efforts to prevent the spread of
nuclear arms and combat nuclear terrorism, by satisfying India’s
growing need for energy while bringing it closer as an important
partner in the non-proliferation regime.
On sensitive nuclear technology, Ms. Rice thanked Mr. ElBaradei for
work on “some innovative non-proliferation ideas like fuel assurances
that would allow the proliferation risks associated with
civil nuclear programs to be minimized.” Mr. ElBaradei said that
the IAEA was “trying to look at the big picture in making sure that
we have innovative measures to ensure that sensitive proliferation
technology, like enrichment or reprocessing is contained.”
2006-05-25 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
6 [NYTr] US Digs in Heels, Refuses to Talk to Iran
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:25:39 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
AP - May 24, 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060524-1319-us-iran.html
U.S. says it will not change policy of refusing direct talks with Iran
By Nedra Pickler
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON The United States will not negotiate directly with Iran on its
nuclear program, President Bush's spokesman said Wednesday, although he left
open the door for talks if Tehran proves it has permanently stopped all
nuclear weapons activities.
Until they do that, there is going to be no change in the administration's
posture (or) in the president's posture when it comes to one-on-one
negotiations, said White House press secretary Tony Snow. We will continue
to use appropriate international forums and work with and through our allies
when it comes to dealing with the government in Iran.
Snow repeated the administration's demand that Iran must suspend all uranium
enrichment and processing in a verifiable, credible and permanent manner.
When that happens, all right, then there may be some opportunities, Snow
said. But he would not elaborate on what those opportunities might be. I'm
going no further, he said.
Iran and the United States have refused to hold bilateral exchanges since
soon after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The only publicly acknowledged
discussions between the two countries came in early 2003, as the United
States was building up military forces in the Persian Gulf ahead of the Iraq
war.
The U.S. ambassador in Iraq has said he has been authorized to hold
discussions with Iran specifically about the situation in Iraq, rather than
broader subjects like the nuclear program. Similarly, U.S. officials in
Afghanistan have had talks with Iranian officials about anti-drug measures
in Afghanistan. But negotiations with Tehran on nuclear issues are being
handled through U.S. allies in Europe.
Iran insists it is only interested in nuclear technology to generate
electricity, but the international community increasingly fears it plans to
build a nuclear bomb.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Iran has made requests for
direct talks with the Bush administration on the nuclear program. State
Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that Iran has been showing
interest in holding talks with the United States through intermediaries, but
he said the United States has not replied.
Snow said it's clear Iran's leaders are trying to negotiate through the
press.
It's very clear the pressure has begun to pay off, Snow said. They want
to change the subject, and we're not going to let them.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, U.S. Talks Appear Distant
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday May 25, 2006 10:46 AM
AP Photo XHS102
By BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Despite back-channel overtures from Tehran,
the chance for breakthrough contacts between Iran and United
States is rapidly dimming.
Washington has ruled out direct negotiations over Tehran's
nuclear program, while Iran - at least publicly - says it no
longer want to hold talks on Iraq.
Only months ago, the foes were saying they would hold high-level
meetings on how to stabilize war-torn Iraq, where Iran holds
enormous influence. That raised hopes that talks could also
begin on the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday that
the United States would not consider direct talks with Iran on
the nuclear issue until it ends uranium enrichment and allows
international inspections to verify it has done so.
``When that happens, all right, then there may be some
opportunities,'' Snow said.
On the other hand, U.S. officials have signaled they are ready
for talks on Iraq.
With Iraq's new government in place, the U.S. ambassador to
Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said Sunday the time was right for such
discussions. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
went on Arab television to say Washington recognizes Iran's role
in Iraq, as long as it is constructive.
But with the nuclear dispute intensifying, Iran's public stance
has hardened.
Iranian officials made no comments on Rice's statements. Earlier
this week, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi appeared
to close the door, saying, ``We don't see any need to talk to
America about Iraq.''
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then railed
against the United States on Wednesday, accusing it of seeking
to stir up trouble among Iran's ethnic minorities.
Yet through intermediaries, Iran has been showing interest in
holding talks with the United States, State Department spokesman
Sean McCormack said Wednesday. He did not identify the
intermediaries and said the United States had not replied to the
overtures.
The United Nations' main nuclear negotiator, Mohammed ElBaradei,
appeared to confirm he was one of the intermediaries, saying he
met with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani several days
ago and later described to Rice ``the Iranian point of view,
which is rather different from the U.S. point of view.''
ElBaradei is among several diplomats who have said that
U.S.-Iranian talks could defuse the standoff over Tehran's
nuclear program.
The Washington Post also reported this week that Iran was using
back channels to seek direct talks with the United States over
its nuclear program, quoting unidentified U.S. officials and
diplomats.
The faltering diplomacy underlines the delicacy of attempts to
overcome 27 years of estrangement since the seizure of the U.S.
Embassy after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The only publicly acknowledged discussions between the two
countries came in early 2003, among lower-level officials in
preparation for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Both nations also
have sat together in some regional diplomatic groups, including
talks after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.
Tehran has long publicly rejected one-on-one talks with the
nation it calls the ``Great Satan.'' Yet its initial acceptance
of an Iraq meeting and its backdoor efforts to seek talks show
it sees a benefit in sitting down with the United States.
Iran wants to maintain its influence with majority Shiite
Muslims in Iraq and is desperate to avoid possible U.N. Security
Council sanctions over its nuclear program.
The five permanent Security Council members and Germany met in
London on Wednesday to examine possible incentives to persuade
Iran to drop its uranium enrichment program. Tehran claims its
nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, but the United
States and its allies fear it is a cover for developing weapons.
``Nobody in the government opposes the talks, but the problem is
that they cannot convince ordinary people overnight - since
during the past 27 years Iran's government openly opposed any
contact with the United States,'' said Mostafa Mirzaian, an
independent political researcher based in Tehran.
In March, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had to come out
and publicly state his approval for the proposed Iraq meetings
after some hard-liners sharply criticized the idea.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: U-turn by White House as it blocks direct talks
with Iran
Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Thursday May 25, 2006
The Guardian
The White House yesterday ruled out previously authorised direct
talks between Tehran and the US ambassador in Baghdad, which
were to have focused on the situation in Iraq. The move marks a
hardening of the Bush administration's position, despite
pressure from the international community to enter into direct
dialogue with Iran.
A White House official said that although the US envoy had
originally been granted a mandate for talks with Iran, "we have
decided not to pursue it."
Western diplomats hoped that talks on Iraq could have widened
into a discussion of Iran's alleged nuclear arms programme. Iran
has been asking in recent weeks for direct talks with Washington
on the nuclear issue and the Bush administration had come under
pressure from Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general,
and countries such as Germany to hold direct talks.
Washington's decision not to pursue the talks with Iran on Iraq,
which would have been conducted by the American ambassador,
Zalmay Khalilzad, came as the US, Britain, France, Germany,
Russia and China concluded a meeting in London last night to
discuss a new offer to Iran. The Foreign Office reported
progress on agreeing on a combination of sticks and carrots to
try to entice Iran into suspending its uranium-enrichment
programme, which is seen by the west as a step towards achieving
a nuclear weapons capability.
The progress at the meeting contrasted with a bad-tempered
discussion on May 8 between the foreign ministers of the six
countries in New York.
The decision not to pursue direct talks has exposed rifts in the
Bush administration on how to deal with Iran. Mr Khalilzad had
told reporters on Sunday that the formation of the Iraqi
government had cleared the way for direct negotiations with
Iranian officials. "We have a lot of issues to discuss with them
with regard to our concerns and what we envision for Iraq and
are prepared to listen to their concerns," he told the
Associated Press.
However, Frederick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman,
said yesterday there were no longer any plans for talks. "We
will assess the situation and see when talks with the Iranians
about the situation in Iraq might be useful," he said, noting
that the US had talked to Iran about Afghanistan and
drug-trafficking. "If it makes sense in Iraq, we'll do it. But
we'll assess it based on what makes sense."
The US has had no formal contact with the Iranian government
since students in Tehran took 52 Americans hostage in 1979.
The tough White House line appeared to take Mr Khalilzad's
office by surprise. A US official in Baghdad said senior
administration officials, including the secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice, had previously said that Mr Khalilzad's talks
with the Iranians could proceed once a government in Baghdad was
sworn in.
There were also reports of rifts on how to respond to President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George Bush. The Washington Post
reported that some intelligence analysts saw the letter as an
important diplomatic opening and US government experts had
"exerted mounting pressure" on the White House to respond.
However, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, ruled out any
such response yesterday. "Iran, in responding to pressure, is
trying to change the subject and we won't let them change the
subject," he said. He said the precondition for bilateral talks
would be that Iran cease enriching uranium and did "nothing to
build up its capacity to make nuclear weapons".
In the London meeting, senior officials discussed the detail of
an offer to construct a light-water nuclear reactor for Iran,
which is seen as less of a threat than its uranium-enrichment
programme. But the package also includes a threat to punish Iran
with sanctions if it refuses to suspend uranium-enrichment.
These sanctions would include a ban on arms sales, no transfer
of nuclear technology, no visas for Iranian leaders and
officials, and freezing their assets.
There would also be an embargo on shipping refined oil products
to Iran. Although Iran is a leading producer of crude oil, it is
short of petrol and other oil derivatives.
Western diplomats are braced for rejection by the Iranians. The
US, Britain and France would then return to the UN security
council to table a resolution setting a deadline for Iran to
suspend its uranium enrichment programme or face sanctions.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 AFP: Afghan leader to travel to Iran, ready to mediate in nuclear standoff -
Thu May 25, 4:15 AM ET
KABUL (AFP) - President Hamid Karzai will travel to Iran" />
Iranthis weekend for an official visit, with Afghanistan" />
Afghanistanoffering to mediate in an growing row over Tehran's
nuclear programme, the president's office said.
Karzai will leave on Saturday with a delegation including
several cabinet ministers, an official in his office said,
rejecting reports from Tehran that he was expected Thursday.
"The main purpose of the visit is to discuss bilateral
relations, matters of mutual interest, regional issues and
expansion of financial relations," said another official,
presidential spokesman Karim Rahimi.
Rahimi said Kabul was ready to mediate in the dispute between
the United States and Iran.
"Afghanistan can play a very positive role in reduction of
tensions between the two countries since Afghanistan has had
best relations with Iran especially in the past four years," he
said on Thursday.
It "also has very good relations with the United States," he
said.
"It is also an important point that both Iran and the United
States have a common view towards Afghanistan which is
supporting the peace and reconstruction process, both have
helped Afghanistan," he said.
Afghanistan has good ties with Iran, which took in around two
million Afghan refugees during the country's 25 years of war,
and has said it wants to deepen this relationship.
The country also has a close relationship with the United
States, which is spearheading an international campaign against
Iran because of its nuclear programme.
There are about 22,000 US troops in Afghanistan, helping to
battle a mounting insurgency launched by the Taliban after it
was removed from government in a US-led campaign in 2001.
The United States is also the main funder of Afghanistan's
efforts to rebuild its war-shattered infrastructure.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
10 Independent: Progress claimed in bid to halt Iran's nuclear project
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 25 May 2006
The big powers reported some progress yesterday in the struggle
to agree a package that would reward Iran for halting uranium
enrichment by supplying Tehran with a "safe" nuclear reactor,
and other incentives, while warning of sanctions if it does not.
The meeting in London of senior officials of the US, Britain,
France, Germany, Russia and China, who are revisiting a package
offered last year to Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions, came as
the Israeli Prime Minister warned in a speech in Washington to
the US Congress that Iran's nuclear programme represented an
"existential threat" to Israel "to which we cannot consent".
"But it is not Israel's threat alone," said Ehud Olmert. "It is
a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East
and the well-being of the world at large.
"This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one
the West cannot afford to fail. History will judge our
generation by the actions we take now."
John Chipman, the director general of the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, based in London, predicted that
having rejected the last European offer, "Iran is not likely to
be any more swayed this time".
But he argued that would strengthen the hand of the US and the
three European countries in their attempts to persuade Russia
and China of the need for further measures at the UN. Russia and
China, which hold veto power at the Security Council along with
Britain, France and the US, are adamant that sanctions should
not be invoked.
The Foreign Office said the talks had been "constructive and
valuable" and the officials had been "encouraged".
Iranian scientists announced last month they had enriched
uranium to a sufficient level to power a nuclear reactor. The US
and Europe fear Iran is building a nuclear weapon. The
International Institute for Strategic Studies has said it would
take Iran until 2010 to produce enough enriched uranium for a
weapon.
* Stone-throwing Iranian students fought police and Islamic
vigilantes yesterday in protest against restrictions imposed by
the government.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
11 IRNA: China calls for solving Iran's nuclear issue peacefully
Beijing, May 25, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear-China
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao here Thursday
said that China's approach to Iran's nuclear issue is not based
on its own interests and that it is rather seeking a peaceful
solution to it.
Speaking to reporters in his weekly briefing, he said that the
meeting of representatives of the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council along with Germany (5+1 Group)
can help the issue be solved peacefully.
Jianchao said that no report has yet been released on the
outcome of the London meeting, adding that rather Iran's nuclear
issue has been examined from various dimensions.
The 5+1 group met in London on Wednesday to examine the package
of incentives to be offered to Iran.
In response to a question asking his view about the reference
of a German official to China as the major obstacle to solving
Iran's nuclear issue, Jianchao said that he does not know
whether this is the official approach of the German government.
Then he almost ruled out such a possibility and said that such
a remark is unacceptable to China.
The Chinese official noted that his country supports the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and assured that China's
approach is quite firm.
"China is not concerned about its own private interests in
Iran's nuclear case and it supports the idea of solving it
through peaceful ways.
"Along with other countries, China is seeking a peaceful
solution to the issue. Meanwhile, the parties involved in the
case are doing their best to solve it through dialogue," he
added.
Jianchao said that this is why bringing up the remark of the
German official on the issue at this point does not help solve
the matter.
*****************************************************************
12 AFP: Blair: we don't want conflict with Iran, we're too busy
Thu May 25, 1:55 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> said he did not want
to start a conflict with Iran" /> as Britain's armed forces
already had enough problems to handle, in interview released by
his office.
But if Iran deliberately breached its obligations on its
nuclear programme, then the international community would have
to take action through the United Nations" /> , Blair warned.
However, the stand-off could be easily resolved if Iran played
by the rules, Blair told the Arab satellite television channel
Al-Jazeera on Wednesday.
He also said that the continuing violence in Iraq" /> was not
the fault of the multinational forces in the war-shattered
country. Britain has 7,200 troops in Iraq and 3,000 in
Afghanistan" /> .
"Nobody is targeting Iran," Blair said.
"People are simply worried because they appear to be in breach
of their nuclear obligations and because they are supporting
terrorism around the Middle East.
"We don't want a conflict with Iran, we have got enough on our
plate doing other things. But if Iran goes out of its way then
to breach its international obligations, of course the
international community through the UN Security Council has got
to take up the issue.
"But it could so easily be resolved if people just understood
that here are the rules and we should all play by them."
Blair continued: "I think Iran continually makes this mistake.
It thinks that America and its allies are out to get Iran.
"We are not, we just want them to stop supporting terrorism and
to stop meddling in the affairs of a country (Iraq) that is now
governed under a UN process and with a multinational force that
is there with UN support."
He said the most important thing was to have "a unified
international position" on Iran.
Blair was to arrive in Washington on Thursday for talks with US
President George W. Bush" /> where Iran and Iraq were to figure
high on the agenda.
On the continuing violence in Iraq, Blair said: "Sorry, but it
is not our fault, it is the fault of the people doing it.
"How can we be so certain of this? Because there is now a
democratic process, which has resulted in a democratically
elected government. That government is representative of all
communities in Iraq.
"So there is no excuse for anybody to carry on with violence, or
terrorism, or these barbaric executions of innocent people."
He said that British troops deployed in Iraq would be withdrawn
as soon as possible.
"The best thing for Britain,... the best thing for me would be
to say Iraq is now a stable democratic country, the
multinational force leaves.
"That is what I want, that is what Iraqis want, so why can't we
work together and let them have it?"
He added: "What is happening in Iraq politically is amazing.
"Iraq could be a successful prosperous country."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
13 IRNA: IAEA Chief, inspectors, confirm Iran's abiding by int'l laws - envoy -
Baku, May 25, IRNA
Iran-Azerbaijan-Ambassador
IRI Ambassador to Baku said here on Wednesday at a press
conference that the IAEA Chief Muhammad ElBaradei, as well as
that agency's inspectors, confirmed in their latest visits of
Iran that Tehran has not breached any of the related nuclear
international laws, including NPT articles.
Ambassador Afshar Soleymani who elaborated on Iran's internal
and international policies during the conference, including
Tehran-Baku ties, added, "Iran would continue its activities
aimed at producing the required fuel for its nuclear reactors,
and according to the articles of NPT the signatory parties of
that treaty,
international organizations, and IAEA are obliged to assist
Iran in that respect.
He considered the US and certain other Western countries'
campaign aimed at depriving Iran of that "absolute right" as "a
move in broad violation of the international laws", arguing,
"such moves lead to the weakening of the international bodies."
Soleimani condemned the political pressures imposed against
Tehran in that respect, referred to many countries' support for
Iran's righteous stands, adding, "Tehran is fully prepared for
solving all remaining ambiguities in that respect, and assuring
the nternational community about the peaceful nature of its
nuclear activities within the framework of the international
rules and regulations."
Referring to IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's historic
letter to the US President George W. Bush, he said, "In
confrontation with the logical tone of that letter the Americans
have preferred to observe silence."
Expressing satisfaction over the good level of Tehran-Baku
relations, he said, "President Ahmadinejad's recent state visit
of Baku to take part at ECO regional conference and his talks
with President Ilham Aliyev was very helpful in further
improvement of comprehensive bilateral ties.
In response to some reporters' questions related to recent
unrest in Azeri parts of the country following the publications
of cartoon in 'Iran' Persian daily, he said, "The required legal
moves have been made against that illogical violation of press
law." The Iranian envoy referred to the massive rally launched
in Tabriz and smaller demonstrations in other Iranian cities,
arguing, "There are no legal limits for launching such rallies
in Iran, and yet some agents of foreign powers were after taking
illegitimate advantage of the peoples righteous feelings."
*****************************************************************
14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Speaker: Scientific progress, a must
2006/05/25
Tehran, May 25 - Majlis Speaker, Golamali Haded-Adel said
Wednesday no country in the world can survive without mastering
science and technology.
In a meeting with the members of Islamic Society of Univerisity
Students and Professors, the Speaker added the role of science
in the life of mankind has dramatically changed and now it works
as a tool for power, progress and competition in the
international arena.
Haddad-Adel said the Islamic Revolution should make up for
scientific backwardness of the country and that scientific
progress is considered as a must for the revolution.
The Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis)
called for serious attention to scientific progress and linked
it to the country's fate.
He praised Iran's technological achievements in recent years
but said there is a long way ahead to reach the desired point.
Iran's scientific advances have caught the world's eye more
than anything else about the Islamic Republic, he concluded.
KH
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
15 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA confirm Iran's abiding
2006/05/25
Baku, May 25 - IRI Ambassador to Baku said on Wednesday at a
press conference that the IAEA Chief Muhammad ElBaradei, as well
as that agency's inspectors, confirmed in their latest visits of
Iran that Tehran has not breached the related nuclear interna
tional laws, including NPT articles.
Ambassador Afshar Soleymani who elaborated on Iran's internal
and international policies during the conference, including
Tehran-Baku ties, added, "Iran would continue its activities
aimed at producing the required fuel for its nuclear reactors,
and acco rding to the articles of NPT the signatory parties,
international organizations, and IAEA are obliged to assist Iran
in that respect.
Soleimani condemned the political pressures imposed against
Tehran in that respect, and referred to many countries' support
for Iran's rightful stands, adding, "Tehran is fully prepared
for solving all remaining ambiguities in that respect, and
assuring the international community about the peaceful nature
of its nuclear activities within the framework of the
international rules and regulations."
Expressing satisfaction over the good level of Tehran-Baku
relations, he said, "President Ahmadinejad's recent state visit
of Baku to take part at ECO regional conference and his talks
with President Ilham Aliyev was very helpful in further
improvement o f comprehensive bilateral ties.
In response to some reporters' questions related to recent
unrest in Azeri parts of the country following the publications
of cartoon in 'Iran' Persian daily, he said, "The required legal
moves have been made against that illogical violation of press
law ."
The Iranian envoy referred to the massive rally launched in
Tabriz and smaller demonstrations in other Iranian cities,
arguing, "There are no legal limits for launching such rallies
in Iran, and yet some agents of foreign powers were after taking
illegit imate advantage of the peoples righteous feelings."
mk
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
16 IRNA: Libyan FM calls for peaceful settlement of Iran's N-case
Algiers, May 24, IRNA
Libya-Iran-Nuclear Dossier
Libyan Foreign Minister Abdul-Rahman Shalgam in a meeting with
Iran's Ambassador to Tripoli Jaber Ansari emphasized the
necessity of peaceful settlement of Iran's nuclear dossier.
According to the report of Iran's embassy to Libya on
Wednesday, the Libyan foreign minister criticized West's dual
behavior towards Iran's nuclear dossier and emphasized the
necessity of settling the dossier through negotiations and upon
international law and in the framework of International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).
Shalgam added the way that the Western countries are facing
Iran's nuclear dossier is wrong, because Iran has achieved
scientific progress in this field and is not after atomic weapon
but rather it has kept its doors open to the IAEA inspectors.
He said Arab and Islamic world public opinion considers such
behavior as opposition to the Islamic countries' development and
progress.
In the meeting, the latest situation in mutual ties were
discussed and both sides stressed the importance of expansion of
bilateral relations in all areas especially in the economic
field.
*****************************************************************
17 IRNA: Western diplomats: EU3 to propose peaceful solution to Iran -
Vienna, May 24, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear-Meeting
Vienna-based Western diplomats say that EU representatives have
reached agreement on a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear issue.
The meeting on Iran's nuclear case and the relevant proposal,
which opened at the British Foreign Ministry building about an
hour ago, is attended by the representatives of three EU
members, including Britain, France and Germany, as well as
China, Russia and the US.
It is said that at the meeting, some details of the proposal on
Iran's nuclear issue will be discussed and efforts will be made
by the attending parties to bring their views closer to one
another.
The diplomats believe that Europe's proposed plan to Iran will
not include threat of violence against Iran or military attack
on it.
They added that at the meeting, efforts will be made to attract
the confidence of China and Russia in this regard.
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has also called
on the participants of the meeting to propose an initiative that
will facilitate the talks on the issue.
2326/2322/1412
*****************************************************************
18 Guardian Unlimited: Seoul Puzzled by North's Train Move
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday May 25, 2006 12:31 PM
AP Photo SEL107
By JAE-SOON CHANG
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea on Thursday told North
Korea its last-minute decision to cancel test runs of trains
across the heavily armed inter-Korean border was inexplicable.
``Nothing can explain the North's attitude of delaying the event
just a day before,'' the South said in a message sent to the
North.
The test runs had been scheduled for Thursday and would have
been the first time trains had crossed between the Koreas since
1951.
The North called off the tests Wednesday, citing the lack of a
military agreement between the two sides and an alleged unstable
political situation in the South.
A military protocol is necessary to guarantee the safety of
travelers who pass through the Demilitarized Zone to cross the
border. The zone is subject to an armistice agreement signed by
militaries at the end of the Korean War.
The two sides held high-level military talks last week, but
failed to reach an agreement because the North refused to
discuss the military protocol issue, demanding that the meeting
focus on redrawing their maritime border off the west coast.
``Responsibility for the lack of a military guarantee lies fully
with the North,'' the South said in the message, according to
the Unification Ministry, which is in charge of relations with
the communist nation.
``In addition, it is also not understandable that the North
delayed the train test runs citing our internal situation. We
express deep concern and regret about the North's attitude,'' it
said, urging the North to agree to the test runs.
