*****************************************************************
06/14/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.141
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 [NYTr] Non-aligned states back Iran's right to nuke fuel prodn
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leader Arrives for Shanghai Summit
3 Guardian Unlimited: Europe Treads Softly on Iran Nuclear Issue
4 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad Seeks Chinese, Russian Support
5 IRNA: Mexican envoy: Iran entitled to uranium enrichment
6 IRNA: Georgia interested in energy cooperation with Iran
7 AFP: Iran president arrives in China, bringing nuclear issue to summ
8 AFP: Iran president to arrive in China, bringing nuclear issue to su
9 IRNA: US media reports say NAM preparing statement in favor of Iran
10 CSM: Bush's approaching endgame with Iran
11 AFP: Iran denies deadline for reply to nuclear proposal -
12 AFP: US cites 4 Chinese firms, one in US, for helping Iran WMDs -
13 IRNA: Mottaki in Spain for talks on nuclear issue
14 AFP: Rice consults world powers on Iran nuclear row
15 Guardian Unlimited: North Korean Delegation Arrives in South
16 AFP: US should stay focused on North Korean nuclear issue
17 [NYTr] Who IS the REAL Nuclear Threat - Iran or the US?
18 UN Nuclear Chief Calls For New Approaches To Fight Nuclear Prolifera
19 The Hindu : India-U.S. nuclear deal a step forward: El Baradei
20 IRNA: IAEA Board of Governors begins third-day session
NUCLEAR REACTORS
21 [NukeNet] Radioactive gases escape reactor
22 Guardian Unlimited: Carbon pricing to encourage new nuclear power st
23 Radio New Zealand: Govt says atomic power not an option for NZ
24 AU ABC: Lucas Heights accident 'no threat'
25 Radio New Zealand: Official papers say nuclear power too costly
26 RIA Novosti: Rosenergoatom, Sevmash sign contract to build floating
27 US: POAC: DEP tries new angle on Oyster Creek N-plant hearing
28 Pravda.Ru: Russia to build world's first floating nuclear reactor -
29 The Local: Alliance agrees to keep nuclear
30 US: PR: United States - Nuclear Power Is Coming Back to Life
31 AFP: Blair defends support for nuclear energy
32 US: Brattleboro Reformer - WRC: Energy issues are top concern
33 INSIDER | The nuclear option serves Ontario best
34 US: NRC: [Docket No. PRM-35-19] Petition
35 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic S
36 globeandmail.com: Ontario to build two nuclear reactors
37 Mos News: First Contract to Build Floating Nuclear Power Plant Signe
38 Scoop: Sydney's nuclear scare timely
39 CBC Toronto: Ontario will build new, refurbish old, nuclear plants
40 NEWS.com.au: Radioactive gases escape reactor - BN NSW -
41 NEWS.com.au: Government covered up leak - Labor -
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
42 US: NRC: Heather Astwood Named as NRC Nuclear Safety Attaché
43 US: Boston Globe: Bill would study possible National Guard uranium e
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
44 US: Deseret News: Comments pour in on hot-waste plan
45 BBC: Waste leak
46 US: TheNewsTribune.com: Federal judges ruling on I-297 no surprise
47 Pahrump Valley Times: Hecht maintained DOE chef made university offe
48 Scoop: GLW: Bush And Howard Plan Australian Nuclear Dump
PEACE
49 Yggdrasil: Update to Critical Hour
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
50 [NukeNet] Appeals Court Considers Livermore "hot lab"
51 Knox News: Munger: DOE's pension plans may attract a crowd at next w
52 ContraCostaTimes.com: Court hears 'hot lab' appeal
53 Inside Bay Area: Judge questions building biodefense lab
54 Knox News: TVA offers hot line for employees
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] Non-aligned states back Iran's right to nuke fuel prodn
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:46:34 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters via Al Jazeera - Jun 14, 2006
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/24D81702-BF52-437B-BDC5-5CB532A77F3F.htm
Non-aligned states to back Iran
Non-aligned states will back Iran's right to nuclear fuel production at a UN
meeting this week, unmoved by US calls to join efforts to get Tehran to stop
enriching uranium, diplomats said.
UN Security Council powers are waiting for Iran to respond to an offer they
made last week for incentives if Tehran suspends enrichment and penalties if
it does not.
Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, was quoted as saying on Tuesday
Tehran will give its response to the package "soon", but gave no precise
timetable.
Washington has nudged Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) states to endorse the
package at a session of the International Atomic Energy Agency governing
board meeting in Vienna this week.
It had hoped support by the 15 NAM nations on the 35-member IAEA board would
help Washington and the European Union deflect Iranian assertions it is
being bullied by powerful countries bent on denying the Islamic state
nuclear energy.