Separately, North Korea agreed Thursday to a new round of
economic talks with South Korea, but declined to set a date for
the negotiations, the South's Unification Ministry said.
The South had proposed earlier this week that the talks be held
in early June on the southern island of Jeju. The North agreed
to the meeting in a message sent to Seoul but said it wants it
held at a later unspecified date, said Unification Ministry
spokeswoman Yang Jeong-hwa.
Two cross-border railways - one of them running on the western
part of the peninsula and the other in the east - have been all
but restored, but the North has delayed their formal opening
without a clear reason amid continuing tensions with the United
States over its nuclear program.
South Korean media speculated the impoverished country may be
seeking economic aid or other concessions in return for an
agreement on the railway trial, and that Pyongyang may be trying
to press the South over the disputed sea border.
North Korea doesn't recognize the current border, drawn by the
United Nations at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, and claims
it should be further south.
The Hankook Ilbo newspaper reported Thursday that the South may
delay providing construction material and fertilizer shipments
to the North in an attempt to pressure Pyongyang to agree to the
test runs.
The two Koreas have made large strides toward reconciliation
since their leaders met for the first time in 2000, though the
sides technically remain in a state of conflict because the
Korean War ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.
Every day, some 500 people travel from the South to Kaesong, a
joint industrial park just north of the border, and about 1,000
South Koreans daily visit North Korea's Diamond Mountain resort
by using two roads running parallel to the railways.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
19 Xinhua: US negotiator confirmed to meet Chinese vice FM on nuke talks
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-25 09:48:07
BEIJING, May 25 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State Christopher Hill is confirmed to meet with Chinese Vice
Foreign Minister Wu Dawei here on Thursday, Fen Rong from the US
Embassy in China told Xinhua.
Hill, also the U.S. chief negotiator for the six-party talks
on the Korean nuclear issue, will talk with his Chinese
counterpart on promoting the six-party talks, said FM spokesman
Liu Jianchao at the regular press conference on Tuesday.
Hill, who arrived in Beijing on Wednesday night, will stay
in Beijing for only one day and leave on Thursday.
He is reported to have said the United States will not give
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) any incentives
to persuade it back to the talks in Kuala Lumpur before
departing for China.
The six-party talks, composing China, the DPRK, the United
Sates, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan, has been in a
stalemate since the first phase of the fifth round of talks that
ended in November last year.
A Chairman's Statement was issued at the end of the first
phase talks, in which parties concerned agreed to resume the
talks as soon as possible. Enditem
Editor: Mu Xuequan
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
20 Xinhua: US chief negotiator indicates no new progress on six-party
talks
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-25 17:48:21
BEIJING, May 25 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State Christopher Hill left Beijing for Seoul on Thursday
afternoon without much progress on resuming six-party talks.
Hill told reporters when leaving hotel for airport that he
and Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Wu Dawei reaffirmed interests
for the both sides in the six-party talks.
They also discussed where the talks need to go and how to
implement the September agreement once the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) comes back to the talks, according to
Hill.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said the
talks between Wu and Hill lasted about four hours and the two
sides exchanged profound views on the issues of common concern,
especially the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.
"But very unfortunately, I don't have anything new on that,
and it's very much the way I left Tokyo six weeks ago", Hill
told reporters in the hotel when he was departing to Seoul,
capital of the Republic of Korea (ROK).
However, Hill stressed that the United States remains very
much committed to the six-party talks mechanism.
Last September, the negotiators from China, the DPRK, the
United Sates, the ROK, Russia and Japan issued the joint
statement at the end of the fourth round of the talks,
establishing a frame for a package solution to the nuclear
issue.
The first phase of the fifth round of talks was held in
Beijing Last November. The talks ended up with a Chairman's
Statement, in which the parties concerned agreed to resume the
talks as soon as possible. Enditem
Editor: Liu Dan
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
21 AFP: US says no compromises on North Korea
Thu May 25, 11:44 AM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - The United States will not offer concessions to
lure North Korea" /> back to the nuclear negotiating table, the
US envoy to six-nation talks on the issue said after meeting
Chinese officials.
US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill insisted North
Korea should stick to an agreement made in the six-party talks
in September last year, and that the United States was not
prepared to back down in any way.
"I don't think the agreement needs to be changed, I don't think
the agreement needs to be sweetened," Hill told journalists
after meeting with his Chinese counterpart in the negotiations,
Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei.
During the September round of the six-nation talks, North Korea
agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for
security, diplomatic and energy aid guarantees.
But it pulled out of the talks in November after the United
States placed financial sanctions on Pyongyang over alleged
money laundering and counterfeiting.
North Korea has said it will not return to the talks unless the
United States lifts the sanctions, but Washington has refused to
budge.
"I think it is time the DPRK understands where their interests
lie and come back to the talks," Hill said, referring to the
reclusive Stalinist state by its official name, the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea.
"We don't have any plans to talk them down from where we are
now. They're going to have to climb out of that position on
their own."
China is the host of the six-nation talks, which began in 2003
in an effort to end North Korea's nuclear program. They bring
together the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia.
Hill met with Vice Foreign Minister Wu on Thursday during a
lightning visit before heading to Seoul to continue talks on the
nuclear issue with South Korean officials.
Hill said China, which has repeatedly urged all parties to the
talks to demonstrate "flexibility", had not tried to persuade
the United States to drop the sanctions during his discussions
on Thursday.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters
that China had been working hard to break the stalemate.
"For the past months, we have been making positive efforts for
the resumption of the talks and break through the impasse," Liu
said.
"We noticed some people in other countries accuse China for not
playing its due role in promoting the six-party talks. We can't
accept such talk."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
22 Boston Globe: Bush OKs companies forgoing disclosures -
Boston.com
Associated Press
President Bush has delegated to the government's intelligence
chief, John Negroponte, the authority to exempt private
companies from certain federal disclosure requirements on
grounds of national security.
May 24, 2006 --> [The Associated Press]
President Bush address an audience at the Limerick Generating
Station in Limerick, Pa.,
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
WASHINGTON --President Bush has delegated to the government's
intelligence chief, John Negroponte, the authority to exempt
private companies from certain federal disclosure requirements
on grounds of national security.
Bush signed an official memorandum to Negroponte on May 5 giving
him the authority to excuse companies with government contracts
for secret projects from having to disclose them in required
periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The memo, published in the Federal Register on May 12, was first
reported Tuesday by BusinessWeek Online.
Administration officials said it was the first time a president
has ever delegated that authority to someone not in his
executive office, according to BusinessWeek. It wasn't clear
whether any U.S. company has received a waiver under the
national-security provision.
"There was no expansion of the authority (to exempt companies),
and nothing specific that led to the memo," White House
spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday in response to questions.
She was referring to the idea that the legal basis for granting
exemptions hadn't changed.
Carl Kropf, a spokesman for Negroponte, said, "The ability to
protect the confidentiality of some of these relationships (with
companies) is important." He declined further comment.
SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment.
BusinessWeek noted the timing of Bush's memo, which came the
same day that Porter Goss resigned as CIA director, ending a
turmoil-filled 18 months as the agency struggled to get its
footing in an era of intelligence blunders and government
overhauls. Six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that
the National Security Agency was trying to analyze the telephone
call records of millions of Americans and that it had obtained
records provided by three major U.S. phone companies.
Negroponte, appointed by Bush last year as the first director of
all U.S. intelligence activities, oversees both the CIA and the
NSA.
------
On the Net:
Office of the Director of National Intelligence:
Securities and Exchange Commission: [ /] © Copyright 2006
Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. More:
*****************************************************************
23 HindustanTimes.com: We can proceed on N-deal: India
Thursday, May 25, 2006|23:21 IST
Saran, Burns review progress on N-deal in US Congress
HS Rao (PTI)
Amid optimism over the passage of the civil nuclear deal by the
US Congress, India on Thursday said "some work" still needed to
be done to ensure that as top officials of the two countries
reviewed progress on it.
During a meeting with US Under Secretary of State Nicholas
Burns, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran handed over a draft of the
proposed bilateral agreement on civil nuclear cooperation,
highlighting New Delhi's commitment to unilateral moratorium on
nuclear testing.
Burns "gave me an account of where it (legislation on the
nuclear agreement) stands (in the US Congress). There is still
work to be done," Saran told reporters after the meeting.
Saran, however, said that the "outlook was positive and
encouraging".
Asked what made him conclude that the outcome was positive, the
Foreign Secretary said it was based on the extensive
interactions the US administration has had with various members
of the Congress and individual Senators.
Saran said Burns informed him that Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was making efforts to see that the deal goes
through the Congress.
"The sum total is that we can move ahead on the nuclear deal,"
he said.
The agreement, signed by the two countries during the visit of
US President George W Bush to New Delhi in March, when passed by
the Congress will end a 32-year-old ban on trade with India in
nuclear technology and material.
To a question, Saran emphasised that it would be better if the
deal is passed by the Congress sooner than later.
Noting that there are always "some uncertainties", Saran said
"general perception is that we are still on track.. On the
balance, the prospect is encouraging."
Asked what needed to be done to get the deal approved by the
Congress, he said as long as the legislation was not not passed,
the work done will remain incomplete.
"We would like this (approval of the legislation by Congress) to
be done soon," the Foreign Secretary said, adding that not not
only New Delhi but Washington too felt the same way.
"Talks are on to get the legislation pased by the US Congress,"
he said, maintaining that the work has also been done on the
issue of separation of Indian military and civilian nuclear
plants as also on export controls.
In the draft of the proposed bilateral agreement on civil
nuclear cooperation, the Indian side expressed its commitment to
the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement wherein it has pointed out
that it had declared unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing
and stood by it.
Pointing out that India had separated its civilian and military
nuclear programmes and outlined it to the US, Saran said India
will not accept any international inspection of its military
facilities as the safeguards agreement to be worked out with
IAEA applied only to the civilian establishments.
Saran said the draft of agreement presented to Burns is in line
with the Separation Plan given to the US in March.
He pointed out that, under the deal, India has given assurances
that any technology or material received by it for civilian
nuclear programme will not be diverted to any other country or
to its military programme.
To a question, he said the Bush Administration feels that there
had been good progress on the deal in the Congress.
The Foreign Secretary underlined that the passage of the
legislation by the Congress was the key step.
*****************************************************************
24 Groups Respond to Bush's Visit to Limerick Nuclear Plant
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:34:30 -0700
b
For Immediate Release:
May 23, 2006
For More Information:
Nathan Willcox, PennEnvironment, 215-732-5897
Eric Epstein, Three Mile Island Alert, 717-541-1101
Joe Mangano, Radiation and Public Health Project, 610-666-2985
Donna Cuthbert, Alliance for a Clean Environment, 610-326-2387
PA Groups Urge Bush to Abandon Support for Nuclear Power
Groups Respond to President¹s Visit to Limerick Plant with Calls for
Cleaner, Safer Energy Plan
Pennsylvania‹A coalition of Pennsylvania groups responded today to
President Bush¹s planned visit to the Limerick nuclear power plant tomorrow
by calling on the Bush administration to abandon its support of nuclear
power, and instead promote a smarter, cleaner energy future.
³Pennsylvania is the birthplace and cemetery for commercial nuclear power
in America. Shippingport went on line in 1954, Three Mile Island melted
down in 1979 and Peach Bottom was the first plant closed in 1987 due to
operator misconduct,² said Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island
Alert, Inc. (tmia.com) a safe energy group based in Harrisburg and founded
in 1977.
³After living in the shadow of nuclear plants like Limerick for decades,
Pennsylvanians know all too well that nuclear power is not the answer to
our energy problems,² said Nathan Willcox, Energy & Clean Air Advocate for
PennEnvironment. ³It¹s time for the Bush administration to stop pushing
more taxpayer handouts for the nuclear industry, and instead start
harnessing innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.²
³It is especially troubling that President Bush would select the Limerick
plant to tout the safety of nuclear power,² said Joseph Mangano MPH MBA,
National Coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project research
group. ³We found that the local rate of childhood cancer in the 1990s was
77% above the state and national rates, and we are concerned that toxic
emissions from Limerick are causing local cancer rates to rise.²
Within 70 miles of the Limerick nuclear power plant, there are 11 operating
nuclear power reactors, creating one of the highest concentrations of
nuclear reactors in the country. The groups expressed their opposition to
any new nuclear power plants because they are expensive, dangerous and
generate highly radioactive waste. A Department of Energy study found that
75 U.S. nuclear power plants experienced construction cost overruns
totaling $100 billion. The Energy Information Administration estimates that
it will take at least nine years to build a new nuclear power plant.
Mr. Epstein observed, ³Nuclear power has become the Bush Administration's
poster child for corporate socialism and Pennsylvania is the most expensive
ward. PECO rate payers are paying for Limerick¹s $5 billion construction
cost overruns and are subject to the highest electric rates in
Pennsylvania.² Mr. Epstein added, ³Exelon has argued that Limerick, which
cost $6.8 billion to build, has a tax value of less than zero.²
While states‹including Pennsylvania‹have led the way in promoting renewable
energy like wind and solar, Congress and the Bush administration have
continued to funnel subsidies to the oil, coal, and nuclear industries. An
analysis of the energy bill signed by the President last summer shows that
the oil and gas industry would receive at least $4 billion in new
subsidies, while the nuclear industry would get at least $12 billion. There
were no provisions in the bill to increase gas mileage standards for cars
and trucks, or to guarantee an increase in renewable energy generation.
³Instead of pouring more taxpayer dollars into expensive and dangerous
nuclear power plants that won¹t come online for a decade, the Bush
administration should be supporting common-sense solutions‹like energy
efficiency and increased gas mileage standards‹that can help solve our
energy problems today,² concluded PennEnvironment¹s Willcox.
--
Please note our new address!
*****************************
Nathan Willcox
Energy & Clean Air Advocate
PennEnvironment
1420 Walnut Street, Suite 650
Philadelphia, PA 19102
P: (215) 732-5897 F: (215) 732-4599
nwillcox@PennEnvironment.org
****************************
*****************************************************************
25 No-fly zones at Disneyworld but not at nuclear power plants
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:34:40 -0700
APP.COM - s Source
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
No-fly zone at nuclear plant?
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/16/06
BY JOSEPH PICARD
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
TOMS RIVER ‹ Why does Disney World rate a no-fly zone, while the nuclear
plant at Oyster Creek does not?
That's the question Ed Frydendahl, a Manchester resident, asked the Ocean
County Board of Freeholders.
"What's to stop a terrorist from packing explosives into a small plane at
Miller Airpark, taking off and flying the plane right into the power
plant?" Frydendahl said at a freeholder meeting earlier this month. "That
would mean a catastrophic disaster. We need a no-fly zone over that plant."
Frydendahl said his concern focused on smaller planes that can pass within
several thousand feet of the plant, not large commercial aircraft flying
several miles high.
The freeholders told Frydendahl that they would look into why air traffic
is allowed to fly over the plant, located just off Route 9 in Lacey.
"The county has been making inquiries," said David McKeon, the county's
assistant planning director. "We have contacted state and federal agencies.
We have yet to receive a formal response."
He added that county officials are aware that a flight "advisory"
concerning nuclear power plants is in effect.
"The advisory discourages private aircraft and general aviation from
circling or loitering above such facilities," said Jim Peters, spokesman
for the Federal Aviation Administration. It's a nationwide precaution
applying to private planes, and protects all nuclear power plants,
electrical generation plants, coal-fired power plants and natural gas
pipelines.
"But the county wants to know why there isn't a stronger flight restriction
in place, if one can be established and, if so, what the process would be
to establish one over Oyster Creek," McKeon said.
Onus is on pilots
Flight advisories are relayed to pilots when they call for a weather brief
before takeoff, Peters said.
"Not all pilots call in for a weather brief," he said, "but ignorance of
the advisory is no excuse. The onus is on the pilot to know the rules."
A pilot who disregards the advisory could find U.S. military jets
confronting him and the private pilot would be held responsible for the
outcome of such an encounter, Peters said.
"There is not a flight restriction over Oyster Creek or any other nuclear
power plant because the government does not consider such a restriction
necessary," he added.
Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the FAA imposed a
temporary flight restriction, or no-fly zone, of 10 nautical miles and
below 18,000 feet over 86 of the nation's 103 nuclear power plants. Since
the government never publicly revealed which plants were covered, it has
never been ascertained whether Oyster Creek was.
Chris Dancy, spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, said
his organization agrees with the FAA that the current advisory is
sufficient protection for nuclear plants.
"There is strong evidence, attained through several independent studies,
that an aircraft, whether a small plane loaded with explosives or a large
commercial airline, is incapable of causing enough damage to a nuclear
plant to cause a catastrophic release of radiation," he said.
Dancy explained that tests have shown that an aircraft cannot crack the
thick containment wall that protects the reactor.
The fuel rod pool
But as Frydendahl and other critics of Oyster Creek have pointed out, the
contained reactor is not their main concern.
Oyster Creek's spent fuel rods sit in a pool outside the plant's
containment system. The pool holds about 375 tons of highly radioactive
rods and is 100 feet above ground, next to the reactor in a reinforced
concrete building covered by a metal roof.
The fear is that a terrorist in a plane could strike the fuel rods pool and
release radiation.
"The National Academy of Sciences dis-agrees with the pro-nuclear think
tanks," said Peg Sturmfels, a Jackson resident and member of the New Jersey
Environmental Federation. "The NAS has published a report saying they are
greatly concerned about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to terrorist
attacks."
The NAS report, published in April 2005, stated that "an attack which
partially or completely drains a plant's spent fuel pool might be capable
of starting a high-temperature fire that could release large quantities of
radioactive material into the environment."
State Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, whose constituency includes
Lacey, said the status quo is insufficient.
"We need a stronger restriction on flying over the power plant than the
current pilots advisory," said Connors.
Rep. H. James Saxton, R-N.J., whose constituency also includes parts of
Ocean County, said that he also is pushing for more security.
"I have encouraged the FAA, the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Defense and the Transportation Security Administration to
take whatever precautions they reasonably require to protect our nuclear
plants," Saxton said in a prepared statement.
Drawback for zones
Saxton's spokesman, however, added that one of the reasons it is not wise
to place flight restrictions over nuclear power plants is because
establishing such no-flight zones would require publishing the exact
coordinates of each of the nation's nuclear plants.
"Every pilot, and any member of the general public, would know the exact
location of every plant," said Jeff Sagnip Hollendonner, Saxton's
spokesman. "A pilot with ill intent would also have this information."
Disney World in Florida does have a fly-over restriction, established by an
act of Congress in March 2003. Dancy said Disney had been trying to get
such protection since before 9/11, fearing crashes from small planes that
drag advertisements.
"After 9/11, Disney was able to get enough backing for the restriction," he
said.
Joseph Picard: (732) 557-5738 or jpicard@app.com
E-mail E-mail article Printer Print article Subscription Subscribe
Newsletters Get e-mail alerts
(PRESS FILE PHOTO)
The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant could be a terrorists' target, plant
critics argue.
RELATED ARTICLES
€ Oyster Creek could restart this week, officials say
May 9, 2006
€ Operations halted at Oyster Creek
May 8, 2006
€ AmerGen: Oyster Creek test plans suffice
April 28, 2006
€ Weeklong inspection at Lacey reactor
April 25, 2006
€ Cracks in Oyster Creek wall questioned
April 16, 2006
€ $35,000 fine for fish kill at Oyster Creek
April 14, 2006
€ AmerGen to watch drywell closely
April 8, 2006
€ Reactor cooling towers' cost called prohibitive
March 29, 2006
€ Hearing to address safety issues at Oyster Creek sought
March 29, 2006
€ "Tooth Fairy Project" follow-up links radiation, childhood cancer
March 29, 2006
€ Ruling due on reactor hearing
March 28, 2006
€ BPU president: Relicensing of reactor "a safety issue"
March 28, 2006
€ Nuclear plants to reassess limits on tainted releases
March 23, 2006
€ NRC will focus on radiation-barrier rust
February 28, 2006
€ Towns train staff for disaster duties
February 23, 2006
€ Radioactive leaks in Ill. spur Lacey water tests
February 17, 2006
€ Oyster Creek: Vessel won't collapse
February 11, 2006
€ Corrosion concerns Oyster Creek's critics
February 10, 2006
€ Few dozen fish killed in reactor shutdown
January 31, 2006
€ Oyster Creek nuclear plant temporarily shut down for repairs
January 30, 2006
€ Reactor shutdown planned
January 28, 2006
€ Exelon: Oyster Creek plant not for sale
January 26, 2006
€ Agency to inspect Oyster Creek plant
January 12, 2006
€ Radiation barrier will get a checkup
December 20, 2005
€ NRC rebuffs N.J. stand on Oyster Creek
December 15, 2005
Related news from the Web
Latest headlines by topic:
€ Transportation
€ Flying
€ Life
€ Hobbies
Powered by Topix.net
Related news from the Web
Latest headlines by topic:
€ Transportation
€ Flying
€ Life
€ Hobbies
Powered by Topix.net
Advertisement
Partners: Jobs: CareerBuilder.com € Cars: Cars.com € Apartments:
Apartments.com € Shopping: ShopLocal.com
Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and
Privacy Policy. (Updated June 7, 2005) Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press.
All rights reserved.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and
Privacy Policy. (Updated June 7, 2005)
Site design by Asbury Park Press / Contact us
USA Today € USA Weekend € Gannett Co. Inc. € Gannett Foundation
JERSEY SHORE NUCLEAR WATCH
P.O. Box 3085
Toms River, NJ 08756-3085
732-240-5107 www.jerseyshorenuclearwatch.org
gbur1@comcast.net
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "JerseyShoreNuclearWatch
" on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
* JerseyShoreNuclearWatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.
Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\Rockwall at TMI"
*****************************************************************
26 SABCnews.com: Hendricks also says Koeberg 'bolt' was no accident
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2000 - 2005 SABC
[Lindiwe Hendricks, the minerals and energy affairs minister]
The bolt found in the generator at the Koeberg nuclear power
station was no accident says Hendricks
May 25, 2006, 20:15
The bolt found in the generator at the Western Cape's Koeberg
nuclear power station did not get there by accident, Lindiwe
Hendricks, the minerals and energy affairs minister, told
Parliament today.
Responding in the National Assembly at the end of the debate on
her department's budget vote, she said this was what had
prompted an investigation into the matter. "With regard to
Koeberg ... it is a fact that a foreign object was found in the
generator. It is a fact it was not by accident, that is why an
investigation was started."
No pronouncements would be made on the outcome of the
investigation until the "correct authority" that was conducting
the investigation presented its report, Hendricks told the House.
Hendricks’s comments on the investigation follow similar
statements by Alec Erwin, the public enterprises minister, last
month, when he told a media briefing at Koeberg: "This is not on
the face of it, given what we now know, some accident that
happened by chance." - Sapa
*****************************************************************
27 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pitches Plan to Expand Nuclear Power
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday May 25, 2006 4:16 AM
AP Photo PAPM106
By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
LIMERICK, Pa. (AP) - Calling nuclear power an overregulated
industry that needs a jump-start from Washington, President Bush
on Wednesday pitched his plan to expand nuclear power generation
by dealing with radioactive waste, lessening regulations and
reviving nuclear fuel processing.
The backdrop for the president's effort was the Limerick
Generating Station, a nuclear plant operated by Excelon Corp.
about 40 miles from Philadelphia. Bush donned a white hard hat
for a brief tour, then spoke to employees in a sweltering tent
set up in the shadow of the plant's two enormous cooling towers.
Bush argued that nuclear power is abundant, affordable, safe and
clean.
``For the sake of economic security and national security, the
United States of America must aggressively move forward with the
construction of nuclear power plants,'' Bush said. ``Other
countries are.''
Some environmentalists have abandoned their opposition to
nuclear power, arguing it is needed to address climate change
because reactors do not produce ``greenhouse'' gases as do
fossil fuels. Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing
worries about reactor waste and safety.
``The debate needs to fully address such vital issues as the
exorbitant cost of building new nuclear facilities, the
potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the
disposal of radioactive wastes,'' said Thomas B. Cochran,
director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's nuclear
program.
Bush's quick visit to the Philadelphia area was also aimed at
helping vulnerable Republicans seeking re-election this fall -
though not all of the state's high-profle GOP candidates took
advantage of the presidential appearance.
At a $1,000-a-ticket reception at a downtown hotel, Bush raised
money for GOP Reps. Jim Gerlach and Mike Fitzpatrick, prime
Democratic targets who represent suburban districts narrowly won
by John Kerry in 2004.
But other Republicans facing re-election did not appear
alongside Bush. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, in one of the
nation's toughest re-election fights, needed to cast votes in
the Senate, according to his campaign. Likewise, GOP Rep. Curt
Weldon, who represents another Philadelphia suburb that
Democrats are eyeing, remained in Washington to work.
Bush's polling in Pennsylvania matches his nationally, where it
has dipped to record lows in the low-30s.
Weldon press secretary John Tomaszewski said the lawmaker wasn't
invited and had votes all day in the House. Asked if Weldon was
distancing himself from the president, Tomaszewski said
``absolutely not - that's ridiculous.''
Limerick is the second nuclear power plant Bush has seen in less
than a year. He is the first president to visit a nuclear power
plant since former President Carter went to Pennsylvania's Three
Mile Island nuclear plant after it partially melted down in
1979, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Bush touted a range of ways he wants to make America less
dependent on hydrocarbons, including promoting ethanol-,
hydrogen- and battery-powered cars, clean-coal technology, wind
and solar power and liquefied natural gas.
``If we haven't done something about our energy situation, we're
not going to be able to compete in the world,'' the president
said.
There are 100 nuclear power plants scattered across 31 U.S.
states, but has an order has not been placed for a new reactor
since 1973. A broad energy bill Bush signed last summer provides
incentives for building again, and Bush said interest is up
eight-fold.
The public is evenly divided on the question of building more
nuclear plants, recent polling has found.
The administration also wants Congress to approve $250 million -
a small downpayment - to accelerate a decade-long research
program into reprocessing nuclear fuel, which advocates say
would pose much less risk and reduce the amount of reactor waste
that eventually would have to be buried. The House voted
Wednesday night to scale back the amount of money appropriated
for the research program to $130 million.
The United States abandoned nuclear fuel reprocessing in the
1970s because of proliferation concerns.
``Nuclear power helps us protect the environment and nuclear
power is safe,'' the president said.
^---
Associated Press Writer Kimberly Hefling contributed to this
story from Washington.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: NRC Approves Final Rule to Relieve Certain Individuals from Energy Act Requirements on
Fingerprinting, Criminal History Checks
News Release - 2006-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-071 May 25, 2006
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission today approved a final
rule, immediately effective, to relieve certain individuals who
have been approved by the Commission for access to Safeguards
Information (SGI) from the fingerprinting and criminal history
checks required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The regulatory
relief, authorized by the Atomic Energy Act, is necessary for
the NRC to continue to share SGI with certain categories of
international and domestic government representatives. The
Commission plans to revise and republish a proposed SGI rule
that may more fully address fingerprinting and criminal history
checks; however, the revision has taken longer than expected and
immediate relief from these checks for certain individuals is
necessary.
SGI is a form of sensitive, unclassified information related to
the security of nuclear facilities and materials. The NRC has
the authority to designate and protect SGI.
Individuals covered by this final rule include federal, state
and local officials involved in security planning and incident
response, certain Agreement State employees, and members of
Congress who request access to SGI as part of their oversight
function. Interrupting access to this information, pending the
Commissions completion of the overall revision of the SGI rule,
would impair the NRCs day-to-day implementation of its
regulatory programs and hamper communications should an imminent
security threat or other emergency occur. The final rule will
also allow the Commission to continue sharing SGI with its
international partners.
The final rule will be published shortly in the Federal Register
titled, Relief from Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records
Checks Required by the Atomic Energy Act, Section 149.
Last revised Thursday, May 25, 2006
*****************************************************************
29 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear power and coal competitive - Government
smh.com.au
www.smh.com.au
May 26, 2006
THE cost of nuclear power for Australia is "competitive" with
energy from fossil fuels and poses far lower threats to human
health, a report commissioned by the Federal Government has
found.
The Minister for Science, Julie Bishop, yesterday received a
400-page report from the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation comparing coal-fired energy with
potential domestic nuclear power.
Ms Bishop will visit the Lucas Heights reactor today but is
unlikely to release the report.
She said last night the report "shows that a nuclear power
station would be competitive with a newly built coal power
station in Australia".
The report also found there were "significant health risks
associated with coal energy production, but minimal risks with
nuclear power," Ms Bishop said.
The Treasurer, Peter Costello, said this week the only argument
against nuclear power was its cost.
Ms Bishop last night seemed to lay that concern to rest, saying:
"Overall, the report is positive about the economic basis for
establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia."
The Government has been pressing the case for nuclear power, but
has still not commissioned a full inquiry into the issue,
despite promising to do so.
Labor, which opposes a domestic nuclear power industry, is
raising concerns about where a station might be located.
Stephanie Peatling
Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
30 theage.com.au: Study backs nuclear over coal power
www.theage.com.au
By Michelle Grattan
May 26, 2006
JOHN Howard's vision of a nuclear Australia will take a step
forward today with the unveiling of a report saying a nuclear
power station would be competitive with a newly built coal power
station.
Education Minister Julie Bishop said yesterday the study,
commissioned by the Government's Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation, had found there were significant health
risks associated with coal energy production but minimal risks
with nuclear power.
The report examines the economic viability of a nuclear
industry, as well as safety issues.
Ms Bishop, who will formally receive the report at the Lucas
Heights reactor today, said it suggested two ways that
construction of a nuclear power plant could be funded. These
were similar to models in operation in the US, she said. It is
believed one involves Government support and the other does not.
"Overall, the report is positive about the economic basis for
establishing an nuclear power industry in Australia," she said.
The Prime Minister is being briefed over the next few days on
options for taking the debate forward.
One course is for an outside inquiry; another is for outside
experts to be brought into a review done within the Government.
Mr Howard will consult his ministers before making an
announcement.
But Queensland Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce said yesterday he
did not want a nuclear reactor in his state because it would
compete with the very profitable coal industry.
Senator Joyce said: "I can see no pressing need for nuclear
power in Queensland. "I can't see the logic of promoting
competition to my state's major export. Other states may see it
differently."
Senator Joyce insisted that the production of coal-based power
"is far cheaper than nuclear".
Queensland had more coal than it could "jump over" and nuclear
power would have to be subsidised to compete, he said. "I have
more interest in investment in cleaner technology in coal than
in having to deal with the political football of where we put
the nuclear power plant."
He was all for an open debate on any issue. "But Queensland has
no real reason for a nuclear power reactor when coal is in
abundance."
In Parliament, resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said the
opportunity for Australia to build its uranium exports was
"going begging, because of Labor's 'no new mines policy' and the
fact that Western Australia and Queensland would not allow the
development of a uranium industry in those states. "This is a
policy described by various people as illogical,
anti-competitive and silly — and they are just people in the
Labor party."
Labor will review its "no new mines" policy at its national
conference next year, with Kim Beazley already flagging he will
support its liberalisation. ALP resources spokesman Martin
Ferguson, a leader in the push to liberalise the mining policy,
yesterday denied a report that he was challenging the party to
embrace uranium enrichment technology.
"I have said consistently that the issue of enrichment is part
of the debate on the conditions of export guaranteeing the
peaceful use of Australia's uranium, and the international rules
surrounding nuclear nonproliferation."
*****************************************************************
31 The Age: General Electric warms up a slice of nuclear pie -
www.theage.com.au
By Ian Porter
May 26, 2006
[Bullish: General Electric's Lorraine Bolsinger outlines
the company's positive nuclear vision.]
Bullish: General Electric's Lorraine Bolsinger outlines the
company's positive nuclear vision.
Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones
NUCLEAR reactors will play an increasing role in supplying the
world's electricity, but even the world's largest maker of
reactors believes it will take a major public education campaign
to make it acceptable.
"We are very bullish on the nuclear market," said Lorraine
Bolsinger, a corporate vice-president at General Electric.
"Any debate on climate change and the need for zero emissions
has got to include nuclear in the mix of fuel diversity," she
said in Melbourne. The variability of renewable energy sources
like wind and solar means they can't contribute more than 10 or
15 per cent of the total.
"Without nuclear taking a slice of the energy pie, it's hard to
see how you'd ever get to a lower emissions regime."
Despite the optimism and the pressing need to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, governments may still struggle to persuade
voters.
"We did some focus groups in the US last year to see what the US
public thought," she said. "Most did not know that we have 140
nuclear plants operating in the US and that they supply a very
high percentage of energy needs. The safety record is good and
people are prone to accept technology."
The survey found people knew about nuclear waste, even if they
didn't know how many nuclear plants there were.
"They are worried about the waste," Ms Bolsinger said. "I think
that is a very serious subject that has to be addressed for
people to get comfortable with it. Once addressed, I think there
will be a renaissance in nuclear."
However, she admitted that the handling of waste had not moved
far. She said the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission required that
each site had on-site storage.
"GE has just purchased a technology that will have (200-litre)
drums on site as an alternative," she said.
Ms Bolsinger said Australia was an attractive market for the
group's new Ecomagination marketing drive, which seeks to
improve the environmental impact of all of GE's products, from
locomotives to light bulbs, and plastics to water treatments.
"Australians have the right sensibilities around the
environment," she said. "You care."
But the sentiment was slightly different in Canberra.
"You have a government that is cautious in terms of not wanting
to have any deleterious effects on the economy," Ms Bolsinger
said.
*****************************************************************
32 Philadelphia Inquirer: At Limerick, Bush pushes nuclear power
05/25/2006 |
By Jeff Shields Inquirer Staff Writer
The Limerick nuclear power plant's giant twin cooling towers
were the backdrop yesterday as President Bush promoted his plan
to build more reactors and develop controversial technology to
recycle nuclear waste.
It is a pivotal time for Bush's nuclear agenda. Funding for a
new nuclear initiative is being fought over in Congress. Last
year, he won a host of other incentives for the nuclear
industry, including tax breaks and insurance against regulatory
and legal delays.
On Monday, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
said that 16 companies had expressed interest in building 25
reactors. Bush said that only two companies had expressed
interest at this time last year.
Bush is pushing nuclear power as one way to meet future
electrical needs.
"For the sake of economic security and national security, the
United States of America must aggressively move forward with the
construction of nuclear-power plants," Bush said before 300
employees at Exelon Nuclear's Limerick Generating Station.
"I want it to be said that this generation of folks had the
foresight necessary... to continue to diversify electricity
supply, and recognize that nuclear power is safe - and we did
something about it."
Bush's initiative would encourage construction of reactors by
solving the nuclear-waste problem with a safe system of
recycling used nuclear fuel rods.
Another part of his plan calls for expediting the opening the
Yucca Mountain storage facility in Nevada, which would allow
plants such as Exelon's Limerick Generating Station to begin
shipping out spent fuel that is now stored on site. Providing a
place to store spent fuel is critical if new power plants are to
be built.
Limerick's two nuclear generators, opened in 1986 and 1990, are
among the newest of the country's 103 nuclear reactors, yet
Limerick's pools for storing spent fuel rods will reach capacity
in 2009.
The plant has designed a new storage system that does not
require water pools, but Exelon officials said the opening of
Yucca Mountain nevertheless remains important for long-term
disposal of spent fuel from the Montgomery County plant.
Some environmentalists have said opposition to nuclear power
should be reconsidered in light of the environmental impact from
burning fossil fuel.
But a coalition of four environmental groups in Pennsylvania
yesterday derided Bush's faith in nuclear power.
"The Bush administration is reinventing a broken wheel that is
funded by subsidies," said Eric Epstein, spokesman for
Harrisburg-based Three Mile Island Alert. The country's worst
nuclear accident occurred there in 1979.
Of particular concern, other critics say, is the idea of using a
recycling technique that generates radioactive material that
could be used in a dirty bomb, or, eventually, a nuclear bomb.
Bush has said he favors research that will make that technique
safe.
For some in the crowd, Bush's speech had the effect of a pep
rally, as he praised their work as helping preserve the
country's security and prosperity.
Tim Saunders, a reactor-services supervisor at Limerick, called
the speech "motivating."
"Obviously, it's stimulating," he said, "to be picked out to run
with that."
ONLINE EXTRA
Read a text of Bush's speech at Limerick via
http://go.philly.com/limerick
Contact staff writer Jeff Shields at 610-313-8173 or
jshields@phillynews.com.
*****************************************************************
33 AU ABC: Kingston Mayor caught off guard over nuclear comments
ABC South East SA | Local News | Story
14:00 (ACDT)Thursday, 25 May 2006. 11:00 (AWST)
The Mayor of Kingston, in South Australia's south-east, says he
is furious at metropolitan newspaper reports that he would like
to see a nuclear power plant in his area.
Evan Flint says he was caught off guard when approached by a
journalist yesterday, and was merely backing up comments made by
Mount Gambier Mayor Steve Perryman, who said a debate on nuclear
power's future in the district will one day be inevitable.
"Look, I'm not a nuclear fan, but I'm aware of the fact that
eventually Australia will need power, and if that's the cheapest
and the best for that we can have, then I suppose we'll have
it," he said.
He says a plant in Kingston would be highly unlikely due to its
location.
Meanwhile, the Glenelg Shire Mayor is welcoming a debate over
nuclear power plants and the earmarking of Portland as one of
eight potential sites for one in Australia.
Glenelg Mayor Frank Zeigler says Portland residents should join
the debate and have their say.
"We would like to take part in that debate and we'd like to
throw it open to all of our residents so that we can get their
views, after all, they live there," he said.
"And I suppose to a lot of degrees, any power station or
anything is a case of NIMBY, not in my backyard.
"However, it's our role to make sure everybody has an
opportunity to have a good say about what they think."
*****************************************************************
34 ENS: Bush Presses Nuclear Power Development Agenda
Environment News Service (ENS)
POTTSTOWN, Pennsylvania, May 25, 2006 (ENS) - President George
W. Bush visited a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant Wednesday to
make the point that the United States needs to build more
nuclear power plants to expand the country's energy supply
without increasing global warming. "Nuclear power helps us
protect the environment," the President said.
Speaking at Exelon's Limerick Nuclear Generating Station about
40 miles northwest of Philadelphia, President Bush touched on
the need for more renewable energy generated by the wind and
Sun, but he focused most strongly on nuclear energy, calling it
a source of power that is abundant, affordable, and safe.
"Nuclear power is safe," the President said to applause. "It is
safe because of advances in science and engineering and plant
design. It is safe because the workers and managers of our
nuclear power plants are incredibly skilled people who know what
they're doing."
[Bush] President George W. Bush addresses an audience at the
Limerick Generating Station, urging the the advancement of
nuclear energy. (Photo by Kimberlee Hewitt courtesy the White
House) The President appears to have changed his position from
denying the existence of a warming global climate caused by
greenhouse gases, to an attitude of concern.
"People in our country are rightly concerned about greenhouse
gases and the environment, and I can understand why - I am,
too," he said Wednesday. "As a matter of fact, I try to tell
people, let's quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are
caused by mankind or by natural causes; let's just focus on
technologies that deal with the issue." Nuclear power is the
President's preferred technological solution.
"For the sake of economic security and national security, the
United States of America must aggressively move forward with the
construction of nuclear power plants," urged Bush. He cited
France, which has built 58 plants since the 1970s, and now gets
78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.
"China has nine nuclear plants in operation and they plan to
build 40 more over the next two decades," said Bush. "They
understand that in order to be an aggressive nation, an economic
nation that is flourishing so that people can benefit, they
better do something about their sources of electricity. They see
it."
There are currently 104 licensed to operate nuclear power plants
in the United States, which generate about 20 percent of U.S.
electricity. No new plants have been built for about 20 years.
"To maintain our economic leadership, we got to do it again,"
Bush said.
Bush repeated his strategy mandated by the Energy Policy Act of
2005 of extending loan guarantees, production tax credits, and
federal risk insurance for the builders of new nuclear power
plants.
But the President's nuclear power solution is not one that is
supported by most environmentalists.
"Nuclear power will help us deal with the issue of greenhouse
gases," the President said. "Without nuclear energy, carbon
dioxide emissions would have been 28 percent greater in the
electricity industry in 2004. Without nuclear power, we would
have had an additional 700 million tons a year of carbon
dioxide, and that's nearly equal to the annual emissions from
136 million passenger cars."
[Limerick] Exelon's Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania
(Photo courtesy ) Michele Boyd, legislative director of the
energy program of the nongovernmental organization Public
Citizen, was critical of the President's push to build more
nuclear power plants.
"President Bush’s speech today at the Limerick Generating
Station in Pennsylvania advocating the building of new nuclear
power plants completely neglects the dangers and unresolved
problems associated with nuclear power," she said.
Despite streamlined licensing procedures for new reactors
enacted by Congress in 1992 and more than $12 billion in
taxpayer subsidies to nuclear utilities authorized in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, the White House wants to do more for the
nuclear industry, Boyd said. "It is creating a vaguely defined
'working group' of federal agency officials to push even harder
for the construction of new nuclear reactors."
"The administration’s enthusiasm for nuclear power conveniently
ignores the reasons we stopped building new nuclear plants more
than 20 years ago: Nuclear power is fatally flawed. Nuclear
reactors create large quantities of radioactive waste that pile
up around the country and remain dangerous for hundreds of
thousands of years," Boyd said.
"Nuclear waste also presents the temptation to reprocess, as
shown by the president’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, which would create a global plutonium economy and
increase the risk that plutonium could be used in nuclear
weapons or dirty bombs," said Boyd, a position shared by other
environmental groups.
"New nuclear plants will also expose many more communities to
the threats of nuclear accidents and potential terrorism," Boyd
said. "And once again taxpayers will be on the hook for the
hefty financial risks associated with building nuclear plants."
But regardless of these dangers, Bush is supported in his
nuclear power policies by other countries, including Russia.
Russia and the United States have "full coincidence of
approaches" towards the nuclear power industry development,
"there could be only tactical differences," head of Russia's
Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) Sergei Kiriyenko said in
New York City on Sunday.
He arrived in New York in order to hold talks with the
leadership of U.S. energy companies and participate in the
annual forum of the Russian and U.S. business elite held by RAND
Corporation, according to the official Russian state news agency
ITAR-Tass.
The Rosatom chief said both countries understand "that the
energy crisis is looming ahead and it is impossible to overcome
it and ensure stable energy security in the world for the next
30-40 years without the atomic power industry development."
He said with this end in view it is necessary, "on the one hand
to ensure access of new countries to inexpensive nuclear power
and on the other – to guarantee the non-proliferation regime."
Kiriyenko said this task is linked with the development of new
technologies – both in the fourth-generation reactors and
processing of waste and in such innovation decisions as fast
high-temperature reactors making it possible to dispose of
accumulated waste and weapons grade materials and ensuring
movement towards new energy sources such and thermonuclear and
hydrogen power.
Russia and the United States have "ambitious plans" and it is
necessary to lift restrictions on this way in order to move
forward realizing that "joint work in the atomic power
development meets mutual interests and the maintenance of
restrictions is just the inheritance of the past that is
illogical and inappropriate nowadays and totally unmotivated,"
Kiriyenko said.
On Monday and Tuesday Kiriyenko met in Washington with Bush
administration officials and American lawmakers. According to
the Rosatom head, the main goal of the meetings was to "create
normal conditions for the two countries’ cooperation in the
atomic power industry sphere," which envisages lifting all
discriminatory restrictions on the supply of materials and
services of Russia’s nuclear power branch.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
35 Daily Yomiuri: Fukui gov. to OK restart of N-reactor
The Yomiuri Shimbun
The governor of Fukui Prefecture said Thursday he would formally
give his approval for the resumption of operations at the No. 3
reactor at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant when he met Kansai
Electric Power Co. President Shosuke Mori on Friday.
The reactor at the KEPCO plant in Mihamacho is expected to
reopen in the summer, two years after being shut down when a
pipe in the secondary cooling system burst, killing five people
and injuring six in August 2004.
A prefectural government committee concluded on May 11 the
company had done enough work on the reactor to prevent a
recurrence of the blowout.
There was a leakage of radioactive water from the reactor five
days after the committee meeting, but Gov. Issei Nishikawa and
Mihamacho Mayor Jitaro Yamaguchi on Wednesday agreed to approve
the committee report during talks over whether to allow the
resumption of operations of the reactor. (May. 26, 2006)
© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
36 The Herald Energy Life. Captured Every Day. -
Serving York, Chester, and Lancaster Counties.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Team investigates reactor outage System shut down
automatically after circuit glitch, officials say
By Rebecca Sulock
A five-man team is investigating what caused electrical circuits
to trip at the Catawba Nuclear Station on Saturday, said Nuclear
Regulatory Commission officials.
When the plant lost its off-site power source Saturday
afternoon, the two nuclear reactors there "scrammed" -- meaning
they shut themselves off automatically, said NRC spokesman Ken
Clark.
"Their safety systems worked," Clark said. "Remember, these are
not human beings, these are safety systems."
The two reactors are still shut down, Duke Energy officials said.
Duke Energy spokeswoman Rita Sipe declined to say when the
reactors would be restarted. Duke also is evaluating what
happened Saturday, Sipe said. The event posed no threat to
public safety, she said.
When the reactors are running, electricity is sent out over
transmission lines and the reactors also draw power from the
offsite grid, Sipe said. On Saturday, electricity couldn't be
sent out or drawn in, which caused the reactors to shut
themselves off.
At that point, emergency diesel generators kicked in. Duke
declared an "unusual event," the lowest of four emergency
classifications, for about 12 hours from Saturday afternoon to
early Sunday morning.
York County Emergency Management Director Cotton Howell said his
office got calls from residents who heard unusual noises from
the nuclear station.
Residents were concerned about the sound of different sorts of
steam releases than what they normally hear, Howell said.
It's been a while since Howell's office has been put on notice
of any so-called "unusual events" at the nuclear station, he
said. When the Catawba reactors first were up and running in the
early 1980s, the occurrences happened more often.
"An 'unusual event' has become unusual over the past few years,"
Howell said.
Rebecca Sulock 329-4072 | rsulock@heraldonline.com All rights
reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published,
broadcast or redistributed in any manner.
The Herald is a Member of the
Copyright © 2006 The Herald, Rock Hill, South Carolina
*****************************************************************
37 business.iafrica.com: Koeberg refueling done by August
Thu, 25 May 2006
Refueling of Koeberg unit 2 had begun and by August this year
this process would be completed and the situation at the nuclear
power station will "return to normal", Minerals and Energy
Minister Lindiwe Hendricks said on Thursday.
"The assistance of the French Government in supplying the rotor
has helped to ensure speedy return to service of Koeberg unit 1
which is now fully operational," she noted.
The rotor was damaged by a bolt which contributed to recent
power supply shortages in the Western Cape.
Hendricks, who was speaking in her budget vote on Thursday, said
that the problems at Koeberg had a positive consequence "albeit
in an ironic way".
"We have now taken the opportunity to embark on concerted energy
efficiency and demand side management programmes, both here and
nationally. We have asked consumers in the Western Cape to
become more energy efficient and to use alternative energy forms
... particularly at peak times."
*****************************************************************
38 iafrica.com: sa news Koeberg bolt was 'no accident'
CAPE TOWN
Thu, 25 May 2006
The bolt found in the generator at the Western Cape's Koeberg
nuclear power station did not get there by accident, Minerals
and Energy Affairs Minister Lindiwe Hendricks told MPs on
Thursday.
Responding in the National Assembly at the end of debate on her
department's budget vote, she said this was what had prompted an
investigation into the matter.
"With regard to Koeberg... it is a fact that a foreign object
was found in the generator. It is a fact it was not by accident
that is why an investigation was started," she said.