NAM reservations
But diplomats from the NAM, which groups 114 nations, said it would reissue
a declaration made by its foreign ministers in Malaysia on May 30 backing
Iran's right to nuclear technology.
"We won't make a new statement referring to the current (big power) proposal
or make supportive noises in this regard," a NAM diplomat said, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
"NAM does not want to pronounce on a proposal that basically no one knows
full details about," the diplomat added.
Iran says its atomic drive is meant to generate electricity.
The US and its allies, noting Iran has the world's second largest reserves
of oil and gas, suspect Tehran is concealing an atom bomb project since it
hid enrichment research from the IAEA for almost 20 years and has called for
Israel's destruction.
Gregory Schulte, US envoy to the IAEA, told Reuters he still expected NAM
states "with few exceptions" would urge Iran to "choose the path of
diplomacy rather than confrontation".
NAM countries are worried that making Iran abandon its nuclear fuel
enrichment plans would set a precedent preventing other developing states
pursuing an atomic energy option.
Reuters
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leader Arrives for Shanghai Summit
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday June 14, 2006 1:31 PM
AP Photo XGB105
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN Associated Press Writer
SHANGHAI, China (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
arrived in Shanghai on Wednesday for the summit of a regional
security group, a visit that could indicate whether the forum
will evolve into an anti-U.S. bloc.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization says it isn't aimed at any
third parties. Yet its dominant members, China and Russia, are
frequently at odds with Washington and have resisted U.S.
efforts to seek tougher U.N. action in the standoff over Iran's
nuclear program.
Although host China has said the Iranian nuclear issue won't be
on the agenda when the summit begins Thursday, the issue is
expected to arise in separate meetings between Ahmadinejad and
Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin
on the forum's fringes.
Analysts say a warm reception for Ahmadinejad would strengthen
perceptions of the organization as a new challenge to
Washington's interests, particularly in light of the decade-old
grouping's efforts to strengthen its influence over security and
economic affairs.
``Particularly from the U.S. viewpoint, it's a significant
development and not altogether welcome,'' said Tim Huxley,
senior fellow for Asia-Pacific security at the London-based
International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Observers will also be looking for other signs of strengthening
SCO-Iran relations, including possible steps to move Tehran from
observer status to formal membership.
Even without formal membership, Iran's presence within the SCO
has changed outside perceptions of the group.
``Iran's participation will attract additional attention to the
SCO, will increase its clout,'' said Venera Galyamova of the
Center for China research in Kazakhstan.
Russia and China deny Iran's presence indicates a hidden agenda
for the summit and portray the SCO as a neutral force focused on
security and trade.
``It would not be correct to search for a special subtext for
Iran participating,'' Russia's Foreign Ministry said in answer
to written questions about the summit.
The six-nation SCO was set up 10 years ago to deal with border
disputes, but it has slowly expanded its reach into
counterterrorism, defense, energy and economic cooperation.
The SCO's other members are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
and Uzbekistan. Pakistan, Mongolia, and India are also attending
as observers, while Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai is a
special guest at the meeting.
While China denies the SCO is a military alliance, it offers
China's communist regime a high-profile platform to flex its
growing regional influence. China has especially stressed the
SCO's progress in boosting regional security and economic ties
among its members, and the official Xinhua News Agency said the
summit will inaugurate a business forum within the SCO
framework.
About $2 billion in contracts and loans are also expected to be
signed at the summit, Xinhua quoted Chinese Vice Commerce
Minister Yu Guangzhou as saying.
During pre-summit meetings Wednesday, China signed agreements
with Tajikistan and Kazakhstan for the funding of hydropower
stations, rail improvements, and electricity generation and
transmission.
As leaders began arriving late Tuesday, Shanghai launched a
massive security clampdown, closing schools, offices, and major
transportation arteries. Hundreds of officers stood guard near
the government guest house where Hu met leaders ahead of the
summit.
Windows were sealed shut in office buildings overlooking the
motorcade route in western Shanghai.
The SCO's mostly authoritarian governments are frequently
criticized by human rights groups.
Human Rights Watch, in a statement, condemned those countries
for allegedly ``committing serious violations of human rights
and humanitarian law in the name of counterterrorism.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Europe Treads Softly on Iran Nuclear Issue
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday June 14, 2006 2:46 PM
AP Photo VIE110
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Europe is treading softly on the issue of
Iran's uranium enrichment program at a meeting of the U.N.
nuclear agency, fearing too much pressure could jeopardize talks
with Tehran, documents made available to The Associated Press
showed Wednesday.
A draft statement by the European Union drawn up for later
delivery at the 35-nation board meeting of the International
Atomic Energy Agency notes that ``international concerns about
Iran's nuclear program remain to be resolved and that repeated
requests by the board remain to be fulfilled.''