No pronouncements would be made on the outcome of the
investigation until the "correct authority" that was conducting
the investigation presented its report, Hendricks told the
House.
Her comments on the investigation follow similar statements by
Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin last month, when he told
a media briefing at Koeberg: "This is not on the face of it,
given what we now know, some accident that happened by chance."
He went on to say the presence of the bolt in the generator was
either "a serious act of negligence, or it's deliberate".
The damaged generator, which plunged the Western Cape into a
power crisis, came back on line earlier this month.
Sapa
Reproduction without permission is prohibited. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
39 newsobserver.com: Saved by nuclear power? No
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill
Jim Warren DURHAM - (The nuclear industry's) hoax has persuaded
some people who should know better that nuclear power is a
realistic and indeed an indispensable solution to climate
change. -- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
What's the most compelling reason Progress Energy should stop
planning new reactors at its Shearon Harris nuclear plant?
Global climate change. North Carolina doesn't have time to
gamble on new nuclear plants, nor spend years fighting over
whether to build them.
Global warming is accelerating toward potentially catastrophic
weather changes -- including more severe storms and droughts.
Experts, including NASA climatologist James Hansen, warn that
the process could become unstoppable within 10 years and that
greenhouse gas reductions must begin immediately.
Efforts to resuscitate nuclear power are impeding climate
stabilization by squandering time and resources needed to cut
greenhouse gases. And if Progress Energy actually commits to new
reactors, the result would be increased greenhouse gas emissions
for many years.
Hold it! Isn't nuclear "clean"?
Only in the artful tongue of the nuclear companies' public
relations machine.
True, using the heat of nuclear fission to generate electricity
produces no greenhouse gasses directly. But in building the
power plant -- a major undertaking -- enormous amounts of fossil
fuel would be used for producing and transporting concrete,
metal and plastic components. They would cause toxic and
greenhouse emissions during years of construction. Although some
of that energy would be expended outside North Carolina, the
entire life-cycle emissions would be attributable to the Harris
plant.
Researchers van Leeuwen &Smith and others estimate it could take
nine to 25 years of plant operation just to break even with the
energy going into nuclear plant construction, decommissioning
and the multi-faceted, energy-intensive fuel cycle.
It could take well over 20 years before the first new Harris
reactor (Progress has said it could be on-line in 2016 if a
decision to proceed is made) contributes any net greenhouse gas
reductions. It's entirely possible that it never would, due to:
1) Numerous unknowns involving design, licensing and
construction, 2) the dwindling supply of high-grade uranium
(lower grade ores require even more energy to convert into
reactor fuel) and 3) potential project failure caused by a
severe nuclear accident or terrorism anywhere, loss of federal
subsidies, economic downturn -- or by society becoming
energy-smart. Those and other scenarios could leave North
Carolina ratepayers with a multi-billion dollar nuclear
albatross and a spike in power bills.
Standard &Poor's warns that new reactors are high-risk
investments. That's why Progress Energy will gamble only if
federal -- and probably state -- subsidies can be secured.
The nuclear PR machine also claims reactors are increasingly
safe and economically sound. If true, why does the industry
insist taxpayers insure new reactors against disasters -- and
help finance them?
Even if new nuclear plants were safe, North Carolina cannot
simultaneously build large power plants and cut greenhouse
gases. We must address the enormous challenge of climate change
through a concerted effort to enhance energy efficiency
programs, while phasing in readily available co-generation and
renewable energy technologies.
This debate must not be dominated, as in the past, with Progress
Energy spending millions of ratepayer dollars to block such
programs -- nor using its lobbying muscle, image advertising and
targeted philanthropy to persuade regional leaders to endorse
new reactors without scrutinizing the merits and risks.
We urge civic leaders to conduct open, balanced forums where the
utility can explain its plans and answer the critics' tough
questions.
Despite NC WARN's long-running criticism about Progress Energy's
practices, we urge its managers to avoid a prolonged fight over
new reactors, and join citizens in a cooperative approach for
mitigating the unprecedented challenge posed by global warming.
We propose realigning the rate structure so the utilities can
benefit by helping customers save electricity -- and avoid
gambling on new plants -- instead of the current system that
drives maximum energy sales.
Otherwise, North Carolina must reassert its control over the
corporate charter and monopoly market granted to Progress Energy
by the people. The time has come for responsible action.
Jim Warren is executive director of NC WARN (Waste Awareness &
Reduction Network ). All rights reserved. This copyrighted
material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any
manner.
newsobserver.com
*****************************************************************
40 BBC: Nuclear plant shutdown
Last Updated: Thursday, 25 May 2006
The government has given the go-ahead to decommission the
Sizewell A nuclear power station, which has been in operation for
40 years.
The Health and Safety Executive granted consent to Magnox
Electric - which runs the facility - to dismantle it once it
stops generating at the end of 2006.
The buildings, plant and equipment from the site will all be
removed - during a process which could take decades.
The 430-megawatt plant is one of the UK's ageing Magnox fleet of
reactors.
Radioactive discharges
Members of the public and individuals from 60 organisations were
part of a consultation process, which ended in February.
During decommissioning, radioactive discharges into the air and
sea will continue, but it will be less than when the site was
operational, experts claim.
In a statement on Thursday the HSE stated that conditions are
attached concerning mitigation measures to prevent, reduce and,
where possible, offset adverse environmental effects.
The HSE concluded the environmental benefits will far outweigh
any problems and that there will be no significant effects on
other countries.
The nuclear power station Sizewell B is set to continue operating
for at least another 10 years, the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) has said.
The Sizewell A plant is the fifth nuclear power station site at
which HSE has granted consent for decommissioning under the
regulations, the others being Hinkley Point A, Bradwell,
Chapelcross and Calder Hall.
*****************************************************************
41 The Herald: The power struggle ahead
Web Issue 2536 May 25 2006
Editorial Comment May 25 2006
The generation gap. It sounds like a family game show hosted
by Bruce Forsyth. But it describes a looming shortfall in energy
supplies that could have dire consequences for each and every
individual in Scotland if left unplugged. The withdrawal from
service of coal-fired and nuclear power stations in the next 25
years might seem a long way off, but we must start investing in
alternative sources now to avoid an impending problem.
Britain is no longer self-sufficient in energy. Relying on
imports comes at a price, as households and businesses know from
rises in wholesale gas prices, a cost passed on in higher bills.
Despite a 47% increase in pre-tax profits, ScottishPower
yesterday warned that gas and electricity prices would rise
again. With more gloom from dire predictions of oil at $100 a
barrel within the next 12 months, low-cost energy is a thing of
the past. But we have obligations to the environment as well as
to the family bank account and balance sheet. We need to use
more clean fuel to meet our obligations on global warming.
This is where renewables come in. Scotland is only two
percentage points short of meeting the target for 18% of
electricity generated by renewable sources by 2010. The target
rises to a very challenging 40% by 2020. Hitting it requires
resources to match vision. Nicol Stephen, the deputy first
minister, yesterday announced a £20m investment to support
clean, green energy over the next two years. Although the 2010
target is in sight, it would be dangerous to be complacent. We
must develop the potential from renewable sources other than
hydro power.
Scotland's geography lends itself to exploiting nature's power:
the wind and the wave. Europe's biggest onshore wind farm, to be
built in Lanarkshire, will generate enough electricity to power
almost every home in Glasgow and save potentially 650,000 tonnes
in carbon dioxide emissions a year. As Mr Stephen suggested,
however, wind power has not been exploited as effectively as
might have been the case. We must not repeat the same mistake
with wave power. Some £8m in the package will go towards marine
energy projects, a welcome, if overdue, investment in a
technology, tidal power, we have toyed with for 40 years.
That is no longer an option. Due to a friendlier planning
environment, the United States has taken a lead in wind-farm
development (in which ScottishPower is sharing through its PPM
Energy business). Our expertise in wave power must not be
allowed to migrate to where there is a more advantageous
investment or planning culture. If renewables are to be a vital
ingredient in Scotland's balanced energy mix, the investment
must be right. We cannot afford merely to pay lip-service to the
energy lifeline on our shores and hills.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
42 reviewjournal.com: Senators meet with nominee for NRC
May 24, 2006
Klein would head agency tasked with licensing Yucca
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Dale Klein, nominated to become chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, met Tuesday with Nevada’s senators. Gary
Thompson.
WASHINGTON -- Nevada's senators met Tuesday with the official
nominated to become chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, but said little as to whether they found him
acceptable to head the agency that might consider allowing
high-level nuclear waste to be stored in the state.
Dale Klein told Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign,
R-Nev., he believed he could be objective in judging a waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, Ensign said after their 20-minute
meeting.
Ensign said he remained uncertain about Klein, who had appeared
in nuclear industry TV commercials in Nevada during a Yucca
Mountain push in the early 1990s.
"He gave the patented response that he would let sound science
determine everything," Ensign said of the meeting. "I told him
if somebody has a biased attitude, then sound science is
different to that person."
Reid declined to talk about the meeting amid signs that a deal
already was in the works for Klein's confirmation to a five-year
NRC term. As Senate minority leader, Reid has the power to block
or grease the skids for nominees.
Klein also declined to comment.
Klein is a nuclear waste expert and former University of Texas
professor and associate dean who serves at the Pentagon as
assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear, biological
and chemical programs.
As chairman of a five-member commission and leader of the
regulatory agency, Klein would set a course for the agency that
has 3,300 employees and a $760 million budget. The NRC regulates
nuclear power plants and management of nuclear waste and other
nuclear materials.
Staff scientists at the agency have been monitoring Energy
Department plans to submit an application for nuclear waste
storage at Yucca Mountain. Commissioners would have the final
word after license hearings.
Klein's nomination became a flashpoint for some Nevada officials
and anti-Yucca activists because he took part in a series of
television commercials 15 years ago as part of a Yucca Mountain
public relations drive in Nevada.
Critics questioned whether Klein's participation in the
so-called "Nevada Initiative" compromised his ability to be
impartial in judging Yucca Mountain. Klein at the time was a
faculty member at the University of Texas.
Klein's supporters say he appeared in the commercials as a
scientist and not a repository advocate, and his remarks were
noncontroversial.
Klein's meeting with the Nevada senators took place amid
indications a Senate deal was in the works no matter the
outcome. The deal reportedly would place Klein at the NRC while
extending the terms of two others on the five-member nuclear
commission.
One of them is Gregory Jaczko, a former Reid science adviser who
the senator has said he wants to keep on the commission. The
other is Peter Lyons, a former adviser on the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, and formerly a manager at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory.
On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
approved the nominations of all three, and Chairman Sen. James
Inhofe, R-Okla., said they were moving forward as a bloc.
Inhofe was asked afterwards if he and Reid had reached an
agreement on the nominees.
"I'm not sure there is a formal agreement," Inhofe said. "I
think we had a discussion and there shouldn't be a problem."
Inhofe and Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said they wanted to
get the slots filled as soon as possible. The NRC will assess
plans for new nuclear power plants and other pro-nuclear
initiatives encouraged by the Bush administration.
Senate officials said the three could win final approval by the
end of the week.
"They've got a lot of work to do and we've come to an agreement
that all of them are qualified," Inhofe said.
Referring to Jaczko and Lyons, Voinovich said, "we've worked it
out so they both can remain on the commission."
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
43 Platts: Constuction of fusion energy test reactor could start in 2007
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
London (Platts)--25May2006
Construction of a large international fusion energy test reactor
could begin in 2007 if governments of the seven participating
partners ratify the joint implementation agreement, as expected,
that ITER participants initialed May May 24 in Brussels.
The agreement outlines participants' costs and responsibilities
for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, that
will be built in Cadarache, France.
Raymond Orbach, the director of DOE's Office of Science,
represented the US at the initialing ceremony. During a
teleconference with reporters, Orbach said the agreement caps US
construction costs at $1.1 billion, 80% of which will involve
in-kind contributions. The agreement now will be sent to Congress
for a 120-day review. A burning plasma experiment will be the key
focus of ITER's 10-year operations, according to DOE.
Partners in the project are the European Union, China, India,
Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and the US.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
44 Independent: ScottishPower chief blasts Blair for pre-empting nuclear review
By Michael Harrison, Business Editor
Published: 25 May 2006
The chief executive of ScottishPower, Britain's biggest wind
power company, criticised Tony Blair yesterday for pre-empting
the outcome of the Government's energy review by giving his
public backing to a new generation of nuclear reactors.
Philip Bowman, who took over at ScottishPower last autumn after
the ousting of Ian Russell, said the Prime Minister had been
"rather previous" in announcing last week that nuclear power was
"back on the agenda with a vengeance". Mr Bowman also said it
was "not helpful" that Mr Blair had reshuffled both the Trade
and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson, and the Environment
Secretary, Margaret Beckett, midway through the review.
He was speaking as ScottishPower warned that further price rises
for its 5.25 million domestic gas and electricity customers were
"unavoidable", even though the company more than doubled profits
in its energy retail and wholesale division last year and
increased bills in March.
The consumer body Energywatch attacked the announcement,
describing it as an "assault on the budgets of Britain's poorest
households", and called for "joined-up action" from the
Government to soften the impact on domestic users.
But Mr Bowman defended the plan to increase prices, saying
ScottishPower's residential energy business lost £30m more in
2005-06 than the previous year because it had only passed on
part of the increase in wholesale prices.
He said the 129 per cent increase in profits from energy retail
and wholesale to £214m last year had been due to its heavy
investment in new generating capacity, including wind farms.
ScottishPower also announced plans to increase investment by
£1.3bn to a total of £4.8bn between now and 2010. This will
include more spending on its UK energy networks, the
construction of more onshore windfarms and the fitting of
environmental clean-up equipment to the Longannet coal station
in Scotland. The company aims to have 1,000 megawatts of UK wind
power in operation by the end of the decade.
Mr Bowman also said that ScottishPower had decided to keep its
US renewable energy and gas storage operation, PPM Energy, and
would be investing £1.6bn in the business to increase its wind
power generation by a half to 3,500 megawatts. He had put the
business under review following his predecessor's decision to
sell the West Coast utility PacifiCorp to Warren Buffett.
Group operating profits from continuing operations rose 39 per
cent to £805m and the full-year dividend was increased by 11 per
cent. ScottishPower shareholders will receive a £2.25bn return
of cash next month following the PacifiCorp sale.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
45 Rutland Herald: Nuclear power is ticket to oil-free future
Rutland Vermont News & Information
May 25, 2006
The two major problems facing the Middle East are religion and
oil. Both of these are volatile and deadly to the United States.
So why are we there? It's clear that oil is the answer. The
United States seeks to have Middle Eastern countries controlled
by governments friendly to the United States. This ensures that
the oil supply for America and her allies is safe and remains
flowing. That's why with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 the
United States embraced Saddam Hussein. American influence over
the Iranian government was gone. She needed a new ally.
In 1990 Hussein invaded Kuwait. This invasion of a sovereign
nation showed that he couldn't be trusted and was, therefore, no
longer a friend of the United States.
Presidents Bush's talk of being in Iraq to spread democracy is
seen for what it really is by the vast majority of people around
the world. To understand this, one need look no further than
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Jordan; staunch American allies but
certainly not democratic.
After the Gulf War, sanctions, and two no-fly zones the people
of Iraq were still unwilling to rise up and overthrow Hussein.
Taking advantage of Sept. 11 and the implied threat from weapons
of mass destruction the Bush administration invaded Iraq. This
was done to install another government, one that would favor the
United States.
This has been the face of American foreign policy since the end
of World War II. A foreign policy that, according to Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, "we saw the result of on a fine
September morning." Unfortunately the Bush administration knew
very little about the historical animosity between Sunni and
Shiite in regards to religion. The violence between these two
groups can only benefit the Kurds. It's possible that some
Kurdish leaders are encouraging this violence in the hopes of
gaining autonomy in northern Iraq.
Both problems facing the Middle East, religion and oil need to
be solved by those who live there without interference from
countries with hidden agendas. Due to this the United States
should be doing everything in its power to develop new sources
of energy.
There are many options to choose from but only one that I
believe is realistic. Some of the options are wind, solar,
hydro, wave, tidal, and geothermal. All of these should be
utilized wherever possible, but none are capable of supplying
all the energy needs of a growing world population that is
expected to reach 8 billion by the year 2025.
Henry Lee, an energy expert at the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University, recently stated in The Associated Press,
"Renewable energy sources, though desirable are not a 'silver
bullet' solution." He noted that wind and solar energy take up
large areas of land, making it hard to find a place for them in
densely populated parts of the world. The only logical solution
then is nuclear power. Other countries have already seen the
truth of this. France began building nuclear reactors after the
first oil crunch in 1973-74. France currently has 59 nuclear
reactors providing 75 percent of its energy needs.
Following the two oil crises of the 1970s, the way that Japan
has reduced its reliance on crude oil and overcome its lack of
energy security is by turning to a diverse mixture of energy, of
which nuclear power plays a central role. With 54 currently
operating nuclear power plants that supply about 35 percent of
Japan's electricity needs, Japan's nuclear industry is helping
to ensure the long-term strength and viability of that country's
economy.
The United States currently has 104 nuclear reactors providing
17 percent of our energy needs. There are advantages and
disadvantages to nuclear power, just as there are to each of the
others I have mentioned. However, the advantages far outweigh
the disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage is the chance of an
accident. The U.S. Navy has used nuclear reactors to power ships
for 50 years without incident.
The biggest advantage is that nuclear power provides a
tremendous amount of energy using very little fuel. This source
does not emit carbon dioxide and therefore does not contribute
to the greenhouse effect. In the 1990s nuclear power was the
fastest growing source of power in much of the world. In 2005 it
was the second slowest growing.
This is because nuclear power conjures up images of Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl. The average person's lack of knowledge of
how nuclear reactors create energy and the perceived dangers
associated with them add to this fear. Britain Nuclear Fuels
Chairman Gordon Campbell stated, "Old prejudices about the cost
of nuclear power, the handling of waste, and safety concerns
need to be reviewed objectively and set against the world's
desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
There are organizations such as the Nuclear Energy Information
Service (NEIS) that offer many reasons why nuclear power is a
poor choice: high cost to build ($3 billion-5 billion), time to
build (seven to 12 years), number of plants needed in U.S. (400)
and the risk of an accident. NEIS believes it is easier to
educate people on how to conserve energy. Currently this plan
does not appear to be working.
With the money this administration has already spent on the
invasion of Iraq, they could have started construction on dozens
of nuclear power plants. This would have saved America not only
billions of dollars but American lives and our reputation around
the world.
With nuclear power plants creating more energy it may be
possible for all Americans to heat their homes with electricity.
This could be purchased at minimal cost compared to oil, natural
gas and propane. This would begin to diminish America's
dependence on foreign oil.
Politicians cannot keep placating their constituents with talk
of implementing price-gouging laws or a windfall profits tax.
Though these may help in the short term, it takes our attention
away from finding viable new energy sources. It's time for them
to start utilizing all energy sources available to us including
nuclear energy, so that future Americans can enjoy the benefits
of an energy independent United States.
Charles Laramie of Fair Haven is a teacher at the Vermont
Achievement Center.
*****************************************************************
46 Concord Monitor: Nukes will create more problems than they solve
Online - Concord, NH 03301
May 25, 2006
Copyright 1997-2006 Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot
P.O. Box 1177 Concord NH 03302 603-224-5301 Privacy policy
, ROBERT WILLIAMS Jr., Chichester - Letter
I am glad some people are thinking about global warming. However,
proposing the construction of more nuclear power plants will
introduce more problems than it solves.
Nuclear plants routinely emit radioactive gasses. Lately, there
has been more information about leaks of radioactive water from
nuclear plants, some of which went undetected for as long as 12
years. The industry has not yet been able to make a leak-proof
container for the waste.
We have not yet dealt with problems of evacuation. Years ago, a
former Hampton police chief said to me, "Of course, you can't
evacuate Seabrook. To do that, you would have to fill in the
marsh and build a road 10 lanes wide in from the beach."
Recently, there was a news article about netting to be placed
under bridges on Interstate 93 to catch pieces of concrete
before they fell to the roadways below. The Monitorstated that,
at 50 years old, the bridges were nearing the end of their
design life and the concrete was pulling away from the steel.
Let's see - bridges are made of steel beams, steel reinforcing
rods and concrete -and they are exposed to road salt. The last I
heard, nuclear plants are made of steel beams, steel reinforcing
rods, concrete -and they are exposed to salt in the seawater
used for cooling. As sea levels rise, seacoast nuclear plants
may be exposed to saltwater lapping at, and wearing away, the
outside of containment buildings. And the radiation in the
plants will be at dangerous levels for far more than 50 years.
And we haven't even touched on the topic of nukes as easy
terrorist targets.
No, nukes are not the way to go.
ROBERT WILLIAMS Jr.
Chichester
Concord Monitor Online, P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302 Phone:
603-224-5301
*****************************************************************
47 Rutland Herald: Court denies stay of Yankee power boost
Rutland Vermont News & Information
May 25, 2006
By DANIEL BARLOW Southern Vermont Bureau
BRATTLEBORO — The Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a
motion from a nuclear watchdog group that would have halted and
reversed Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant's 20 percent power
boost while an appeal continued forward.
In rejecting the New England Coalition's motion for a stay, the
five-member Supreme Court ruled the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's safety assessment met the requirements of a March
2004 Vermont Public Service Board's decision tentatively
approving the uprate.
The court wrote it was OK that the NRC's assessment used
different methodology because the PSB's order only "strongly"
suggested how the review should be performed, but did not
require it as a condition of approval.
"As the [PSB] also observed, however, the actual conditions of
approval set forth in the original order do not refer expressly
to this requirement, and the [PSB] has indicated that its intent
was not to require any specific methodology, but only to ensure
that the assessment be performed in a way that provides Vermont
with a sufficient level of assurance concerning the reliability
of power production," the judges wrote.
The motion for a stay filed by the coalition, a
Brattleboro-based antinuclear group, was part of its appeal to
the Vermont Supreme Court over the PSB's March 3 order allowing
the Vernon-based reactor to begin a boost of its power output by
20 percent.
That appeal still is pending before the Supreme Court and
initial briefs are scheduled to be filed next week. The NEC
contended the PSB committed "extreme procedural violations" when
it allowed the power boost to go forward earlier this year,
according to documents filed before the court.
The state Supreme Court added in its ruling this week "there may
be merit" to the NEC's notion that the PSB violated its
administrative practices by not holding hearings following the
NRC safety assessment, but added that "we cannot say at this
point that the process afforded was inadequate on its face."
Ray Shadis, a technical adviser to the coalition, said he was
disappointed in the court's ruling, but that the legal case in
opposition to the uprate will go forward. The group also is
preparing to file an appeal to the NRC regarding the plant's
relicensing, he said.
"We're concerned that the uprate is proceeding without the kind
of inspection that the Public Service Board initially ordered,"
Shadis said. "It seems the board did not have the will to stand
up to the NRC and enforce its own order."
Rob Williams, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Vermont
Nuclear, said the assessment by the NRC was the "most
comprehensive review of any plant uprate that they have ever
done." He said nothing in the PSB's approval earlier this year
warranted a stay of the uprate.
"As the case moves forward we are very confident that the
Vermont Supreme Court will affirm the board's decision,"
Williams said.
*****************************************************************
48 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the Joint
FR Doc E6-8033
[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 30202-30203] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my06-109]
ACRS Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk
Assessment and Human Factors; Notice of Meeting The ACRS
Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment
(PRA) and Human Factors will hold a joint meeting on June 28,
2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
Wednesday, June 28, 2006--8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m.
[[Page 30203]] The joint Subcommittees will review three current
human reliability assessment issues: the ATHEANA User's Guide,
the application of ATHEANA to pressurized thermal shock, and
comments received on the HRA Methods Evaluation NUREG. The
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff and industry regarding this
matter. The Subcommittees will gather information, analyze
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Eric A. Thornsbury (Telephone: 301-415-8716) five days prior
to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can
be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m.(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: May 18, 2006.