But beyond that mild criticism of Tehran's refusal to cooperate
with an IAEA probe of its nuclear activities, the four-paragraph
statement is conciliatory, urging Iran ``to respond positively''
to a recent offer to resume nuclear talks.
Separately, a confidential letter from Peter Jenkins, Britain's
chief representative to the IAEA, restricts itself to informing
the meeting that Iran has been offered a package of incentives
in exchange for negotiating on its nuclear program.
The only implicit threat is a June 1 quote from British Foreign
Secretary Margaret Beckett, who warns of the possibility of
``further steps ... in the U.N. Security Council'' if Iran
remains defiant.
Britain in the past has been among Europe's strongest critics of
Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran says it has a right to enrich uranium for purposes of
generating electricity under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.
The United States and its allies assert the claim is a cover for
attempts to develop a weapons program using highly enriched
uranium in the core of nuclear warheads.
Chief U.S. delegate Gregory L. Schulte reiterated Wednesday that
the United States, the Europeans, Russia and China all agree
that Iran's leaders ``have not taken the steps necessary to give
the international community confidence in the peaceful nature of
Iran's program.''
``The call for Iran to suspend enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities in order to enter into negotiations is a
condition set by the international community. This is a
condition set by the IAEA board, by the U.N. Security Council
and by the European Union when negotiations broke down,''
Schulte said.
``The United States, the Europeans, Russia and China all agree
that Iran has a clear choice. A positive path that brings real
benefits and long-term security to the Iranian people and if
Iran chooses not to negotiate, a negative path that would lead
to further steps in the Security Council,'' he said.
Diplomats said the low-key language of both texts was a
reflection of efforts by the West not to anger Iran and derail
the possibility of a positive response to the June 1 proposal,
which offers nuclear and other technology and other incentives
to Tehran if it suspends enrichment and starts talks.
In a further reflection of Western efforts not to anger Iran,
however, only the incentives part of the deal was given to
Iranian officials when chief EU foreign policy official Javier
Solana visited Tehran last week.
In Madrid on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki described the presentation of the package as a ``step
forward,'' and promised an answer after serious review.
Mottaki said that after Iran reviews the incentives, it will
consult with Germany, Britain and France to express its views.
``Then we'll decide together how to handle the issue and follow
up the matter to the finalization and solution of the problem,''
he said. Spain was not one of the countries involved in the
incentives package.
Mottaki said Iran also would hold discussions with other
European countries, China, Russia and nonaligned nations.
Still, he suggested that a long-term moratorium on enrichment -
a red line for the United States and some of its closest allies
- was not up for discussion, alluding to enrichment as ``the
legitimate right of our country.''
The package calls on Iran to suspend enrichment for the duration
of any negotiations, and sets out the priority of a long-term
moratorium of such activity until the international community is
convinced that Tehran's nuclear aims are peaceful.
In a symbolic sign of support by Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Sergei Kislyak was among those with Solana when he
delivered the incentives package to Tehran last Tuesday. Russia
has said it is prepared to join any negotiations with Iran, and
China has indicated it might also do so.
The U.S. also said late last month that it was ready to break
with decades of policy and talk to Iran directly in a
multinational framework on its nuclear program.
Still, China, Russia and possibly Germany might push to allow
Iran some tightly controlled and small-scale enrichment rather
than see talks founder, diplomats said. Russia and China also
might balk at enforcing selective U.N. sanctions on Iranian
officials and activities.
---
On the Net:
International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad Seeks Chinese, Russian Support
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday June 14, 2006 6:46 PM
AP Photo XGB104
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's hard-line president is doing more
than just attending an Asian security summit in China: Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad seeks to gain Russian and Chinese support at a
critical moment for his country's nuclear program.
He also aims to prove that his country is not isolated, despite
U.S. claims to the contrary.
Past trips to Asia have been a chance for Ahmadinejad to tap
into anti-U.S. sentiment and tout himself as a leader who is
standing up to Washington. Last month, he was cheered by
Indonesian students and by a crowd shouting ``Fight America!
Fight Israel!'' outside a Jakarta mosque where he performed
prayers.
His visit to China, which began Wednesday, will likely be more
dedicated to intense diplomacy. Ahmadinejad is expected to hold
separate meetings with his Chinese and Russian counterparts, Hu
Jintao and Vladimir Putin, on the sidelines of the regional
summit in Shanghai.
It will be a chance to sound out his two allies on a package of
incentives offered by the Big Five Powers at the U.N., plus
Germany, seeking to persuade Iran to freeze its uranium
enrichment program. If Iran agrees, Tehran would then be able to
enter negotiations with the United States and Europe over a
long-term resolution to the standoff over its nuclear program.
Russia and China have backed the incentives package. But the two
countries - longtime allies and trading partners of Iran who
hold veto powers at the U.N. - have opposed any move to impose
sanctions, which Washington seeks if Tehran turns down the
offer.
A key question for Iran is likely to be how much change it can
seek in the package and still keep Moscow and Beijing's implicit
protection.
Iran has said it finds parts of the package acceptable but that
other parts should be removed. And it has said the key issue of
uranium enrichment remains unclear and needs further
explanation. Tehran has outright rejected demands it scrap
enrichment and has been highly reluctant to suspend it.
Tehran has not yet responded to the offer, given to it a week
ago.
``Iran is taking its own time (in responding) to get Russia and
China to modify the Western pressures on Tehran,'' said
political analyst Davoud Hermidas Bavand.
Ahmadinejad will likely urge Moscow and Beijing to ``follow
their independent policy and don't go the U.S. way,'' said
analyst Mostafa Kavakebian.
The Iranian president will try to push his own ideas, seeking a
compromise that will guarantee his country's right to enrich
uranium and at the same time offer guarantees that its nuclear
program won't be diverted toward weapons, he said.
In Shanghai, Ahmadinejad joins the leaders of Russia, China and
four Central Asian countries who comprise the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization.
The trip is also a chance to show that Iran has friends around
the world despite U.S. attempts to isolate it. Iran has made
clear it is adjusting its relations with nations based on the
nuclear standoff.
``We are redefining our relations with the world,'' Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a television program last week.
``We are managing our relations with other countries based on
our national interests and the way we are treated (over the
nuclear dispute).''
Iran has repeatedly said it will offer giant economic projects
to countries that support its nuclear program and punish those
who vote against it.
China's state energy company has signed long-term deals for
natural gas. Those deals display the growing disregard for
Washington's priorities. In 1996 the U.S. said it would consider
sanctions on any company that invests more than $20 million
annually in the Iranian oil and gas sectors. The threat was
never enforced.
Ahmadinejad's participation in the Shanghai summit, as an
observer, is a particular irritant to the United States, which
views the body as an attempted counterweight against Western
influence in Central Asia and the presence of American bases
there.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week chided China and
Russia for backing Tehran's participation in the summit, saying
he found it strange to bring the ``leading terrorist nation in
the world into an organization that says it's against terror.''
But host China dismissed the criticism. ``We cannot abide by
other countries calling our observer nations sponsors of
terror,'' Shanghai Cooperation Organization chief Zhang Deguang
said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
5 IRNA: Mexican envoy: Iran entitled to uranium enrichment
Madrid, June 13, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear-Mexico
Mexican Ambassador to Tehran Luis Ortiz Monasterio said that
Iran is entitled to access nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
and defended its right to possess the complete uranium
enrichment cycle.
In an interview with a Mexican daily, La Jornada, -- based in
Mexico City -- published on Tuesday, he said that what is taking
place in Iran is similar to what occurred in Mexico's oil sector
in 1938.
"Back in 1938, the US, British and Dutch governments said that
Mexico is not sufficiently competent to control such a sensitive
industry.
"This is the same thing taking place in your country, despite
your right to the full control of nuclear fuel cycle," he added.
The Mexican ambassador believes that Iran's nuclear issue is
being treated with a kind of patronage-oriented approach.
Monasterio underlined that as long as Iran complies with NPT
and other relevant treaties and uses nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, it can develop its nuclear technology domestically.
The diplomat said, "I personally believe that the Iranians are
not overstepping the red line."
*****************************************************************
6 IRNA: Georgia interested in energy cooperation with Iran
Brussels, June 14, IRNA
EU-Georgia-Iran
Gerogian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli said Monday that his
country was seeking to diversify energy supplies and looks to
Iran as a potential source of energy.
Speaking at a news conference in Brussels Tuesday evening,
Noghaideli recalled that during the January energy crisis,
Georgia for the first time received gas supplies from Iran.
"If need be, we will do it again," stressed the Georgian
premier, who is on a three-day working visit in Brussels for
talks with NATO and EU officials to discuss bilateral
cooperation.
Iran supplied Georgia with natural gas for over a month after
two explosions on January 22 severed gas and electricity
supplies from Russia, the country's sole natural gas supplier.
Later, speaking to IRNA, Noghaideli described relations between
Georgia and Iran as "good."
He said joining the EU was a top priority of Georgia, but did
not give any timing for membership.
Noghaideli met NATO officials Tuesday for an "intensive
dialogue," and is scheduled to hold talks with EU High
Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier
Solana on Wednesday (today).