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E6-8033 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
49 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS
FR Doc E6-8034
[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 30203] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my06-110]
Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems;
Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital
Instrumentation and Control Systems will hold a meeting on June
27, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday,
June 27, 2006--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.
The Subcommittee plans to review the ongoing digital system risk
program and the development of regulatory guidance on risk
informed digital system reviews. The Subcommittee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the
NRC staff regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate
proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation
by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Eric A. Thornsbury, (Telephone: 301-415-8716) five days prior
to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can
be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m.(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: May 18, 2006.
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E6-8034 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
50 NRC: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear
FR Doc E6-8037
[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 30201-30202] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my06-107]
Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Final
Supplement 24 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding the License Renewal
of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the Commission)
has published a final plant-specific supplement to the ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants (GEIS),'' NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating
licenses DPR-63 and NPF-69 for an additional 20 years of
operation for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
(Nine Mile Point). Nine Mile Point is located in northern New
York on the shore of Lake Ontario, approximately five miles
northeast of Oswego, New York, 36 miles north-northwest of
Syracuse, New York, and 65 miles east of Rochester, New York.
Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal)
include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources.
As discussed in Section 9.3 of the final Supplement 24, based on:
(1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental
Report submitted by Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; (3)
consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the
staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration
of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the
Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of
license renewal for Nine Mile Point are not so great that
preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning
decision makers would be unreasonable.
The final Supplement 24 to the GEIS is publicly available at the
NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, or from the
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at
http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. The Accession Number
for the final Supplement 24 to the GEIS is ML061290310. Persons
who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC's PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or
301-415-4737,
[[Page 30202]] or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the
Penfield Library, located at State University of New York,
Oswego, New York, 13126, has agreed to make the final Supplement
24 to the GEIS available for public inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Mr. Samuel Hernandez,
Environmental Branch B, Division of License Renewal, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Mr. Hernandez may be contacted by
telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 4049 or via e-mail at
SHQ@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Masnik, Acting Branch Chief, Environmental Branch B,
Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-8037 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
51 The Mercury: President picks local plant to boost energy initiative
Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com
05/25/2006
LIMERICK -- Hybrid vehicles, cars powered by ethanol and
hydrogen, wind-powered generators and liquefied natural gas
terminals -- and of course, nuclear power.
Those innovations were the focus of the energy policy outlined by
President Bush in a speech Wednesday before an enthusiastic
audience of about 300 employees of Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick
Generating Station.
"If we don’t get it right on energy, we can have the most
educated work force in the world, but we’re not going to be able
to compete. We can have the lowest taxes in the world, the least
regulations, the fewest lawsuits, but if we haven’t done
something about our energy situation, we’re not going to be able
to compete in the world," Bush said.
Bush, who was also in Pennsylvania for an evening fund-raiser in
Philadelphia for Republican congressional candidates, spoke on
several subjects, including the economy and his signature
educational reform -- No Child Left Behind.
But his primary reason for being in Limerick was energy.
Standing in front of a backdrop heralding his "Advanced Energy
Initiative," Bush emphasized research and technology as the best
way to maximize the energy resources available to the nation and
thus break America’s addiction to foreign oil.
Noting that innovations like the iPod and the Internet were the
result of government research, he said, "I intend to double the
budget for basic research over the next 10 years."
The reason gas prices are rising, Bush explained, is a simple
capitalist equation: Demand is outstripping supply.
"One of the reasons why our price of gasoline is going up is
because demand for oil is increasing in places like India and
China, and the supply for oil is not meeting that demand," Bush
said.
Pump prices would be reduced, Bush said, if cars would be driven
on alternative fuels like ethanol, made from corn and perhaps
one day made from wood chips or switch-grass.
"Pretty cool deal, isn’t it," Bush asked, "for the president to
be able to say, you know, we’re growing a lot of corn, and we’re
less dependent on foreign sources of oil?"
Another way to reduce reliance on petroleum, Bush said, is
through the use of hybrid vehicles, particularly those with a
new kind of battery "that will enable you to drive your first 40
miles on electricity."
Electricity is a key component to the American quality of life,
and its economy, said Bush, noting that "electricity demand is
projected to increase by nearly 50 percent over the next 25
years. That’s a lot," he said.
"And we had better be wise about how we implement a strategy to
meet that demand -- otherwise, we’re not going to be the
economic leader; otherwise, our people aren’t going to be having
the good jobs that we want them to have; otherwise, your
children and my children, our grandchildren, are not going to
have a bright, hopeful America that we want for them," Bush said.
To power that brightness, Bush said he envisions a nation that
draws electricity from advanced wind turbines -- he joked a good
place to put one would be Washington, D.C. -- combined with
clean-burning coal plants, solar-powered homes, natural gas and
new nuclear power plants.
Clean coal technology is important, Bush said, because it is an
abundant resource in the United States and currently provides
about 50 percent of the nation’s electricity. The United States
has about 240 years worth of coal reserves, he said.
About $20 billion will be spent in the next 10 years to develop
"clean coal" technology so that by 2012, "we think we will build
the first power plant to run on coal and remove virtually all
pollutants," said Bush.
His initiative to allow the federal government to overrule local
objections in the siting of liquefied natural gas depots will
also help drive down the cost of electricity, Bush said.
He added that "environmentally friendly" exploration for natural
gas reserves should be allowed in the Gulf Coast and in Alaska’s
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a remark that generated
applause in the audience.
Applause was also frequent when Bush addressed the issue with
which his audience was most familiar -- nuclear power.
Prior to making his 35-minute speech, Bush toured the station,
visiting the plant’s two massive generators and its control room.
He praised the employees’ "strong dedication to safety," and
earned more of their applause when he said "this plant serves
two million homes in the area, and it does so in a way that does
not require us to pollute the air. It’s a perfect example of how
we can grow our economy and protect our environment at the same
time."
Sidestepping the issue of global warming -- an issue on which
his position questioning its cause has been widely criticized --
Bush said nuclear power plants emit no greenhouse gases,
considered by most scientists to be the cause of the global
warming phenomenon.
"I try to tell people, let’s quit the debates about whether
greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or natural causes; let’s
just focus on technologies that deal with the issue," said Bush.
One of those technologies is nuclear technology, he said.
"Without nuclear energy, carbon dioxide emissions would have
been 28 percent greater in the electricity industry in 2004,"
Bush said. "Without nuclear power, we would have had an
additional 700 million tons of a year of carbon dioxide, and
that’s nearly equal to the annual emissions from 136 million
passenger cars."
But nuclear power is a technology that has not been expanded in
the United States in 30 years, said Bush. He pointed to France
where 58 new plants have been built in the same period, plants
that now generate 78 percent of that country’s power.
Plants are also in the works in China and India and unless the
United States begins to diversify its energy strategy with more
nuclear plants, it will cease to be an economic world leader, he
said.
The energy bill Bush signed last year provides incentives for
new plants.
Those incentives include loan guarantees for companies who
undertake construction, "risk insurance" against delays and cost
over-runs beyond their control, particularly those that have to
do with regulations or bureaucratic delays as well as a package
of tax credits.
These efforts, combined with "a $1.1 billion partnership between
the federal government and the industry to facilitate new plant
orders," have grabbed the attention of potential plant builders,
Bush said.
"This time last year, only two companies were seeking to build
nuclear power plants," he said. "Now 16 companies have expressed
an interest in new construction, and they’re considering as many
as 25 new plants."
To deal with the additional radioactive waste those plants would
generate, Bush continued to back the controversial Yucca
Mountain federal repository in Nevada.
He also promoted a "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" in which
the United States would ask for help in re-processing nuclear
waste from countries that do it now.
"It will reduce the amount of toxicity of the fuel and reduce
the amount we have to store," said Bush. "To me, it’s a smart
way to combine with others to reduce storage requirements for
nuclear waste by up to 90 percent."
That would be welcome news at many nuclear plants, including
Limerick, where pools designed to hold waste temporarily for
seven years to cool it have begun to reach capacity.
Had Yucca Mountain been ready now, that fuel would have been
shipped to Nevada for burial. But now plants have been forced to
set up "temporary" storage in "dry casks," that some opponents
fear may end up being a final solution.
Last month, Exelon announced plans for a pad that could hold as
many as 90 dry storage casks.
©The Mercury 2006
*****************************************************************
52 The Mercury: Protesters rally against Bush energy stance
Lindsay Moyer, lmoyer@pottsmerc.com
05/25/2006
Hours before President Bush shook the hands of workers at Exelon
Nuclear’s Limerick Generating Station and spoke on energy policy,
about 25 community members and activists gathered outside
Pottstown Borough Hall to protest Bush’s energy policy.
Lewis Cuthbert, president of the Alliance for a Clean
Environment, opened the Wednesday afternoon protest by
criticizing Bush’s call for building more nuclear power plants.
"President Bush, we adamantly oppose your plan for more nuclear
power plants," Cuthbert said. "Facts suggest financial and
safety risks associated with nuclear power are so grave that it
should not be a part of any solution to the energy crisis."
Cuthbert criticized nuclear power as too polluting, dangerous
and expensive, and said it is not an answer to global warming.
"Mr. President, are you trying to deceive us, or don’t you know
the facts?" Cuthbert said.
Joseph J. Mangano, national coordinator for the Radiation and
Public Health Project, a nonprofit group of science and health
professionals based in New York City, and Mike Ewall, of the
Energy Justice Network, also addressed the protesters.
Mangano said nuclear reactors pose a risk to public health in
two ways -- in the event of an accident affecting the reactor’s
core or waste and in the routine radioactive emissions from
nuclear power plants.
"We don’t have to have a Chernobyl or a Three Mile Island for
people to suffer," he said, adding that he thinks repeated
low-dose radioactive emissions do pose a cancer risk to area
residents, based on the evidence he’s examined.
"Government officials assert that below a certain permissible
level, there is no harm to public health," he said. "Bush and
his officials are making assumptions that are irresponsible and
dangerous."
Ewall decried nuclear energy as expensive, unsustainable,
unnecessary and racist.
"All parts of the nuclear cycle except the site of the reactor
disproportionately affect minority communities, from mining to
waste disposal," he said.
Ewall also cited a U.S. Department of Energy draft report that
has since been removed from the department’s Web site, a report
that concluded a combination of renewable energy sources and
increased energy efficiency could meet all U.S. energy needs by
2020.
"Bush is following the need of corporate interests, not what’s
good for the people," Ewall said.
Following the speakers’ presentations, Donna Cuthbert, vice
president of ACE, positioned a cardboard cut-out of Bush in
front of the protesters so they could direct their comments and
questions to him, since security measures prevented the
protesters from getting close to the Limerick plant.
Fred Fritch, of Mertztown, Berks County, asked, "Why are we
letting corporations run our democracy instead of the people?"
Donna Cuthbert added, "We think you should value our health and
our children and grandchildren more than money, Bush."
Nina Robertson of Pottstown suggested an alternative to the
Yucca Mountain federal nuclear waste depository, which could be
decades away from opening.
"Bush, why don’t you just donate a portion of your Crawford
ranch for the next nuclear waste depository?" she asked.
Jim Crater, president of Recycling Services Inc. in Pottstown,
came to the protest with his 1½-year-old daughter, Aurora, and
solar-powered rainbow and bubble makers to keep her entertained.
Crater made a sign for her that read, "I believe in sunshine,
rainbows and my daddy, not smoke and mirrors and Mr. Bush." The
smoke and mirrors, he said, referred to Bush’s energy platform
based on illusions and lies.
He also brought a T-shirt that read, "Nuclear power? No thanks,"
and used it to dress Bush’s cardboard stand-in.
Crater said Bush is ignoring energy that’s right at our
fingertips, in forms such as solar and wind.
"We’re surrounded by energy and perceived energy shortages," he
said, "because we’ve been told we need oil to run our car.
"To use nuclear power to generate electricity is like using a
chain saw to cut butter," he continued. "The job is much simpler
than the energy that is generated."
Susan Scholl, a North Coventry resident and member of Democracy
in Action and Berks Peace, attended the protest because she sees
war as "the biggest environmental disaster of all time."
Barry Friedman, a Montgomery County resident, said he came to
the protest because he’s concerned about the proposed dry-cask
storage of spent fuel rods at the Limerick plant.
"Nuclear power is a blatant disregard for homeland security by
allowing above-ground storage of nuclear fuel rods," he said.
"Terrorists aren’t going to target a wind-generating station or
a solar power unit."
©The Mercury 2006
*****************************************************************
53 SouthofBoston.com: Nuclear plant hunting for missing devices
: Search is on for 2 radiation detectors containing uranium
The Patriot Ledger 400 Crown Colony Drive P.O. Box 699159 Quincy,
MA 02269-9159 (617) 786-7000 CONTACT US
By TAMARA RACE
The Patriot Ledger
PLYMOUTH - Workers at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant are
combing through records and checking the plants spent-fuel pool
as they look for two missing radiation detectors that contain
tiny amounts of highly radioactive uranium.
Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, said failure to find the detectors would not be a
catastrophe.
‘‘We have no belief that they left the site, Sheehan said.
‘‘If they left unshielded, they would have set off radiation
alarms at the plant. Its more likely they were shipped to a
low-level waste facility previously or are still in the
spent-fuel pool.
The detectors look like pieces of cable about 1 inch long and
0.16 inches around, Sheehan said. They are coated with uranium
235 and attached to devices the size of a pen. They contain
about 3 milligrams of uranium each, roughly equal to 30 grains
of salt.
The detectors are inserted into the reactor core to measure
power levels when a plant is restarted following a refueling or
some other shutdown.
When they wear out, they are removed from the reactor core,
placed in tubes and stored in the spent-fuel pool until they are
shipped to a nuclear waste facility such as the one in Barnwell,
S.C.
The missing detectors were placed in Pilgrims pool in 1987.
The detectors emit 10 to 200 millirems of radiation an hour.
‘‘The average American is exposed to about 360 millirems per
year, Sheehan said. ‘‘As long as a person is not in close
proximity to these devices for long periods of time, there
shouldnt be any health risk, but we expect Entergy (the owner
of Pilgrim) to do a thorough job of accounting for this material
to make sure its where it should be.
On Monday, Pilgrim workers took four of 12 storage tubes out of
the spent-fuel pool as part of a routine procedure.
Two of the four tubes did not contain detector devices,
prompting notification of the NRC and an investigation at the
plant.
The notification was required under the stricter spent-fuel
accounting guidelines put into effect after spent fuel rods were
lost at the Millstone nuclear power plant in Connecticut in June
2002.
Millstones owner spent millions of dollars conducting
unsuccessful cross-country searches for the spent fuel, Sheehan
said.
‘‘It remains a mystery, he said.
The owner of Millstone was fined $288,000.
The Vermont Yankee plant lost pieces of spent fuel rods, but
eventually found them.
Pacific Gas and Electric was fined $96,000 for losing three
segments of spent fuel rods in December, Sheehan said.
Spent fuel rods, even pieces of them, contain far more
radioactive material than the tiny detectors missing at Pilgrim,
Sheehan said.
He could not say whether Entergy will be fined if the detectors
are not found.
Entergy spokesman David Tarantino said Pilgrim workers will look
in the remaining eight storage tubes this week to see if
detectors were doubled up in storage.
‘‘Its also possible they were shipped out in the 80s and not
documented, he said. ‘‘Were extremely confident these are not
in someones desk. We will investigate and report back to the
NRC.
Although the loss of radioactive material is rare, Sheehan said
more situations like the one at Pilgrim are likely to be
reported, given the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions tighter
accounting and notification requirements.
Tamara Race may be reached at trace@ledger.com.
Copyright 2006 The Patriot Ledger
Transmitted Thursday, May 25, 2006
CONTACT US The Patriot Ledger, 400 Crown Colony Drive P.O. Box
699159, Quincy, MA 02269-9159 Telephone: (617) 786-7000
*****************************************************************
54 Brattleboro Reformer: Short cuts VY output
By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff
Thursday, May 25 VERNON -- Vermont Yankee declared an "unusual
event" on Wednesday night, alerting first responders from around
the plant's emergency planning zone, which includes
Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
There was a problem with one of the plant's cooling water pumps,
a non-nuclear component that feeds water to the reactor. That
set off a carbon dioxide fire suppression system, according to
Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams.
Williams said there was either "smoke or fire," in one of the
plant's switching rooms, after a breaker for the affected pump
shorted and activated an extinguishing system.
He said he didn't know whether there was fire, smoke or both,
and there was no clarification by press time.
The "unusual event" was declared at 9:02 p.m., and resolved at
10:20.
"Unusual event" is the lowest emergency level at a nuclear power
plant.
The official reason for the event was that the problem was not
resolved within 10 minutes, according to Diane Screnci,
spokeswoman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A full-time fire brigade at the plant responded, and cut the
power to the breaker when it arrived, Williams said.
Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Vermont Gov. James Douglas, said his
office was told that the smoke stopped after crews cut power to
the breaker.
The Vermont Emergency Management Agency call center in Waterbury
was activated, though on a limited basis, said spokesman Lou
Stowell. The agency did not use tone alert radios.
There was one injury reported, as Rescue Inc. crews responded to
a member of Vermont Yankee's fire brigade. There were no further
details on the firefighter's condition.
The plant did not shut down, Williams said, though engineers
reduced power output to 57 percent. He said it would likely
remain at that level overnight.
"I would expect that while we review it and make any repairs
necessary," he said. "We obviously would do a very thorough
review of this and also change out any equipment that needs to
be replaced or repaired. We'll make sure we understand the root
cause."
Screnci said a resident NRC inspector had gone to the plant and
will continue to follow up on the incident.
"We'll figure out what happened, why it happened and they'll fix
what they need to," she said.
Vermont Yankee recently completed an uprate, increasing its
power by 20 percent, or 650 megawatts.
Plant spokesman Larry Smith said he could not speculate about
whether or not the uprate had anything to do with Wednesday's
event.
It is the third significant electrical incident at the plant in
the past two years.
The last time Vermont Yankee declared an "unusual event" was in
June 2004, when a fire broke out in a transformer at the plant.
That event caused the reactor to shut down for 17 days.
In July 2005, an electical insulator in the Vermont Yankee's
switchyard broke, which sent a signal through the plant that
shut down its generator, turbines and reactor.
Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
*****************************************************************
55 Public Citizen: President Bush’s Speech Today Ignores the Reality
of Nuclear Power: It Is Dangerous, Uneconomical and Polluting
May 24, 2006
Statement of Michele Boyd, Legislative Director of Public
Citizens Energy Program
President Bushs speech today at the Limerick Generating Station
in Pennsylvania advocating the building of new nuclear power
plants completely neglects the dangers and unresolved problems
associated with nuclear power. Since Vice President Dick
Cheneys secret energy task force meetings in 2001 with nuclear
industry representatives, the Bush administration has touted new
nuclear power plants as a safe and clean alternative energy
source. Despite streamlined licensing procedures for new
reactors enacted by Congress in 1992 and more than $12 billion
in taxpayer subsidies to nuclear utilities authorized in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, the White House is obviously not
convinced that it has done enough for the nuclear industry. It
is creating a vaguely defined working group of federal agency
officials to push even harder for the construction of new
nuclear reactors.
The administrations enthusiasm for nuclear power conveniently
ignores the reasons we stopped building new nuclear plants more
than twenty years ago: Nuclear power is fatally flawed. Nuclear
reactors create large quantities of radioactive waste that pile
up around the country and remain dangerous for hundreds of
thousands of years. Nuclear waste also presents the temptation
to reprocess, as shown by the presidents proposed Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, which would create a global
plutonium economy and increase the risk that plutonium could be
used in nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. New nuclear plants
will also expose many more communities to the threats of nuclear
accidents and potential terrorism. And once again taxpayers will
be on the hook for the hefty financial risks associated with
building nuclear plants.
Renewable energy sources and efficiency technologies are the
only safe, clean option to meet U.S. energy needs in coming
decades. Technologies such as solar, wind, advanced hydro,
certain types of biomass and geothermal energy can generate as
much energy as conventional sources and can do so more cheaply
and without producing radioactive waste. The U.S. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory recently concluded that all U.S.
electricity demand could technically be met by renewable energy
resources in the coming decades. Federal efforts and dollars
should focus on promoting these technologies. Despite the
billions of dollars in subsidies and a new public relations
campaign, the Bush administration cannot change reality: Nuclear
power remains a dangerous, uneconomical and polluting energy
source.
###
*****************************************************************
56 AU ABC: Sunshine Coast politicians oppose nuclear power plant.
25/05/2006. ABC News Online
Sunshine Coast politicians have given a resounding 'no' to the
idea of a nuclear power station on the coast.
The Australia Institute has put forward the Sunshine Coast as
one of several regions on the eastern seaboard that would be
perfect for a nuclear power station.
The member for Kawana, Chris Cummins, says even suggesting a
nuclear power station could be built in the region could ruin
the local tourism industry.
"The talk of nuclear power plants and similar could devastate
that market," he said.
"We do not want to see nuclear power in Queensland, we will not
accept it on the Sunshine Coast, we want a clean, green family
area to remain."
*****************************************************************
57 AU ABC: Safety a main concern in nuclear energy debate
The World Today - Thursday, 25 May , 2006 12:34:00
Reporter: David Mark
ELEANOR HALL: Now to debate on nuclear energy in Australia.
Yesterday on the program we heard from a range of nuclear
physicists selling the benefits of nuclear power in Australia.
They say the looming global climate crisis driven by fossil
fuels should put the atom back in the energy picture.
But opponents say nuclear power is still too expensive and they
deny technical advances have made it safe.
This report from David Mark.
DAVID MARK: The Executive Director of the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation, Ian Smith, outlines these
three reasons for Australia adopting nuclear technology for
electricity generation.
IAN SMITH: The first is to do with energy security and the price
of energy.
The second is to do with the greenhouse gas effects. Nuclear
power is 50 times better than coal in removing CO2 from the
atmosphere.
The third reason is to do with the economics. Many overseas
studies have shown that nuclear power is in fact the cheapest
form of electricity that can be produced at this time.
DAVID MARK: Now even some staunch environmental campaigners,
like the naturalist Tim Flannery, have added their voices to the
nuclear debate.
Tim Flannery believes Australia could support a nuclear industry
once the right controls were in place.
TIM FLANNERY: You know, if we can deal with the issues of
proliferation and waste disposal, which we can deal with, then,
sure, I think uranium definitely has a role to play.
DON HENRY: There's absolutely no way we should embrace nuclear
technology.
DAVID MARK: Don Henry is the Executive Director of the
Australian Conservation Foundation.
DON HENRY: We shouldn't mine more uranium. And we certainly
shouldn't have nuclear power stations. And we definitely
shouldn't accept high-level radioactive waste in Australia.
And look, the reasons are simple. This is a dirty, dangerous
industry and it's not a solution to climate change.
DAVID MARK: Nuclear supporters say the technology is now safe,
thanks to a new generation of gas-cooled reactors.
They say the most famous nuclear accident in history, the
radioactive leak at Chernobyl in 1986, was a one-off, caused by
a Soviet regime that didn't have enough money, poor construction
and human error.
But Don Henry isn't buying that argument.
DON HENRY: Human error always occurs.
And we have to remember with nuclear power and with the whole
nuclear cycle that not only do we have nuclear power stations,
we then have to worry about decommissioning them and we then
have to deal with highly poisonous radioactive waste that stays
highly poisonous for tens of thousands of years.
And the risk of human error happening, the risk of a war, the
risk of terrorism or the risk of an economy going through its
ups and downs over tens and thousands of years is absolutely
there.
So the safest thing here is not to touch this stuff.
DAVID MARK: You mention the problems of storing the waste.
Again, proponents of nuclear energy say the waste can be stored
safely, and in fact there is very little waste to store?
DON HENRY: We've had 50 years of the nuclear experiment around
the world and there is not yet one fully functional,
large-scale, high-level waste disposal anywhere in the world.
DAVID MARK: The Executive Director of The Australia Institute,
Clive Hamilton, is a vocal campaigner for action on climate
change.