The press conference was followed by Noghaideli's lecture on
"Democracy and Stability in the Black Sea Region: The Role of
Georgia," organized by Belgium's Royal Institute for
International Relations.
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: Iran president arrives in China, bringing nuclear issue to summit -
by Peter Harmsen Wed Jun 14, 3:21 PM ET
SHANGHAI (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in
Shanghai, renewing the focus on the role China may play in
resolving the standoff over the Islamic republic's nuclear
program.
In a suggestion that China was concerned the Iran " /> issue
would overshadow everything else at the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization meeting, officials seemed eager not to play up
expectations.
"I don't believe having discussion or not having discussion of
the Iran nuclear issue is the determinant of the relevance of
this conference," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a
briefing in Shanghai.
Ahmadinejad is only a guest at Thursday's summit of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, which groups China, Russia, and four
Central Asian states. Iran is an observer nation along with
Pakistan, India and Mongolia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin
" /> , Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf and the leaders of
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were all in
town for the meeting.
But attention was expected to be on Ahmadinejad more than anyone
else, with the hardline Iranian leader slated to hold his first
meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao
" /> on Friday following the summit.
Ahmadinejad was also set to meet Russian President Vladimir
Putin for the first time since an encounter at the United Nations
" /> last year.
His meetings with Hu and Putin come at a crucial time in the
global standoff over Iran's nuclear program, with Tehran
considering a new international offer of incentives in exchange
for it halting uranium enrichment.
Even so, it was unclear what might actually be achieved by the
Shanghai talks in regards to Iran's nuclear program, argued
David Zweig, a China expert at Hong Kong's University of Science
and Technology.
"It's good to have the two leaders, Hu Jintao and Vladimir
Putin, sit down with Ahmadinejad and perhaps help him understand
the need not to go down the nuclear road," Zweig said.
"The soft line on these issues has tended not to work. Look at
North Korea
" /> , where China has a lot more influence than it has with
Iran. In general, if states decide to build the bomb, they do
it."
China has hosted a series of six-nation talks in a bid to
persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions, so far
making extremely limited progress.
The participation of Iran at the Shanghai summit has already
drawn fire from the United States, which remains wary about
China and Russia's cosy relationship with Tehran.
China and Russia have significant business interests in Iran,
with energy-hungry Beijing in negotiations for a slice of its
oil reserves, the world's fourth largest.
"It strikes me as strange that one would want to bring into an
organization that says it's against terrorism... one of the
leading terrorist nations in the world -- Iran," US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this month.
Although Washington accuses Tehran of sponsoring terrorism,
Beijing and Moscow disagree.
Ji Kaiyun, an expert on Sino-Iran ties at Southwest University
in China's Chongqing city, said Beijing had made it clear it did
not want to be seen as a threat to the United States.
"China will not challenge, and China does not aim to transform,
the US-led international order. Sino-American ties take
precedence over Sino-Iranian ties. China will not clash with the
United States over Iran," Ji said.
But others say China's willingness to talk with Tehran may be
sending a signal to Washington about how to best handle the
issue.
"The Americans have a bad record for having very little to show
for ostracising states -- Cuba, North Korea and Iran," said Paul
Harris, a US foreign policy expert at Hong Kong's Lingnan
University.
"Naturally, the Chinese way is to take a different approach --
they don't care who they talk to and by letting the Iranians on
board... it sends a signal to the United States that says your
way is not the only way."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: Iran president to arrive in China, bringing nuclear issue to summit -
by Peter Harmsen Wed Jun 14, 4:19 AM ET
SHANGHAI (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is
scheduled to arrive in Shanghai, renewing the focus on the role
China may play in resolving the standoff over the Islamic
republic's nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad was to represent his nation, which has observer
status in a regional grouping now gathering in China's largest
city, but he was expected to also have his first meeting with
Chinese President Hu Jintao " /> Hu Jintaoon the sidelines.
Ahmadinejad is only a guest at Thursday's summit of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, which groups China, Russia, and four
Central Asian states plus a handful of observer nations,
including Iran
" /> Iran.
But attention will be on him more than anyone else, not least
because he is also set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin
" /> Vladimir Putinfor the first time since an encounter at the
United Nations
" /> United Nationslast year.
Even so, it was unclear what might actually be achieved by the
Shanghai talks in regards to the stalemate over Iran's nuclear
program, argued David Zweig, a China expert at Hong Kong's
University of Science and Technology.
"It's good to have the two leaders, Hu Jintao and Vladimir
Putin, sit down with Ahmadinejad and perhaps help him understand
the need not to go down the nuclear road," Zweig said.
"The soft line on these issues has tended not to work. Look at
North Korea
" /> North Korea, where China has a lot more influence than it
has with Iran. In general, if states decide to build the bomb,
they do it."
China has hosted a series of six-nation talks in a bid to
persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions, so far
making extremely limited progress.
The participation of Iran at the Shanghai summit has already
drawn fire from the United States, which remains wary about
China and Russia's cosy relationship with Tehran.
China and Russia have significant business interests in Iran,
with energy-hungry Beijing in negotiations for a slice of its
oil reserves, the world's fourth largest.
"It strikes me as strange that one would want to bring into an
organization that says it's against terrorism... one of the
leading terrorist nations in the world -- Iran," US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this month.
Although Washington accuses Tehran of sponsoring terrorism,
Beijing and Moscow disagree.
They have fended off US efforts for UN Security Council-led
sanctions against Iran on the nuclear issue, although they have
recently given some ground.
Ji Kaiyun, an expert on Sino-Iran ties at Southwest University
in China's Chongqing city, said Beijing had made it clear it did
not want to be seen as a threat to the United States.
"China will not challenge, and China does not aim to transform,
the US-led international order. Sino-American ties take
precedence over Sino-Iranian ties. China will not clash with the
United States over Iran," Ji said.
But others say China's willingness to talk with Tehran may be
sending a signal to Washington about how to best handle the
issue.
"The Americans have a bad record for having very little to show
for ostracising states -- Cuba, North Korea and Iran," said Paul
Harris, a US foreign policy expert at Hong Kong's Lingnan
University.
"Naturally, the Chinese way is to take a different approach --
they don't care who they talk to and by letting the Iranians on
board... it sends a signal to the United States that says your
way is not the only way."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
9 IRNA: US media reports say NAM preparing statement in favor of Iran -
, June 14, IRNA
--
Reports from the US media on Tuesday said 16 member states of
the Non-Alignment Movement in the International Atomic Energy
Agency's Board of Directors are currently preparing a statement
that supports Iran's nuclear program.
The member states in the statement will acknowledge the right
of NPT signitories to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination.
According to the media reports, a representative of China in
the IAEA had announced on Monday that his country would not
support any new statement referring to the 5+1 Group's proposals
in order not to escalate tensions.
The reports also said that the US had hoped India, Brazil and
Argentina, three of NAM's member states in the governing board,
would vote in favor of Washington's interest in Iran's nuclear
case.
According to the reports, the NAM statement will reject any use
of force or military action against Iran's nuclear facilities as
a violation of international rules.
*****************************************************************
10 CSM: Bush's approaching endgame with Iran
The Monitor's View Wed Jun 14, 4:00 AM ET
It's been nearly half a decade since 9/11 and the big question
remains: Are violent Islamists on the run as a result of the US
response? At the least, Al Qaeda has not repeated an attack in
the US. On other fronts, US success is tentative, especially in
dealing with Iran " /> Iran.
All around that keystone power in the Middle East the US is
heavily engaged in either combat, covert operations, or intense
diplomacy. The Taliban in Afghanistan " /> Afghanistanare out of
power but their remnants keep US and NATO " /> NATOsoldiers
engaged. In Iraq " /> Iraq, the US has killed Al Qaeda's local
leader, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, and finally helped create a
democratic government. But it's made little headway in quelling
sectarian slaughter.
While Iraq struggles to become a model Arab democracy, as the US
hoped by invading it, other successes in boosting regional
democracy have put two militant Islamic groups both supported
by Iran in a new, harsher light.
As a result of recent elections in which their political wings
did well, Hamas radicals in the Palestinian territories and
Hezbullah guerrillas in Lebanon are now in the awkward position
of having to decide whether to bend to popular opinion and end
their drive to eliminate Israel " /> Israel.
If either succumbed to that democratic will, it would weaken
Iran's influence. It would also lift US hopes that the Iranian
people might also moderate the terror-exporting policies of
their Muslim leaders, if not boot them out.
Unfortunately, the US, which brands Iran as the world's leading
state sponsor of terrorism, only recently launched a campaign to
support the forces of democracy in Iran. Since 9/11, the Bush
administration's main focus has been to prevent the reigning
clerics in Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. A White House
fear that Iran might slip an atomic bomb to terrorists someday
the same fear that drove the US to attack Iraq at first led it
to further isolate Iran and brandish "the military option." That
changed in 2003 when President Bush
" /> President Bushsupported European talks with Iran aimed at
providing incentives in exchange for Iran giving up nuclear
research that could be used to make bombs.
When the talks faltered this year as the world learned more
about Iran's deceit over its nuclear ambition, Bush decided to
both bolster the package of incentives and join the multilateral
talks directly, but with one big condition: that Iran suspend
its uranium enrichment. He has also tried to win support from
Russia, Japan, and Europe to impose economic sanctions if Iran
refuses the offer.