He entered the nuclear debate recently, when he suggested
several possible locations for nuclear generators in Australia.
It was an effective ruse. It got people talking. But the reality
is he's no nuclear supporter.
CLIVE HAMILTON: Nuclear power is probably the worst way, from an
economic point of view, to try to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
It's very expensive, so even before you get to the safety
concerns and disposal of or storage of nuclear waste for tens of
thousands of years simply looking at the economics of it shows
that it doesn't stack up.
DAVID MARK: Don Henry and Clive Hamilton say the nuclear debate
is a furphy, designed to prevent the debate they believe is
truly needed: why Australia isn't rapidly adopting renewable
technologies.
Nuclear proponents say their technology is cheaper, but Clive
Hamilton disagrees.
CLIVE HAMILTON: Every analysis of the comparative costs of
alternative energy systems shows that nuclear power is the most
expensive and that the range of renewable energy alternatives
are much cheaper.
So why we're not investing massively in those is sort of... is
beyond my understanding.
And to start talking about constructing a whole new industrial
sector with all of the safety and infrastructure costs involved
is really… it's a bizarre debate.
DON HENRY: We need to start dramatically cutting greenhouse
pollution in Australia today.
We can do it today with our existing suite of technologies, with
a much stronger use of renewable power, with much greater use of
energy efficiency and more use of biofuels and gas, we can cut
Australia's emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
So in some ways this nuclear debate's a smokescreen for not
acting on climate change today.
ELEANOR HALL: And that's the Executive Director of the
Australian Conservation Foundation, Don Henry, ending David
Mark's report.
*****************************************************************
58 Shanghai Daily: Shandong to build nuclear plant
Wenhui-Xinmin United Press Group
Li Xinran
2006-05-25
CHINA kicked off preparations for a new
nuclear power plant in Shandong Province yesterday, China News
Service reported.
The Hongshiding nuclear plant will be built in Rushan City,
Shandong Province, where an abundance of water resources are,
and easy to collect and drain sea water, the report said. The
site is also in stable geological condition and has never been
threatened by meteorological calamities. With few people living
in the area, the site was also chosen because it's close to the
planned power transmission load center.
Two sets of mega watt nuclear power units will be installed in
the first phase, while the whole project will have six in total
once it's complete.
Construction on the plant will be start by 2010, and the plant
is expected to be up and running before 2015, the report said.
Shandong Province's economy is rapidly booming, said Lin
Tingsheng, the vice governor. With this rapid economic growth,
we need a safe, reliable and clean energy supply, he added.
Based on one of China's long term strategic development plans,
this nuclear plant is the answer, Lin said.
China will build 32 nuclear power plants over the next 15 years.
With the new plants, the country's nuclear generating capacity
will reach 40 gigawatts and account for 4 percent of the
nation's total -- up from 1.59 percent now -- the official China
Securities Journal said, citing Shen Wenquan, vice director of
the state-run China National Nuclear Corporation.
Most of China's nuclear power plants are currently located in
its highly developed coastal areas, and that it's considering
building more in the interior hinterland, in areas like Sichuan
province.
China now has nine nuclear reactors in operation.
*****************************************************************
59 canada.com: Caldicott still pushing her anti-nuclear message after 30 years
Beth Gorham, Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, May 25, 2006
WASHINGTON (CP) - Helen Caldicott is frustrated.
These days, the woman who galvanized the anti-nuclear movement
and once spoke to a million people at a New York peace rally is
finding it harder to get heard.
High-profile TV interviews are tough to get. American
newspapers, she says, aren't finding space for her message about
the "nuclear cowboys" in the Bush administration.
But Caldicott, 67, who lives much of the year in her native
Australia, isn't giving up on the personal war she's waged for
three decades and she's lost none of her famous blunt intensity.
Although the Cold War is long over, thousands of hydrogen bombs
are still on hair-trigger alert, she says, and a renaissance in
nuclear power is making the world an even more dangerous place.
"I guess I'm a kind of Cassandra, destined not to be heard,"
Caldicott muses on one of her frequent visits to the United
States, where she runs a think-tank, the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute, designed to counter conservative organizations.
"Where we are, we've regressed 30 years," she says, reeling off
a list of facts and figures at rapid-fire pace.
"I feel devastated. I feel like my life's been in vain. But I
feel better when I'm doing the work. If I stop, I get so
depressed I have to take Zoloft.
"I have this crazy idea I can influence things. I did in the
1980s. I led the movement."
Canadians became well acquainted with Caldicott in the early
part of the decade after the National Film Board of Canada
documented her graphic descriptions of the medical consequences
of nuclear war in a lecture to American students.
If You Love This Planet won an Academy Award but is still banned
in the United States as foreign propaganda.
Curiously, Caldicott hated the film when she saw it and wasn't
expecting the attention it garnered.
"I don't like to hear myself speak," she says simply.
"They wired me up and I gave the speech. It was all serendipity.
At that time, I was so busy and so tired, I was hardly ever
home. I just went from one stage to another."
Caldicott became a household name in the '80s and a favourite in
Hollywood, making the covers of Time and Newsweek and once
sitting down with former U.S. president Ronald Reagan to lecture
him about nuclear stockpiles.
Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, Caldicott's five books have
taken aim at weapons, power plants, the Bush administration's
Star Wars project and companies profitting from the Iraq war.
Now she's addressing the energy issue in greater detail with a
book due this fall called Nuclear Power's Not the Answer, a
timely treatise given plans in North America to expand an
industry that critics say provides an inviting target for
terrorists.
On Wednesday, President George W. Bush promoted nuclear power as
a way out of the country's dependence on foreign oil, saying
it's time the United States started building more plants, the
first since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
And Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the nuclear option will
play an important role in future energy solutions in Canada,
where there are 22 power plants.
It may be the best solution to Ontario's electricity needs, says
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, despite the obvious downsides of
Chornobyl-type accidents and radioactive waste.
Caldicott is livid about arguments from industry, politicians,
even some environmentalists, that nuclear power is economical,
environmentally friendly and safe.
"They say it's the answer to global warming. It's not. They
should be sued for lying. Nuclear power causes global warming, it
releases radioactive material into the air. It's a socialized
cancer industry in this country with a legacy of radioactive
waste that we're leaving to our descendants."
One more meltdown like Chornobyl in 1986 will spell the end of
nuclear plants forever, she says, and security hasn't increased
since the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.
"They're catastrophes waiting to happen."
Canada, she say, has a chance to be a global model.
"Canada needs to rise to its full spiritual and moral height.
Stop mining uranium and do not build any more Candu reactors and
export them. Close down the ones around Toronto."
Caldicott, who once e-mailed Pope John Paul II asking him to
intervene before the U.S. invaded Iraq, has also been vocal in
denouncing the war and its "slaughter" of some 300,000 Iraqi
civilians.
"And people are just sitting around with their lattes. For good
people to do nothing . . . I can't help but be reminded of
(wartime) Germany."
She scoffs at American concerns about Iran's nuclear capabilities
given the country's own arsenal of some 7,000 weapons and
violations of international arms control treaties.
"Iran is 10 years away. This is a drum up. This is like weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq and it's wicked. The hypocrisy of the
thing is just so obscene."
Caldicott says she was first inspired to do something about
nuclear weapons as a teenager when she read Neville Shute's book
On the Beach about an accidental nuclear war that ends the world.
A mother of three who now has six grandchildren, she quit her
pediatric medical practice in the late 1970s to work on the issue
full time, founding the Physicians for Social Responsibility
which is still active.
Along with her medical career, her marriage was a casualty of her
dedication to the cause.
And while she talks longingly about gardening at the compound she
shares with her daughter's family, she has several other projects
lined up.
Another book early next year called War in Heaven will examine
the militarization of space.
"Missile defence is a Trojan horse. It will never work but it's a
way to get people to accept weapons in space," she says. "And
you're involved in it up to your eyeballs. Many of your
corporations are making components."
Canada hasn't signed on to the massive American missile defence
project although it's part of Norad, a bi-national defence
command that tracks threats to the continent from air, space and
sea.
There's another opus in the works, Why Men Kill.
"I'm dedicating it to (Defence Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld," says
Caldicott, who calls it a sociological examination of the
glorification of war.
"He's a sociopath," she says. "He lies consistently but he's
charming. Why does society glorify killers? Why do we fall in
love with the medals?"
So when will Caldicott retire? She's not saying. There's a lot
left to do.
"Yes, I'm a bit frustrated at the moment. But that's not to say
we can't achieve our goals."
c The Canadian Press 2006
© 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of . All rights
*****************************************************************
60 asahi.com: Governor to approve restarting reactor
05/25/2006 THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
FUKUI--The governor of Fukui Prefecture will approve plans to
resume operations at a reactor that was the site of Japan's
deadliest accident at a nuclear power plant, sources said
Wednesday.
Governor Issei Nishikawa will soon convey his approval when he
meets Shosuke Mori, president of Kansai Electric Power Co.,
which operates the Mihama Nuclear Power Station.
Nishikawa's approval will pave the way for restarting operations
at the No. 3 reactor at the plant, possibly this summer. At
least two months are needed to complete final inspections at the
facility.
The No. 3 reactor was shut down after the accident in Aug. 9,
2004, when scalding steam and water spewed from a ruptured pipe
in the turbine building, killing five workers and injuring six
others.
The corroded pipe had not been replaced since 1976, when
operations at the plant started.
On May 10, Kansai Electric Power requested discussions with the
Fukui prefectural government and the Mihama municipal government
on restarting the reactor.
Under safety agreements, Kansai Electric Power is required to
obtain approval of the prefectural and town governments before
restarting operations. The utility also needs a confirmation of
safety by the central government.
Nishikawa decided to give the go-ahead after taking into account
Mihama Mayor Jitaro Yamaguchi's intention of approving the
resumption of operations and Kansai Electric Power's measures to
prevent similar accidents, the sources said.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry ordered Kansai Electric Power in
September 2004 to suspend operations of the No. 3 reactor.
The carbon-steel pipe had been worn thin from decades of
high-pressure steam.
The electric power supplier replaced the ruptured pipe with one
made of stainless steel, which is less vulnerable to corrosion.
Kansai Electric Power has enhanced the system for checking the
thickness of pipe walls in secondary system piping, and
relocated its nuclear power operation headquarters to Mihama.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency lifted its suspension
order in December 2005 after confirming the replaced pipe and
other changes met the government's safety
requirements.(IHT/Asahi: May 25,2006)
+ The Asahi Shimbun Company
*****************************************************************
61 AFP: Nuclear power: safe, inexpensive and environmentally-friendly, says Bush -
Wed May 24, 7:18 PM ET
POTTSTOWN, United States (AFP) - President George W. Bush" />
President George W. Bushtouted nuclear power as a safe,
inexpensive and environmentally-friendly way to meet America's
growing energy needs.
"Nuclear power is abundant and affordable," the US President
said during a brief stop at a nuclear power station here.
"It is a really important way to meet our goals, which is to
have abundant, affordable, clean, and safe sources of energy,"
the US president said at the Limerick Generating Station.
"Once you get the plant up and running, the operating costs of
these plants are significantly lower than other forms of
electricity plants, which means the energy is affordable," Bush
said.
The US president lamented that a new nuclear power plant hasn't
been built "in a long period of time" in America, and said that
the time is ripe to change that.
"For the sake of economic security and national security, the
United States of America must aggressively move forward with the
construction of nuclear power plants," Bush said, adding that
there is even a strong environmental argument for doing so.
"People in our country are rightly concerned about greenhouse
gases and the environment, and I can understand why," he said.
"Nuclear power will help us deal with the issue of greenhouse
gases.
"Without nuclear energy," the president continued, "carbon
dioxide emissions would have been 28 percent greater in the
electricity industry in 2004.
"Without nuclear power, we would have had an additional 700
million tons a year of carbon dioxide, and that's nearly equal
to the annual emissions from 136 million passenger cars," said
the president.
"Nuclear power helps us protect the environment."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
62 Las Vegas SUN: Utah opponents get 600 signatures against Nevada
explosives test
Today: May 25, 2006 at 8:17:51 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ST. GEORGE, Utah (AP) - It took just two weeks for opponents of
a planned explosives test in Nevada to gather 600 signatures in
the St. George area on petitions asking Utah's senators to help
stop the test.
People downwind of the Nevada Test Site fear the June 23
detonation of the 700-ton ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb
will kick up radioactive-contaminated soil left from last
century's nuclear weapons tests.
Organizer Helene Stone said she would turn over the first batch
of petitions Thursday to the offices of Utah Republican Sens.
Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch.
Michelle Thomas, another organizer, said many petitions still
are being circulated and have not been collected.
Thomas said residents in Iron and Kane counties have contacted
her about speaking at protests they plan to hold.
Activist J. Preston Truman, a former St. George resident now
living in Malad, Idaho, said petitions for Idaho senators are
being circulated in Gem County, Idaho. Truman is president of
Downwinders, an organization of people who attribute health
problems among people downwind of the Nevada Test Site to the
fallout from the open-air nuclear tests in the 1950s and early
1960s.
Thomas said she thinks some people do not embrace the fight
against the test because they think of it as a political issue,
which she said it is not.
"You can still be a great American and protest bomb tests," she
said. "We have a right to want to protect ourselves. I don't see
a conflict with wanting to stay alive."
The federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency said the Divine
Strake test is intended to help design a weapon to penetrate
hardened and deeply buried targets.
---
Information from: The Spectrum, http://www.thespectrum.com
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
63 Deseret News: Test blast protested
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Anti-detonation petition will be delivered to 2 Utah senators
By Nancy Perkins
Deseret Morning News
ST. GEORGE — A petition urging the federal government to stop its
plans for detonating 700 tons of explosives in the Nevada desert
is planned to be hand-delivered to the St. George offices of
Utah's senior senators today.
"This round of petitions is just the beginning, a first
installment of Utahns finding their voices," said Helene Stone,
one of the St. George residents organizing a petition drive that
has garnered more than 600 signatures against the proposed
weapons test called Divine Strake.
"While the Pentagon tries to develop new nuclear weapons
for use on 'hard targets' out there, we could be the first line
of 'soft targets' here. And we're saying 'no,' " she said.
Stone said she would deliver the petitions to the local
offices of Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch today. If no one is
available to receive the petitions, Stone said she will fax the
documents to the senators' headquarters in Washington.
Hatch spokesman Peter Carr said Wednesday evening the
senator continues to raise concerns over the proposed explosion
at the Nevada Test Site, about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The planned detonation of 700 tons of conventional
explosives would take place about 1.1 miles from past
underground nuclear explosions. Critics fear the explosion will
disturb dangerous particles of radiation, while the federal
government insists the tests are safe.
Carr said a meeting with the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA) officials is planned in southern Utah, although no
date is set because the agency hasn't yet released the data
Hatch requested.
"The meeting in St. George is going to proceed, and
because of the many concerns that have been raised by those
along the Wasatch Front, I'm also requesting that DTRA hold a
meeting in Salt Lake City as well," Hatch said in an e-mailed
response to a Deseret Morning News request for comment. "The
DTRA hasn't provided me the data we need to determine the safety
of this test. We all need to review that data so we can have an
informed public discussion."
Stone said Dixie residents are worried that the purpose
of Divine Strake is to identify the "smallest proper nuclear
yield necessary to destroy underground facilities."
"This is a step in the direction of the development of a
new generation of nuclear weapons," she said. "People in the
rest of the country should understand that they, too, are
potential victims. Fallout maps from the 1950s and 1960s show
that very little of the country was spared. We are all
downwinders."
The term downwinders is used to describe people who
contracted specific cancers from exposure to radiation released
by previous nuclear-weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Test
Site. Patients who qualify under federal guidelines can receive
from $50,000 to $100,000 under a federal radiation-exposure
compensation program.
"As you know, a court has postponed the test," Hatch
states in his e-mail. "It has not been rescheduled. DTRA has
assured me that the test will not go forward until we have the
data in hand, we've had time to analyze it and the public has
been fully informed."
E-mail: nperkins@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /]
*****************************************************************
64 USATODAY.com: Protesters try to stop Pentagon blast in Nevada
Updated 5/25/2006 1:35 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print |
By Brian Passey, USA TODAY
ST. GEORGE, Utah — Residents downwind of the Nevada Test Site are
fighting to block a non-nuclear blast scheduled there in June,
mainly because of the legacy of Cold War atomic testing.
The Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) plans to
explode 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil at the site,
which is 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to test the effects of
ground shock on hardened targets, such as underground bunkers.
Though the test, code-named "Divine Strake," could mimic the
explosion of a small nuclear weapon, the agency has stressed it
is not a nuclear blast.
Opponents, who plan a demonstration Sunday, cite three reasons
for blocking the blast: There could be health hazards for those
downwind because radioactive soil left over from Cold War-era
atomic testing might be dispersed; the test could lead to
renewed nuclear testing; and the Western Shoshone tribe claims
the test would violate ancestral lands.
"The Divine Strake experiment will not include any radioactive
materials," Irene Smith, DTRA spokeswoman, said Wednesday.
"Surveys conducted in the area directly affected by the Divine
Strake experiment confirm the lack of any surface
contamination."
A number of small, rural protests have been held, and organizers
of the demonstration Sunday on the border of the Nevada Test
Site expect 1,000 people to participate.
Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a
Nevada-based environmental justice organization, said a goal of
Sunday's demonstration is to convince the government to do a
more complete environmental impact study.
"We're saying, 'Prove to us you're not lying now,' " said
Johnson, who lives in Las Vegas. "The government has the
opportunity to bring back some of the trust they lost. "
Nearly 40 environmental, human rights, American Indian and peace
groups are sponsoring the protest.
A group of downwinders people who reported increases in cancer
and other diseases following atomic testing 50 years ago and
members of the Shoshone tribe have sued the government in an
attempt to stop the blast.
The suit bought protesters some time. The blast, originally
planned for June 2, has been delayed at least until June 23.
After living through above-ground atomic testing, some survivors
say they are not ready to accept government claims that Divine
Strake will be safe.
One critic, Michelle Thomas, was born in 1952 in St. George,
about 150 miles east of the testing.
Her first serious health problems began in high school, and in
1993, her doctor said she had the same kind of breast cancer as
the women of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Thomas referred to the test as "unfriendly fire." She refuses to
trust the same government that assured downwind residents that
the Cold War-era testing was safe.
"I'm not nearly as afraid of the terrorists as I am of being
terrorized by my own country at this point," Thomas said.
Not all downwind residents see health risks.
Daniel Miles, a former physics professor who lives in St.
George, argued that humans live with radiation around them every
day. He said that even if contaminated soil at the site is
disrupted during the blast, it would not be harmful.
"I can't see any risk at all," Miles said.
Passey reports daily for The Spectrum in St. George, Utah.
Posted 5/24/2006 11:47 PM ET
USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
*****************************************************************
65 Spectrum: Officials get petition opposing bomb test
St. George Ut - www.thespectrum.com -
By BRIAN PASSEY bpassey@thespectrum.com
ST. GEORGE - Though petitions to stop the detonation of a
700-ton non-nuclear fuels bomb at the Nevada Test Site have only
been circulating the St. George area for less than two weeks,
organizers of the protest already have the support of 600
residents.
Those circulating and signing the petitions are concerned that
Divine Strake, the explosion scheduled for June 23, will disrupt
radioactively contaminated soil at the site 150 miles west of
St. George. The petitions ask Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Sen.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to protect Utah residents from possible
health dangers by helping stop the blast.
One organizer, Helene Stone, said she was impressed with the
number of signatures, especially given such a short time. The
first residents began signing petitions at a May 13 protest at
Bluff Street Park. Stone said she and other organizers received
many calls after the protest from residents wanting to sign the
petitions or help circulate them.
Though Stone plans to turn the petitions over to the senators'
local offices today, she stresses they are only part of the
first installment.
Michelle Thomas, another organizer, said she still has many
petitions circulating she has yet to collect.
Thomas also said residents from both Iron and Kane counties have
contacted her about speaking at protests they plan to hold.
J. Preston Truman, of Malad, Idaho, is president of Downwinders,
an organization of people who attribute health problems to the
Cold War-era atomic testing at the Nevada Test Site. He said
residents in Gem County, Idaho, are also circulating a petition
for the Idaho senators. Truman, who once lived in St. George,
also praised the Southern Utah effort.
"I think it's wonderful that they're doing that petition," he
said. "It shows just what the sentiments are."
Thomas said she thinks some people are still afraid to embrace
the fight against Divine Strake because they view it as a
political issue, which she said it is not.
"You can still be a great American and protest bomb tests," she
said. "We have a right to want to protect ourselves. I don't see
a conflict with wanting to stay alive."
Originally published May 25, 2006 Print this article
Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
66 Salt Lake Tribune: Town lives with fear of a cancer epidemic
Article Last Updated: 05/25/2006 12:26:44 AM MDT
But Monticello's rate within the norm, scientists say
By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune
MONTICELLO - More than 100 people walked into the high school
here Wednesday night, hoping for answers - some explanation for
why there seems to be a plague of cancers in their community.
And scientists and public officials who faced the uneasy
locals from a table in the front of the auditorium wanted to
deliver those answers. But the Utah Department of Health's
latest study of cancer incidence in Monticello simply does not
bear out suspicions that a government uranium mill has made the
town sick, state epidemiologists reported.
So, scientists and residents were left to agree the situation
is frustrating - and the answers, if there are any, are yet to
come.
It was a discouraging conclusion for people like Fritz
Pipkin, a leader in the fight over the defunct mill and a
leukemia survivor.
"We keep getting the same song and dance," he told the health
officials from federal, state and local agencies.
"You folks know deep down inside there is a problem. . . . We
just don't know where to go for help."
Some local residents suggest the federal government should
foot the bill for cancer treatment and screening in the town.
The government's mill at the south end of town made radium,
vanadium and uranium for war efforts. Residents blame the mill
for more than 400 cancer cases in the town of 2,000. And local
health surveys prove the state and federal studies are
undercounting the problem, they say.
Juliana Grant, an epidemiologist for the state, presented a
report that compared cancer cases recorded in Monticello from
1973 to 2003 to cancer cases statewide during those same years.
For the most part, for all but lung cancer over a four-year
period in the ''90s, Monticello's cancer rate was similar to
those in other parts of the state. And, in some cases,
Monticello's was lower, she said.
Grant noted the scientists shared the public's frustration.
At one point, she struggled to check her emotion.
"All of you live with the face of cancer every day," she
said. "I hope when we say we are doing the best science, we can
also say we are doing the best human science we can."
She had explained the latest study had lots of holes, that it
was inconclusive because of information gaps.
Some cancer cases were not included in the Utah Cancer
Registry, thus, the study, because people used out-of-state
hospitals or they lived outside the Monticello ZIP code. Some
were omitted because they were diagnosed before the registry had
a scientifically meaningful database.
Monticello resident Barbara Pipkin read off the names of
eight children under 18 who had died prior to the 1973 date on
which the study began.
"They are crying from their graves to be counted," she said.
David Sundwall, director of the Utah Department of Health,
pledged support. A congressional staff aide who helped build the
case for the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, he
urged the Monticello activists to look for guidance from other
federal compensation programs at former atomic weapons sites and
to fight to keep their own health facilities in good shape.
Epidemiologists in his agency said they would begin asking
Monticello residents to help them fill in the gaps in the cancer
registry, and they promised to look at other types of studies
that might make better use of locally conducted health survey
data.
But it sounded unlikely to satisfy those who say the time
for studies has past.
"That's probably good science," said County Commissioner
Bruce B. Adams. "But our common sense tells us this has been a
problem for 40 or 50 years. Who has the responsibility for
exposing the community? [The federal government should] take
some responsibility. It's been 50 years."
fahys@sltrib.com
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
67 New Haven Advocate: Like Pulling Teeth
Want to know if Millstone radiation causes cancer in kids?
Don't ask the governor. Ask the Tooth Fairy.
by Carole Bass - May 25, 2006
[Feature]
Katie the goat.