This "bigger carrot, bigger stick" approach has put Iran's
clerics in a difficult spot: Keep the nuclear option or give it
up in return for trade and aid that will boost their weak
economy and keep them in power? The US has given Iran weeks to
respond.
More than Iraq, a denuclearized and fully democratic Iran would
be the real post-9/11 prize for the US in the Middle East. The
showdown over that endgame now appears near. If Bush keeps
enough allies on board and forces Iran to back down, then the
kind of radical Islam that blossomed with Iran's 1979 revolution
and hit hard on 9/11 could be on the run.
If not, the US faces further stark choices in a "long war" on
terror. The limited successes so far have helped. The US needs a
big one like Iran.
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: Iran denies deadline for reply to nuclear proposal -
Wed Jun 14, 6:50 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran " /> insisted that it has not been given a
deadline to reply to an international proposal aimed at ending a
crisis over the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.
"In the proposal, there are no punitive measures and no time
limit. When we have finished examining it and have reached a
conclusion, we will announce the result," foreign ministry
spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.
"There is no deadline," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA news
agency.
The proposal -- hammered out by Britain, China, France, Germany,
Russia and the United States -- was presented to Tehran by
European Union
" /> foreign policy chief Javiar Solana on June 6.
It offers Iran trade, diplomatic and technology incentives in
return for Tehran returning to a freeze of uranium enrichment --
work which can be extended from making civilian reactor fuel to
making material for the core of a nuclear weapon.
Tehran says its nuclear program is a peaceful one to generate
electricity, but Washington and the EU fear it is a cover to
develop atomic weapons. They are threatening UN Security Council
sanctions if Iran does not cooperate.
On Monday Solana said he expects a response from Tehran this
week, even though he confirmed that he had given no specific
deadline to Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani when they
met last week.
"But I told Mr Larijani we expect a response in a reasonable
period of time," Solana said, adding that this meant about two
weeks from the time they met, or "any time now... about this
week".
Last Friday, US President George W. Bush
" /> also said Iran had "weeks, not months" to agree to a freeze
of uranium enrichment.
"We've given the Iranians a limited period of time -- you know,
weeks, not months -- to digest a proposal to move forward. And
if they choose not to verifiably suspend their programme, then
there will be action taken in the UN Security Council," Bush
said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 AFP: US cites 4 Chinese firms, one in US, for helping Iran WMDs -
Tue Jun 13, 12:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States cited four Chinese companies
and one US firm as "proliferators of weapons of mass
destruction," for allegedly helping Iran " /> Iran's missile
program.
"The companies targeted today have supplied Iran's military and
Iranian proliferators with missile-related and dual-use
components," said Stuart Levey, US Treasury under secretary for
terrorism and financial intelligence.
"Governments worldwide are urged to take appropriate measures to
ensure that their companies and financial institutions are not
facilitating Iran's proliferation activities."
The designation calls for a freeze of any assets the companies
may have under US jurisdiction.
The Chinese companies designated are Beijing Alite Technologies
Company, Ltd. (ALCO), LIMMT Economic and Trade Company, Ltd.,
China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC), and China
National Precision Machinery Import/Export Corporation (CPMIEC).
Also cited was the US representative office of CGWIC, GW
Aerospace, Inc, in Torrance, California.
"The Chinese firms have provided, or attempted to provide,
financial, material, technological or other support for, or
goods or services in support of" Iranian missile programs that
are capable of delivering WMDs, according to a Treasury
statement.
Among the weapons produced in the program are the Fateh-110
missile, with a range of 200 kilometers (120 miles), and the
Fajr rocket systems, a series of North Korean-designed rockets
with ranges of between 40 and 100 kilometers, the statement
said. Both systems are capable of being armed with at least
chemical warheads.
The action is based on an executive order from June 29, 2005 by
President George W. Bush
" /> President George W. Bushcalling for financial sanctions
against entities and individuals providing support or services
to countries producing weapons of mass destruction.
The US government has applied various sanctions against the four
Chinese companies in the past.
The move comes amid mounting concerns among Western governments
that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the cover
of a civilian atomic energy program. Tehran denies the
allegations.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
13 IRNA: Mottaki in Spain for talks on nuclear issue
Madrid, Spain, June 14, IRNA
Iran-Spain-FMs
Iranian Foreing Minister Manouchehr Mottaki arrived here on
Wednesday to discuss latest developments in Iran's nuclear case
and the 5+1 Group's package of incentives with senior Spanish
officials.
Mottaki, during this visit, which is to last several working
hours, will meet with his Spanish counterpart, Angel Moratinos,
and former prime minister Felipe Gonzales.