Jodi Rell might, for all we know, believe in the Tooth Fairy,
but she doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy Project. The state
has ditched a proposed study of radiation in baby teeth from
Connecticut kids. The governor's health department says it will
pursue the same goalexamining possible links between the
Millstone nuclear power plant and childhood cancerbut wants to
do more.
Listen closely, however, and you get the suspicion that the
state actually wants to do nothing.
"Certainly it's worthy of studying," says Lynn Townshend,
spokeswoman for the Department of Public Health. "We want to
make sure that the children of Connecticut are safe."
To that end, DPH will spend six to nine months putting together
a request for proposals for an unspecified study, at an
unspecified cost, to be paid for from unspecified sources. Or it
won't.
"If there's enough public interest, we want to consider the
public health of all, and at least look at the possibility" of a
study, Townshend says.
Six months from now, Jodi Rell will likely have been
resoundingly re-elected. It will then be safe for her
bureaucrats to announce that (according to health experts)
there's no evidence that living near a nuclear reactor causes
cancer, and therefore no need to waste valuable tax dollars on a
study.
T he so-called Tooth Fairy Project is an undertaking of the
Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a New York-based
nonprofit group "dedicated to understanding the relationships
between low-level nuclear radiation and public health."
The baby-tooth study is simple: RPHP collects teeth from
children with and without cancer and measures the levels of
strontium-90, a radioactive isotope that's a byproduct of
nuclear fission.
The group got public funding for studies in New Jersey and
Westchester County, N.Y. Joe Mangano, RPHP's national
coordinator, says the group has found higher levels of
strontium-90 in the teeth of kids with cancer than in those of
healthy children. He also says teeth collected in counties close
to nuclear plants have 30 percent to 50 percent more
strontium-90 than teeth from farther away. All of which, Mangano
believes, suggests a link between radiation from nuke plants and
childhood cancer.
So he pitched a Connecticut Tooth Fairy Project. And, says
Mangano, in late 2004 a Rell aide made an oral commitment to
fund a $25,000 study.
A year went by. No contract materialized. Then, this spring, the
health department told him it would not fund the study. Mangano
says he was given two reasons: Connecticut's recent history of
corruption meant the state couldn't hand him a no-bid contract.
And, separate from the health department's work, the Department
of Environmental Protection was doing a similar study.
That similar study turned out to involve not kids with cancer,
but goat's milk.
The activist group Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone
claimed late last year that strontium-90 in the milk of a goat
named Katie came from Millstone, five miles away. In a report
released this March, DEP attributed Katie's radioactive milk to
residual fallout from weapons testing and the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster.
Mangano, who has collaborated with the anti-Millstone coalition,
scoffs at the DEP study. "You have not addressed the question of
children with cancer," he says. "Rather than just look at
radiation in the milk and the water, look at what's in the
body."
G etting a straight answer from the state about why it rejected
the baby-tooth study is like... well, like pulling teeth.
"We were waiting for the DEP study to be completed and to. .
.make sure we're using the right methodologies," says Townshend,
the health department spokeswoman. "We want to make sure it's
scientific and that we have the right experts involved, whether
they're local, state or national."
She says $25,000 has been transferred to the health department
from another state agency. "We want to find out what an actual
study would cost, because $25,000 in this day and age does not
go very far."
Was that the same $25,000 that Mangano claims was committed to
his study? Townshend says Rell's office forwarded Mangano's
proposal to her department; she doesn't know about any
commitments the governor's office might or might not have made.
Rell spokesman John Wiltse is equally hard to pin down: "I'm not
aware of any formal commitment to fund this project."
What about an informal commitment? "Any commitment for a
contract or a study would have to go through the agency review
and staffing process before it was approved," says Wiltse. "My
understanding is that it was forwarded to the Department of
Public Health. I'm not aware of the specifics of the
conversation."
Pressed about why the baby-tooth study was rejected, Wiltse says
there were "serious concerns about this particular group's
research: their scope and their past work." He refers additional
questions back to the health department.
There, Townshend digs out a memo that doctors in the University
of Connecticut's dentistry school prepared for the health
commissioner. The memo says baby teeth are a valid way to
measure exposure to radiation. But it casts doubt on RPHP's
claimed finding of a correlation between strontium-90 and child
cancer.
What's more, the UConn dentists accuse Mangano's group of
misrepresenting other scientists' studies of child cancer rates
near nuclear plants. They ask whether RPHP is "careless or
fraudulent."
The UConn dentists recommend that instead of funding Mangano's
proposed study, the health department could hire UConn dental
faculty to do the same thing. Or it could pay UConn to analyze
Mangano's data. The third option: "Do nothing. Scientifically
there seems little value to be gained for the time and money."
W hat will the state do? Townshend talks about the need to
"look at all the angles."
But one state agency, DEP, has already declared that radioactive
goat's milk is no cause for alarm. Another, the dentistry
school, says there is no evidence linking cancer to nuclear
reactors.
Given those assessments and the foot-shuffling by Wiltse and
Townshend, we're betting that Connecticut's thorough examination
of the health effects of Millstone radiation will boil down to
the UConn dentists' Option #3: "Do nothing."
Teeth or no teeth, that's tough to swallow.
Use our contact form to write to Carole Bass.
Copyright © 1995-2006 New Mass Media. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
68 Deseret News: House OKs funds for temporary nuclear storage
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Bishop believes Utah won't get waste; Matheson wary
By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — The House approved $30 million for the temporary
storage of nuclear waste in the energy spending bill passed late
Wednesday.
The bill's report says the Energy Department could
consider private sites, which might make Private Fuel Storage's
proposed site in Tooele County a possible contender to store
waste before it went to Nevada's Yucca Mountain — if it ever
opens.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is confident the bill is written
in a way that would look to other sites before putting waste in
Utah, while Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, is concerned about the
money opening up the possibility for PFS to move forward. Bishop
said on the House floor late Tuesday that a "key word" in the
bill is "voluntary."
The bill says the department will "explore consolidation
of spent fuel within states with high volumes of spent fuel. The
department should conduct a voluntary, competitive process to
select interim storage sites."
"Chairman Hobson added this important phrase and clearly
understands that it is far wiser and better to voluntarily work
with states than to try to impose mandates on states," Bishop
said. "That not only protects the rights and positions of states
in our federal state, but it is clearly a wiser policy of
choice."
Bishop said this "reinforces" a commitment that Rep.
David Hobson, R-Ohio, has made in the past about not forcing
waste into Utah. Hobson is the head of the House Appropriations
Energy and Water Development Committee, which wrote the energy
spending bill.
"State and local officials in my state, military in my
state, environmental groups and citizens in my state are
encouraged with these particular words," Bishop said.
But Matheson said just the existence of the $30 million
in the bill "is a step in the wrong direction." He worries that
the funding may be viewed by PFS as an opportunity to push
harder for customers.
"Because PFS has been granted a license by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, we have to be concerned about Congress
seeing Utah as a viable interim storage site," said Matheson.
"That is a non-starter, as far as I am concerned."
Matheson — and the rest of the Utah delegation —
co-sponsored a bill that would keep nuclear waste at commercial
reactors. Right now, federal law requires nuclear waste to go
inside Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, but the
repository is eight years behind schedule.
Because of the delay, the government estimates it will
cost the federal government about $500 million in legal
liability on top of other costs. Utilities are suing the
department because the waste is still there and not in Nevada.
This is why interim storage grows more attractive, but
federal nuclear waste law would have to change before any
government-sponsored interim storage could move forward. Right
now it is not allowed.
PFS is willing to work with the Energy Department and has
formally asked the department to become a customer, but it has
not received a response.
The $30 billion spending bill contains about $40 million
specific to Utah for a variety of projects. The Senate still
needs to work on its version of the bill.
It contains $19.8 million for remediation work at the
Moab uranium mill tailings site and $40 million for the Central
Utah Project — most of which is for construction, according to
Matheson's office.
Bishop's office said the bill contains almost $1.7
million for the Weber Basin Project, $200,000 for the Park City
Feasibility Study to do an environmental study on the
feasibility of transporting water from Rockport Reservoir to the
Snyderville Basin, $200,000 for digital mammography equipment
and other cancer equipment for Logan's Cancer Center, among
other items.
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /]
*****************************************************************
69 Deseret News: Monticello wants answers on uranium mill
Thursday, May 25, 2006
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
MONTICELLO — Conversation overheard here Wednesday:
['Image'] Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning NewsSteve Pehrson asks
a question during a meeting about the city's high cancer rates.
His father died of cancer.
Craig Leavitt: "They're waiting for us to die."
Jackie Steele: "And it's working."
That's the pessimistic response among some residents to a
just-released Utah Department of Health report about whether
Monticello residents have an elevated risk of cancer after years
of exposure to the town's former uranium mill.
Inconclusive without more study was the gist of the
report, unveiled Wednesday night at a town meeting that drew
about 100 current and former residents, as well as more than a
dozen representatives from federal and state health and
environmental agencies.
The town, led by a small grass-roots group called the
Victims of Mill Tailings Exposure, is hoping to convince the
federal government that Monticello's past history of exposure to
radiation and toxic chemicals from the uranium mill makes it
eligible for a federally funded early-detection cancer screening
clinic and a cancer treatment facility.
But first the town must prove that its stories of cancer
after cancer in nearly every house in town add up to an
"elevated" cancer risk compared to Utah as a whole, and is not
due to just random chance.
The UDOH report, compiled by its office of epidemiology,
concluded that the incidence of cancers in zip code 84535 is
"not statistically significant." However, the report cautioned
that the health department's study is just preliminary and did
not include cancers diagnosed prior to 1973, the year the Utah
Cancer Registry began, and that it also didn't include cases
diagnosed outside Utah.
'I want to assure you that this is just a first step,"
said the report's co-author, Juliana Grant, who acknowledged
that the failure to provide a definitive answer is frustrating
to both scientists and residents. Grant's voice cracked as she
told the community she knew that "all of you live with the face
of cancer each day. We get to go back to Salt Lake and we don't
live with this every day." But, she said, the department is
"committed to doing the best we can" to help the town.
The town meeting was both low key and emotional. Fritz
Pipkin, 58, who was diagnosed with leukemia three years ago,
told the panel of federal experts that "I wish the people of
this community who passed away could walk through that door.
They would shame the federal government for putting that mill
over the hill. We need some help, and we're not going to sit
back and wait."
According to the report, more studies are needed to
validate the numbers and names of cancer cases provided by VMTE
based on its 2005 health survey of current and former residents.
VMTE's list includes many names of people diagnosed prior to the
Cancer Registry, as well as people who were diagnosed outside
Utah.
The UDOH report noted that it would have to determine
whether former residents who moved out of state were not later
exposed to other cancer agents elsewhere. According to Grant, it
will also be difficult to determine how many cancer patients
there were prior to the beginning of the Cancer Registry in
1973. The UDOH will have to decide whether such studies are
feasible.
The report did acknowledge that "residents of Monticello
were exposed to numerous chemical and radioactive contaminants
due to activities of the uranium-processing mill."
The mill operated on the south side of town from 1943 to
the beginning of 1960, processing both vanadium and uranium; the
uranium was believed to have been used in the manufacture of
nuclear weapons for the Manhattan Project.
The uranium ore, trucked in from hundreds of mines in the
area, was pulverized into fine yellow dust that was blown by the
prevailing winds across the town, and was tracked home by
workers to unsuspecting family members.
['Image'] Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning NewsResidents gathered
at Monticello High School to discuss a study looking at the
cancer impact from the city's former uranium mill with state and
federal officials. The current residents want the federal
government, which owned the mill, to tell them, as Jackie Steele
says, "what came out of that smokestack," by performing a "dose
reconstruction" if necessary. Her husband Pete, a former uranium
miner, has multiple myeloma and pulmonary fibrosis. Once
6-feet-3-inches, Pete has lost 8 inches in height because of the
bone cancer. Jackie's sister has two sons diagnosed with cancer.
The federal government abandoned the mill in 1960, but
did nothing to protect townspeople from what was left behind —
including tailings piles that became a favorite playground for
children, and provided "sand" for sandboxes, brick mortar and
road base.
The government has nearly completed its clean up of the
mill site. City officials point out that the town is now safe.
The town first noticed what might be cancer clusters in
the 1960s when seven young people living within blocks of each
other died of leukemia. Since then, there have been at least 18
other leukemia cases, according to the VMTE health survey. One
more leukemia case was added on yesterday.
VMTE's list includes more than 416 cancers; the UDOH's
study included 141.
The cases are now reaching into the fourth generation,
possibly because of genetic effects of earlier exposure, says
Jackie Steele.
E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /]
*****************************************************************
70 AP Wire: Last of most dangerous waste at former uranium plant headed out
05/25/2006 |
LISA CORNWELL Associated Press
CINCINNATI - The cleanup of a former uranium processing site
from the Cold War era is reaching another milestone as workers
prepare to ship the last load of the most dangerous radioactive
waste remaining at the site.
"Now, we can really see the light at the end of the tunnel,"
said Lisa Crawford, president of the Fernald Residents for
Environmental Safety and Health, a nonprofit citizens group
started by about 100 concerned families who lived near the
Fernald plant. "This is the last of the really bad stuff."
Fernald, about 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, processed and
purified uranium for use in reactors to produce plutonium for
nuclear weapons from the 1950s until 1989. The final 12
canisters of treated byproduct from the refining of uranium will
be moved by trucks on Friday to a storage site near Andrews,
Texas.
The raw ore stored in Silos 1 and 2 for more than 50 years posed
one of the greatest sources of direct radiation to Fernald
workers and was a concern to area residents, said Jeff Wagner,
spokesman for Fluor Fernald, the contractor managing the cleanup
for the Department of Energy.
The two silos held waste containing radium, which produces the
radioactive gas radon, known to cause cancer. That waste was
moved into steel tanks last year where it was treated by
blending it with flyash and cement and sealed in 1/2-inch thick
steel containers weighing about 20,000 pounds each. The removal
and disposal of the waste is the last major hurdle in the $4.4
billion cleanup.
Waste from pits that mostly contained contaminated sludge from
the ores and the contents of a third silo that held waste
containing thorium - a radioactive substance hazardous through
inhalation to humans - already has been shipped to an Envirocare
site in Utah.
Fluor Fernald still has to complete demolition of the treatment
complex and storage tank facilities and remove any remaining
contaminated soil and rubble, but cleanup of the 1,050 acre-site
should be completed in August.
"It's been emotional, but satisfying, as workers - some of whom
have been here for 20 years or more - work themselves out of a
job," Wagner said of the cleanup, which began in the 1980s even
before the government stopped production.
Crawford, who has fought for the cleanup for nearly 23 years,
said it has been an emotional year for everyone.
"Every milestone brings us closer to what will soon be a mission
accomplished," said Crawford, whose group plans to meet one last
time in November.
"Our goal was to get the site cleaned up, and we will have met
that even if it took over two decades," she said.
Crawford said residents were angry and hurt when they started
their struggle to ensure the safe cleanup of the site, but she
believes everyone now has a good working relationship.
"We knew we'd never get total cleanup, but we think it's where
folks can live with it."
Restoration plans for the site call for an undeveloped park with
forests, open fields, floodplains and wetlands. The park is
intended to be a wildlife haven and could include a center to
teach visitors about the weapons work at the plant and the
subsequent cleanup.
A new group - the Fernald Community Alliance - is forming to
make sure that continued monitoring and treatment of water will
be done and to keep watch over restoration efforts.
Crawford won't be leading that group, but plans to participate.
"I'll be around," she said. "Old activists never die."
*****************************************************************
71 reviewjournal.com: Yucca cartoon figure withstands Berkley attack
in Congress
May 25, 2006
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Yucca Mountain Johnny wears safety glasses as part of his updated
appearance, right, on the project Web site.
WASHINGTON -- Maybe it was the makeover that left him newly
buff, but Yucca Mountain Johnny on Wednesday survived an attempt
to put him out of business.
Johnny is a cartoon miner, the mascot for the youth pages of the
Web site for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository.
He had raised the ire of Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and
anti-Yucca activists who derided him as a pro-nuclear tool aimed
at children.
When the House debated its annual energy spending bill
Wednesday, Berkley proposed an amendment to take Johnny down. It
would have cut off funding for the youth section of the Web
site.
"This character was created with taxpayer money to convince
elementary school children that nuclear waste is a good thing,"
Berkley said.
"We should not be using our children as propaganda tools. This
is not Communist Russia, the last time I looked."
Berkley's amendment failed, 271-147, after senior lawmakers
spoke in defense of DOE's education efforts.
"To my knowledge, nobody is questioning the accuracy and truth
of what's on the Web site," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.
"The people have spoken. Johnny wins," DOE spokesman Craig
Stevens said after the vote, calling the amendment "pure
silliness."
"Yucca Mountain Johnny may live to fight another day, but he has
been exposed to the world for the phony that he is," Berkley
responded.
"More than 140 of my colleagues agreed that taxpayer funds
should not be used for such blatant pro-Yucca propaganda aimed
at America's youth."
The Yucca Mountain "youth zone" within www.ymp.govtalks about
the Nevada site and the repository project in simplified
language, linking users to more details deeper within DOE Web
pages. It also contains quizzes and games.
But Berkley said the site is silent on safety risks of
transporting nuclear waste and shortcomings in the Yucca project
that have caused it to fall years behind schedule.
Recent visitors to the Web site have found a new Yucca Mountain
Johnny. DOE officials said he was modernized in a redesign last
month.
The new Johnny sports safety goggles, a safety vest and a tool
belt. He also appears more muscular.
"He looks more like a miner," DOE spokesman Allen Benson said.
"It is not subliminal; those are safety glasses and a safety
belt. The message is safety."
As for his buffness, "he may have been updated a little bit,"
Benson said.
During debate, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, said perhaps Johnny
was "cutesy" and could be reworked. But he urged that DOE's
education efforts not be abandoned.
"The best thing against fear is knowledge," Hobson said. "If we
could have a more balanced approach, I think Yucca Mountain
Johnny may have a place in teaching kids."
Debate came as the House moved toward passage of a $30 billion
spending bill for the Energy Department, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation for 2007.
The bill contains $544.5 million to continue development of
Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste. It also contains $120 million
for the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,
a waste reprocessing initiative.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., proposed to cut $40 million from the
GNEP budget. His amendment was defeated, 295-128.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
72 Salt Lake Tribune: House approves funds for nuke storage - not
necessarily in Utah
Article Last Updated: 05/25/2006 09:29:43 AM MDT
By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - The House passed legislation Wednesday that would
set aside $30 million for temporary storage of nuclear waste.
Sponsors say the provision doesn't mean spent power-plant
fuel will end up in Utah, but the prospect still concerns Rep.
Jim Matheson, D-Utah.
Matheson said Wednesday that Private Fuel Storage, which
seeks to store 44,000 tons of nuclear waste on the Skull Valley
Goshute Indian Reservation 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City,
could see the interim storage funding as an opening to push for
storage in Utah.
"Because PFS has been granted a license by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, we have to be concerned about Congress
seeing Utah as a viable interim storage site," Matheson said in
a statement. "That is a non-starter, as far as I am concerned."
Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the subcommittee that
sets spending for energy and water programs and a proponent of
interim storage, has said he doesn't want the spent fuel from
nuclear reactors forced on any community. That has reassured
most members of the Utah congressional delegation.
On Tuesday, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, spoke on the House floor,
reminding Hobson of his previous commitment and commending
language accompanying the legislation which says storage should
be voluntary in areas with large amounts of nuclear power.
"State and local officials in my state, military in my state,
environmental groups and citizens in my state are encouraged
with these particular words," Bishop said.
If the spending is approved, the existing laws would have to
be changed in a separate bill to allow interim nuclear storage.
The House energy bill shorted President Bush's request for
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which seeks, in part, to
develop a technology to recycle used uranium from nuclear
reactors.
EnergySolutions, formerly Envirocare of Utah, is one of the
companies interested in the recycling project.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
73 kgw.com: Judge: DOE must obey agreement with Idaho to remove nuke waste
| News for Oregon and SW Washington | AP Wire
05/25/2006
By CHRISTOPHER SMITH / Associated Press
A federal judge ruled Thursday the U.S. Department of Energy must
abide by a landmark 1995 agreement with Idaho to remove all
high-level radioactive waste stored at the Idaho National
Laboratory and ship it out of state for disposal by 2018,
regardless whether it is buried or stored aboveground.
U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge rejected DOE's argument that
the agreement signed 11 years ago with then-Gov. Phil Batt only
covered "transuranic" waste rags, tools, gloves and dirt
contaminated with radioactive material like plutonium that was
stored in barrels on asphalt pads at the southeastern Idaho
compound since 1970. The federal government had claimed it was
not required to dig up and remove other rotting containers of
transuranic waste that was indiscriminately dumped into open
pits and buried prior to 1970.
Batt and former Gov. Cecil Andrus testified during a February
trial in the state's lawsuit against DOE over the cleanup deal
that state leaders believed the words "all transuranic waste" in
the 1995 agreement meant removal of all nuclear waste from the
site, formerly known as the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory.
Lodge agreed.
"The words of the contract could not be clearer," Lodge wrote in
his ruling handed down Thursday. "In short, transuranic waste as
defined in the 1995 agreement must be removed from INEL
regardless of where it is located at INEL."
This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by
the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page,
but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow.
2006, KGW-TV
*****************************************************************
74 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
FR Doc E6-8035
[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices] [Page 30202] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my06-108]
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its
171st meeting on June 6-7, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Tuesday, June 6,
2006 1 p.m.-1:15 p.m.: Opening Statement (Open)--The ACNW
Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the
meeting.
1:15 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Overview of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel
Reprocessing (Open)--A former ACNW Committee member will brief
the ACNW on theory and technology used in the past to reprocess
spent nuclear fuel.
3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: NRC's spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
Regulation (Open)--The NRC staff will update the Committee on the
implications of a Department of Energy Nuclear fuel Recycling
Program to NRC regulations concerning the licensing of spent
nuclear fuel recycling facilities.
4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Overview of the Application of NRC
Regulations to Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing (Open)--The NRC
staff will brief the Committee on potential changes to the
regulatory process that may be needed to accommodate spent
nuclear fuel reprocessing.
5:30 p.m.-6 p.m.: Discussion of Proposed White Paper (Open)--The
Committee will discuss the planning for scope and content of a
potential ACNW White paper on spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.
Wednesday, June 7, 2006 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Remarks by
the ACNW Chairman (Open)-- The ACNW Chairman will make opening
remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
8:45 a.m.-4 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open/Closed)--The Committee will
discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities and
specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings,
as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may
include future Committee Meetings.
Note: A portion of this meeting may be closed pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552b ( c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and
personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules
and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings
were published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2005 (70 FR
59081). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written
statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the
meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make
oral statements should notify Mr. Michael R. Snodderly (Telephone
301-415-6927), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, as far in advance
as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to
schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such
statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras
during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the
meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman.
Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking
pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to
the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for
ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to
facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend
should notify Mr. Snodderly as to their particular needs.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463, I have
determined that it is necessary to close portions of this meeting
noted above to discuss organizational and personnel matters that
relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW,
and information the release of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling
on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and
the time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr.
Snodderly. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter
reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
at pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from
the Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document
system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS &
collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open
sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for
observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW
Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45
p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the
availability of this service. Individuals or organizations
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they
use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The
availability of video teleconferencing services is not
guaranteed.
Dated: May 19, 2006.
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-8035 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
75 NIRS: NIRS Asks for Recusal of NRC Commissioner in LES Uranium
Enrichment Case; Cites Clear Evidence of Prejudice
NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE 6930 Carroll Avenue,
Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477);
Fax: 301-270-4291 nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Michael Mariotte 301-270-6477
May 25, 2006
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and Public
Citizen have asked for Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Edward
McGaffigan to recuse himself from all decisions involving the
groups' pending litigation against the proposed Louisiana Energy
Services (LES) uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico.
In a motion filed late May 24, the groups cited Commissioner
McGaffigan's clear bias against NIRS, as evidenced in comments
he made at a public NRC meeting on May 2, 2006. At that meeting,
McGaffigan responded to comments made by NIRS staffer Paul
Gunter, who was participating by NRC invitation, by describing
NIRS as the "Nuclear Disinformation and Resource Service," said
NIRS specializes in "factoids and irrelevant facts," and said
NIRS is an "extreme" organization.
McGaffigan also disparaged NIRS/Public Citizen's lead expert
witness in the LES case, Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research (IEER) president Arjun Makhijani as "another person who
doesn't know anything about radiation," despite the fact that
NRC's own Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards have acknowledged
Makhijani as an expert in the field.
"Commissioner McGaffigan has an irrefutable, unwarranted, and
frankly unexplainable bias against NIRS and our expert," said
Michael Mariotte, executive director of NIRS, "and thus should
recuse himself from this case."
"Rational people and scientists can, and often do, disagree on
nuclear issues and the scientific and technical issues involved
in a case as complex as that concerning the proposed Louisiana
Energy Services uranium enrichment plant. That's precisely why
the NRC established a legal process to determine the validity of
arguments presented by groups like NIRS and Public Citizen,"
added Michele Boyd, legislative director for Public Citizen.
"The NRC Commissioners are the appeals body for Licensing Board
decisions, and thus must not give even the appearance of
pre-judging complex technical issues. Unfortunately,
Commissioner McGaffigan clearly has a pre-existing bias against
NIRS and our expert, making it impossible for him to render an
impartial decision," explained Mariotte.
"We make this motion reluctantly, but necessarily, to protect
the interests of our members in the area near the proposed LES
plant who are concerned about the vast quantities of toxic
radioactive waste the facility would produce and store in their
neighborhood," said Mariotte.
"We trust that Commissioner McGaffigan will do the right thing,
and recuse himself from all legal cases involving NIRS for the
remainder of his term," added Mariotte.
Background
Louisiana Energy Services, a subsidiary of the European firm
Urenco, has applied for a license to build and operate a private
uranium enrichment plant in Eunice, New Mexico, near the Texas
border.
This is LES' third attempt to build such a facility. The first
two, at Homer, Louisiana and Hartsville, Tennessee, were blocked
by local citizen opposition.
NIRS and Public Citizen intervened in legal proceedings against
the license, citing-among other issues-LES' failure to provide
adequate plans for disposal of the large amounts of radioactive
and hazardous waste the plant would produce and the NRC's own
failure to establish regulations for this waste sufficient to
protect public health and safety.
There are many more issues involving this proposed facility,
which NIRS and Public Citizen adamantly oppose, including
nuclear proliferation, Urenco/LES' corporate record and
structure, environmental justice, decommissioning costs, etc.
More information about the issues can be found at
http://www.nirs.org/les/lesbackgrnd.htm.
--30--
*****************************************************************
76 Daily Times: EDITORIAL: Do not cover up the radioactive waste issue...
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Senator Jamal Khan Leghari, son of former president Farooq
Leghari, has accused the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission
(PAEC) and Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL) of dumping
radioactive waste outside abandoned mines in Baghalchur village
in Dera Ghazi Khan district of southern Punjab. Mr Leghari, who
is a treasury senator, has said that tonnes of contaminated
waste has been thus dumped without regard to international
nuclear safety norms. The PAEC and KRL authorities have denied
dumping any waste in the open. But Mr Leghari insists that they
have done so and told the media that “I have proof. We conducted
[a] survey and collected about 1,200 samples from Choti”. Mr
Leghari says the waste is causing cancer, miscarriages, and
infertility among villagers and livestock and in his own
constituency the rate of these and skin-related diseases has
increased by 200 percent. He has also promised to present the
evidence before parliament.
This is a serious allegation and everyone should be interested
in finding out the truth. The issue has also been brought to the
notice of the National Assembly speaker by Sherry Rehman, MNA
and central information secretary of the PPP. Ms Rehman has
demanded a thorough probe. These allegations are also
corroborated by news stories coming out of the area. On May 22
this newspaper reported in detail that because of radioactive
waste being dumped in parts of DG Khan the number of scabies and
cataract patients had increased in the past three years. The
report quoted doctors from the District Headquarters Hospital as
giving these statistics. Similarly, the number of women
suffering from gynaecological problems, including miscarriages,
has also increased.
If radioactive waste has indeed been dumped in the open, it
should be easy to find it. Mr Leghari says it is there, though
we are not sure what method he has used to arrive at the
conclusion that some types of diseases have increased by 200
percent. This is not a finding anyone can reach without
conducting proper scientific, medical and statistical surveys
and collecting data over a period of time. Has Mr Leghari
conducted such a survey and collected data? If he has, we can
only commend him and would urge other lawmakers to follow his
example in identifying and dealing with such problems in a
scientific manner. We also feel that the Senate chairman should
take note of what Mr Leghari has said and invite him to present
the evidence.
Dumping nuclear waste is a serious matter and requires extensive
safety protocols. Environmentalists around the world have
agitated and protested against the manner in which some Western
countries have dumped such waste in and around poor countries.
Given this, it would be deeply ironic if it could be proved that
the PAEC and KRL have been dumping such waste in the poorer and
remote districts of Pakistan. But, as we have implied, nothing
concrete can be said until this issue is properly investigated
and all facts brought out in the open. Given its urgency, we
would expect the government to plunge right into it and involve
the media to maintain transparency and ensure that there is no
cover-up...*
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
77 UPI: Nuke plant must clean up radioactive water
United Press International - NewsTrack -
5/25/2006 12:19:00 PM -0400
CHICAGO, May 25 (UPI) -- Officials at Illinois' Braidwood
nuclear plant have reportedly been ordered to begin cleaning up
groundwater contaminated with radioactive tritium.
The preliminary injunction obtained by state and local officials
also orders the plant's operator, the Exelon Corp., to monitor
nearby private wells for contamination, The Chicago Sun-Times
reported Thursday.
In addition, the court order requires Exelon to provide bottled
water to more than 400 homes in the nearby village of Godley
until testing determines no wells have been contaminated.
The injunction, issued Wednesday, stems from a law suit filed
against Exelon earlier this year to force changes at Braidwood.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
78 Guardian Unlimited: Nevada Lawmaker Rips Energy Dept. Cartoon
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday May 25, 2006 1:31 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. is no fan of
Yucca Mountain John. She tried Wednesday to stop the Energy
Department from using the cartoon character on a department Web
site designed to inform children about nuclear waste.
``This character was created by taxpayer money to convince
elementary school children that nuclear waste is a good thing,''
she complained, and ``to promote the proposed nuclear waste
repository.''
``What's next? Will the Department of Health and Human Services
recruit Joe Camel?'' she said, referring to the former cartoon
mascot of Camel cigarettes.
Berkley, an ardent opponent of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
dump planned for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, tried to get
an amendment into a $30 billion energy and water projects
spending bill that would bar money being used for the DOE
youth-oriented web site featuring Yucca Mountain John.
It was defeated 271-147.
``Nobody questions the accuracy or truth of what's on the Web
site,'' countered Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.
Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio said Yucca Mountain John ``may have a
place in teaching kids ... We may differ where that place is.''
``Right now just this name is an offense to the people of
Nevada,'' shot back Berkley.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
79 AP Wire: Highlights of Fernald history and cleanup
05/25/2006 |
Associated Press
1951 - Production begins at uranium ore refining plant
constructed by Atomic Energy Commission.
1984 - Fernald discloses that three wells near site found in
1981 to be contaminated with uranium; Fernald Residents for
Environmental Safety and Health formed.
1985 - Fernald begins low-level waste shipments to Nevada.
1989 - Production at the plant ends; federal government places
Fernald on National Priorities List for cleanup.
1992 - Department of Energy awards environmental cleanup
management contract to Fluor Corp.
1999 - Workers complete safe shutdown in former production area
to clear way for demolition.
2004 - Last of the former production facilities dismantled.
2005 - Last shipment of material from waste pits leaves Fernald
for Utah.
2006 - Last shipment of Silo 3 waste leaves Fernald for Utah on
April 11; last shipment of waste from Silos 1 and 2 scheduled to
leave Fernald May 26.
*****************************************************************
80 Seattle Times: Opinion: Hanford plant must be built, but it must be built right
Thursday, May 25, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
By Tom Carpenter and Robert Alvarez
AP
Workmen confer among pipes at the Hanford nuclear reservation
waste-treatment plant site.
Robert Alvarez
The Hanford nuclear site in Southeastern Washington is back in
the news, this time regarding serious program breakdowns in the
safety and inspection systems at the Department of Energy's
Hanford waste-treatment plant, a project intended to process 55
million gallons of highly radioactive waste stored in 177 tanks,
one-third of which have leaked a significant amount of waste
into soil and groundwater that feeds the nearby Columbia River.
Over the past decade, several independent expert groups
including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National
Academy of Sciences warned that DOE's haste to complete this
project increased risks of nuclear accidents and project
failure. Undeterred, DOE is rushing to terminate its
environmental mission at Hanford within 30 years, even though
this is the most expensive, complex and risky environmental
project in the United States.
In this context, the Government Accountability Project released
internal documents from Bechtel, the design and construction
contractor for this project, that show DOE relaxed rules for
important safety requirements in order to speed up construction.
Currently, the plant is being built using a process called
"fast-tracking," or "design-build," which employs a method in
which the plant is simultaneously designed and built. This means
that DOE and Bechtel are rushing to build a first-of-a-kind,
ultra-hazardous plant without first assuring the design will
work. No private business would undertake such a risky strategy.
However, the Hanford waste-treatment plant is funded by the
taxpayer, and managed by an agency that regulates itself and, as
a result, has a dismal history of project failure.
"Fast-tracking" has led to shoddy design and construction work,
including the installation of a known defective vessel, called a
scrubber vessel an 8,000-gallon tank that is responsible for
preventing radioactive and toxic waste and vapor from escaping
into the environment. DOE and Bechtel both knew before it was
installed that this vessel was designed using the wrong
specifications. It was also installed after welding defects were
discovered, yet the installation proceeded without fixing the
defects. Bechtel was paid a $15 million fee for meeting this
performance milestone despite the vessel's many defects and the
lost time and money that went to fixing them.
At the same time, other serious mistakes have surfaced, such as
underdesigning for an earthquake, failing to address pipe
plugging, inadequate fireproofing, and failure to prevent
excessive explosive hydrogen gas buildup. The facility as it
sits now is of questionable integrity and indeterminate quality.
The state of Washington correctly points out that time is of the
essence, and that the high-level nuclear-waste tanks are falling
to pieces. As Gov. Christine Gregoire recently said on "60
Minutes," "We are running out of time."
Where the state appears to miss the boat, however, is on public,
environmental and worker safety. Ecology Director Jay Manning
was quoted on May 1 as saying, "The last thing that you should
do in terms of public safety and efficiency is slow down
construction" at the waste-treatment plant. It must occur to the
state that a safe and operable facility is more important than a
fast facility.
A waste-treatment facility riddled with design and construction
flaws might, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
2001, deliver an atmospheric dose of radiation comparable to
that released from Chernobyl. Furthermore, unlike a nuclear
power plant, the Hanford waste facility will not have a thick
concrete containment to protect against a catastrophic radiation
release. Rather, it will rely on a gas treatment and filter
system, of which the scrubber vessel is key.
The problems at Hanford are attributable to an agency that has
relinquished its project management and safety responsibilities
to contractors. This is what helped create the huge mess at
Hanford in the first place. We are not arguing that the plant be
abandoned. To the contrary, there is an urgent need for work to
continue, even accelerate. This plant must be built, but it must
be built right.
This is why a House Appropriations subcommittee recently passed
legislation requiring safety oversight of the waste-treatment
plant by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is a major step
in the right direction and could assure the public and Congress
that this nationally important project is constructed safely and
in a timely manner a goal we can all support.
Tom Carpenter is the director of the Nuclear Oversight Program
at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, based in
Washington, D.C., with an office in Seattle. Robert Alvarez is a
senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former
senior policy adviser to the secretary of energy in the Clinton
administration.
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
| The Seattle Times
*****************************************************************
81 DOE: 18 CFR Part 358
FR Doc 06-4841
[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 30056-30058] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25my06-5]
[Docket No. RM01-10-005]
Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers Issued May 18,
2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; DOE.
ACTION: Order on Request for Additional Clarification.
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
issuing this Order to clarify that, in the event of a grid
disturbance, a Transmission Provider may communicate to an
affiliated nuclear power plant specific information about
transmission system conditions on a real-time basis.
DATES: Effective Date: The Order on Request for Additional
Clarification will become effective May 25, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kipp, Office of
Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-8228.
mary.kipp@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Joseph T.
Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly.
Order on Request for Additional Clarification 1. In this order,
the Commission addresses the request seeking clarification of the
Commission's February 16, 2006 ``Interpretive Order Relating to
the Standards of Conduct'' (Interpretive Order).\1\ The
Interpretive Order clarified that, subject to the no-conduit
rule, Transmission Providers may communicate with affiliated
nuclear power plants regarding certain matters related to the
safety and reliability of the transmission system, in order to
comply with requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). For the reasons discussed herein, we grant the request for
additional clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Interpretive Order Relating to the Standards of
Conduct, 71 FR 9446 (Feb. 24, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,206
(2006).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 2. On March 20, 2006, Exelon Corporation (``Exelon'')
filed comments and a request for clarification of the
Interpretive Order. Specifically, Exelon requests that the
Commission clarify that a Transmission Provider can provide its
affiliated nuclear power plants (``NPPs'') with specific
information concerning the location and nature of grid
disturbances that potentially threaten the grid's ability to
provide power to a plant's safety systems. On March 21, 2006, the
Nuclear Energy Institute (``NEI'') filed comments in support of
Exelon's position. In this order, the Commission clarifies that,
in the event of a grid disturbance, a Transmission Provider may
communicate to an affiliated NPP specific information about
transmission system conditions on a real-time basis, including:
(i) A technical description of the grid disturbance, along with
its specific location on the system; (ii) the grid elements,
whether lines, substations, or other elements, that may
[[Page 30057]] be affected by the disturbance, and their specific
locations on the system; (iii) the projected duration of the
disturbance; and (iv) steps being taken by the Transmission
Provider to resolve the disturbance. This order benefits
customers because it clarifies that Transmission Providers and
NPPs may share information necessary to maintain the safety and
reliability of the transmission grid while ensuring that there is
no undue preference or services.
I. Background 3. On November 25, 2003, the Commission issued a
Final Rule adopting Standards of Conduct for Transmission
Providers (Order No. 2004).\2\ Under Order No. 2004, the
Standards of Conduct govern the relationships between
Transmission Providers and all of their Marketing Affiliates and
Energy Affiliates. The Standards of Conduct also contain various
information-sharing prohibitions to help ensure that Transmission
Providers do not use their access to information about
transmission to unfairly benefit their own or their affiliates'
sales to the detriment of competitive markets. Absent one of the
exceptions articulated in section 358.5 of the Commission's
regulations, if a Transmission Provider discloses transmission
information to its Marketing or Energy Affiliate, the
Transmission Provider is required to immediately post that
information on its OASIS or Internet Web site.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \2\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers,
Order No. 2004, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ]
31,155 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-A, III FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,161 (2004), 107 FERC ] 61,032 (2004), order on
reh'g, Order No.
2004-B, III FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,166 (2004), 108 FERC ]
61,118 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-C, 109 FERC ]
61,325 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2004-D, 110 FERC ]
61,320 (2005), appeal docketed sub nom., National Gas Fuel Supply
Corporation v. FERC, No. 04-1183 (DC Cir. June 9, 2004).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 4. On February 16, 2006, the Commission issued the
Interpretive Order. The Interpretive Order clarified that
sections 358.5(a) and (b) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
358.5(a) and (b) (2005), do not prohibit a Transmission Provider
and its affiliated NPP from engaging in necessary communications
related to the safety and reliability of the transmission system
or the NPP, including information relating to the loss of or
potential loss of transmission lines that provide off- site power
to the NPP.\3\ The Commission issued the Interpretive Order to
clarify that Transmission Providers may communicate with
affiliated and non-affiliated NPPs to enable the NPPs to comply
with the requirements of the NRC as described in the NRC's
February 1, 2006 Generic Letter 2006-002, Grid Reliability and
the Impact on Plant Risk and the Operability of Offsite Power
(the ``Generic Letter'').\4\ The Commission also reemphasized
that, although such communications are permitted, the NPP
operator is prohibited from being a conduit for sharing this
information with employees of other Marketing or Energy
Affiliates. 18 CFR 358.5(b)(7) (2005).\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \3\ Interpretive Order at P 1.
\4\ Id. referencing Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Generic
Letter 2006-002, Grid Reliability and the Impact on Plant Risk
and the Operability of Offsite Power. February 1, 2006. OMB
Control No.: 3150-0011.
\5\ Interpretive Order at P 6.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 5. Although no public notice or comment on the
Interpretive Order was required pursuant to section 4(b)(A) of
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(A) (2000),
which exempts from such notice or comment ``interpretive rules,
general statements of policy or rules of agency organization,
procedure or practice,'' the Commission invited all interested
persons to submit written comments.\6\ Comments were due March
20, 2006. Reply comments were due on April 19, 2006. The Generic
Letter and the Interpretive Order were also discussed at the
first ever joint meeting of the Commission and the NRC held on
April 24, 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \6\ Id. at P 10.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 6. Exelon filed timely comments in which it expresses
agreement with the Commission that the clarifications set forth
in the Interpretive Order will enhance safe operations at nuclear
facilities. Exelon also requests that the Commission make
additional clarifications. NEI filed comments in support of
Exelon's position. No other comments or reply comments were
filed.
7. Exelon argues that, while the Interpretive Order expressly
held that Transmission Providers may communicate information on
grid disturbances and the duration of power unavailability, the
Interpretive Order only implicitly approved disclosure of the
location and nature of the disturbance. Exelon asserts that such
information clearly encompasses the ``necessary communications
related to safety or reliability that the Standards of Conduct
are not intended to impede.'' Thus, Exelon asks that the
Commission further clarify that, subject to the no-conduit rule,
a Transmission Provider may provide its affiliated NPPs with
specific information concerning the location and nature of grid
disturbances that potentially threaten the grid's ability to
provide power to a plant's safety systems.
8. Exelon asserts that grid conditions may not only interfere
with NPP access to offsite power, but may also require the
Transmission Provider to ask the NPP to take some action, such as
reducing output or operating switchyard equipment. In addition,
Exelon points out that grid conditions may involve actual system
emergencies or transmission element outages that create
contingencies. Finally, Exelon states that grid conditions that
may impact an NPP may occur on transmission system elements
directly connected to the NPP, on more remote elements on the
Transmission Provider's system, or even on elements in the system
of another Transmission Provider. Exelon argues that under any
and all such conditions, the NPP needs to know whether an
affiliated Transmission Provider may disclose to an NPP specific
information about transmission system conditions on a real-time
basis, including: (i) A technical description of the grid
disturbance, along with its specific location on the system; (ii)
the grid elements, whether lines, substations, or other elements,
that may be affected by the disturbance, and their specific
locations on the system; (iii) the projected duration of the
disturbance; and (iv) steps being taken by the Transmission
Provider to resolve the disturbance.
II. Commission Decision 9. In the Interpretive Order the
Commission recognized that, in addition to permitting
communications necessary to operate and maintain the transmission
system, the Transmission Provider and its interconnected NPP must
engage in certain limited communications to operate and maintain
the interconnection and the safety and reliability of the NPP.\7\
Consequently, the Commission clarified that permitted
communications may include, inter alia, information on grid
disturbances and the duration of power unavailability in order
for the NPP to plan for off-site power in the event of a
grid-related loss of power or station blackout, as required by
the NRC.\8\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \7\ Id. at P 7. \8\ Id.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 10. The Commission did not intend to restrict to
generalized information the types of communications that comprise
``information on grid disturbances and the duration of power
unavailability'' as used in the Interpretive Order. Rather, the
Commission intends that, subject to the no conduit rule,
Transmission
[[Page 30058]] Providers and their affiliated NPPs may
communicate as necessary to preserve the safety and reliability
of the grid, the interconnection, and the NPP. The Commission
agrees with Exelon that it may be necessary for the Transmission
Provider and the NPP to discuss specific technical information.
11. Accordingly, the Commission specifically clarifies that
``information on grid disturbances and the duration of power
unavailability'' as used in the Interpretive Order encompasses
specific information about transmission system conditions on a
real-time basis, including: (i) A technical description of the
grid disturbance, along with its specific location on the system;
(ii) the grid elements, whether lines, substations, or other
elements, that may be affected by the disturbance, and their
specific locations on the system; (iii) the projected duration of
the disturbance; and (iv) steps being taken by the Transmission
Provider to resolve the disturbance.
III. Document Availability 12. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission
provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or
print the contents of this document via the Internet through the
Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the
Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room
2A, Washington, DC 20426.
13. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in the Commission's document management
system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing,
and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the
docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the
Commission's Web site during normal business hours. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at 1-866-208-3676
(toll free) or (202) 502-8222 (e- mail at
FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the Public Reference Room at
(202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659 (e-mail at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov). By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-4841 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
*****************************************************************
82 Platts: Bush urges House to fully fund GNEP for FY-07
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
Washington (Platts)--24May2006
The Bush administration urged the House to fully fund DOE's
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program in fiscal 2007 and
criticized appropriators' decision to eliminate all funds for
DOE's mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel facility for the disposition of
surplus weapons-grade plutonium.
The White House Office of Management and Budget asserted in a
statement today that the GNEP program would address minimizing
the toxicity of waste slated for deep-geologic disposal;
eliminate proliferation risks; and expand the use of nuclear
power.
OMB issued the statement as the House debated the energy and
water funding bill for FY-07; the debate was still going on at
press time. Regarding the MOX cut, OMB added that changing the
disposition strategy now would delay the disposition of surplus
weapons plutonium by years and would waste the nearly $1 billion
already invested in the MOX program. Separately, OMB also voiced
support for House appropriators' full funding of the repository
project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
83 Tri-City Herald: Cantwell questions DOE proposal
Published Thursday, May 25th, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., is questioning a Department of
Energy proposal to reorganize its safety office that protects
workers at Hanford and other DOE sites.
DOE plans to break up the Office for Environment, Safety and
Health and transfer its responsibilities to other offices
throughout DOE, according to a letter Cantwell sent Wednesday to
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. Safety functions could be
combined with security functions.
The proposal comes after John Shaw, the assistant secretary
assigned to the office, resigned in March.
"I have serious concerns over dismantling the office that is
responsible for ensuring that safety and health regulations are
followed and fail to see how leaving vacant the position of
assistant secretary will improve the worker safety and
environmental protections that currently are in place," Cantwell
wrote.
DOE has provided her office with little information about the
proposed restructuring and how it would strengthen worker
safety, she wrote.
The office is responsible for ensuring a safe working
environment for 110,000 contractor and DOE employees and safe
operations of programs.
Among its duties are investigating violations by contractors,
imposing penalties for violations and conducting research on the
health effects of radiation exposure on atomic bomb survivors,
Cantwell said.
It also provides environmental impact reviews of DOE activities.
"By shifting environmental and work safety responsibilities from
ES to another department, the potential for diluting the
resources available for these important activities is
concerning," she wrote.
DOE is proposing to create the Office of Safety and Security
Performance Assurance, said Megan Barnett, a DOE spokeswoman in
Washington, D.C.
"The department is also placing renewed emphasis on the roles
and responsibilities of supervisors in ensuring personnel safety
and site security throughout the DOE complex," Barnett said.
Two other Democrats have questioned the change, according to The
Associated Press. It quoted Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., as
saying work could be given lower priority if there's not an
assistant secretary with responsibility for safety, environment
and health.
Senate Minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also was concerned
that functions could be spread over as many as four other
offices, the AP said.
DOE will continue to hear comments from its employees, Congress
and others on how to improve safety, Barnett said.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************