"I will discuss Iran's nuclear case as well as the regional
situation, especially developments in Iraq, Palestine and
Afghanistan, with Spanish officials," Mottaki told reporters
upon his arrival.
He described Spain as "an important European Union member state
which has played a good and positive role in the Middle East."
Mottak is also due to hold interviews with a number of leading
Spanish media.
Spanish high-ranking officials have reiterated Iran's right to
access nuclear knowhow for peaceful purposes while welcoming
Washington's decision to negotiate with Tehran to resolve the
current nuclear conflict.
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: Rice consults world powers on Iran nuclear row
Tue Jun 13, 6:33 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice " />
consulted world powers on Iran " /> 's disputed nuclear program,
the State Department said.
Rice telephoned her Chinese counterpart Li Zhaoxing, said State
Department spokesman Sean McCormack, confirming an announcement
by the Chinese foreign affairs ministry.
The top US diplomat was "just touching base on the issue of Iran.
"She's had a few conversations with some of her foreign minister
colleagues, just to touch base on where we stand," the spokesman
said.
A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said Rice had spoken late Monday with Japanese
Foreign Minister Taro Aso and on Tuesday with here counterparts
Margaret Beckett of Britain and Frank-Walter Steinmeier of
Germany.
"She is going to have some other talks" during the day, he said,
citing Russia's chief diplomat, Sergei Lavrov.
Asked about the essence of her conversation with Aso, the State
Department official said the two chief diplomats had discussed
"what role Japan might play" with respect to Iran.
Japan has not directly participated in the discussions on Iran
of the five permanent members of the United Nations
" /> Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States -- as well as Germany.
Germany has partnered with Britain and France in the so-called
EU-3 which has spearheaded negotiations with Iran.
In announcing the telephone conversation between Li and Rice,
the Chinese foreign ministry said that "China will continue to
play a constructive role to help peacefully solve the Iran
nuclear issue through negotiations."
The phone discussion came after China refused to join with other
big powers in threatening sanctions over Iran's nuclear program.
The world powers are awaiting a response from Iran on their
proposal to offer trade and other incentives in exchange for
Tehran's suspension of uranium enrichment activities.
China and Russia -- both Iranian allies and trading partners --
had joined Britain, France, Germany and the United States on
June 1 in urging Iran to halt uranium enrichment and join talks
guaranteeing it will not make nuclear arms.
Iran insists its nuclear program is purely civilian, and rejects
accusations it is covertly building atomic weapons.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
15 Guardian Unlimited: North Korean Delegation Arrives in South
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday June 14, 2006 12:31 PM
AP Photo TOK210
By KWANG-TAE KIM
Associated Press Writer
GWANGJU, South Korea (AP) - Scores of South Koreans chanted ``We
are one!'' as a North Korean delegation arrived Wednesday to
celebrate the anniversary of a 2000 summit that moved the rivals
toward reconciliation.
The South Koreans, who also waved flags depicting a unified
peninsula, greeted the delegation of 148 North Koreans at the
airport in Gwangju.
An Kyong Ho, head of North Korean civilian delegation, has drawn
criticism in South Korea for recent reported remarks blasting
South Korea's opposition Grand National Party. The staunchly
anti-communist party won big in local elections last month,
boosting its chances to retake the presidency in next year's
vote.
The South's Unification Ministry expressed regret Tuesday over
An's comments but said it hadn't taken any action in response to
the GNP's request to block his entry into South Korea.
An remained unapologetic Wednesday toward the conservative
party, telling The Associated Press in brief comments that the
GNP has criticized the June 15 joint statement issued at the
2000 summit calling for cooperation and reconciliation.
Many of those pledges made have gone unfulfilled, including a
promise by North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to travel to the
South for a return summit.
The 2000 summit in Pyongyang touched off a series of
cross-border projects such as a pilot inter-Korean industrial
complex in the North's border city of Kaesong, but tensions
linger over the North's refusal to abandon its nuclear weapons
program, hampering full-fledged economic cooperation.
There have also been recent indications that North Korea may be
preparing to test a long-range missile. South Korea has urged
the North against such an inflammatory move, and the U.S.
ambassador to Seoul warned of American countermeasures in case
of a test launch.
Such a test ``would be viewed as a very serious matter and we
would have to take appropriate measures in response,''
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said in an interview with South
Korea's KBS radio, declining to elaborate.
Despite the tension, the North Koreans sought to start their
four-day visit on a lighter note, with officials praising the
South Korean national soccer team's 2-1 win over Togo on Tuesday
at the World Cup.
Kim Young Dae, who leads a 20-member North Korean government
delegation, later exchanged greetings with South Korean
Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok, Seoul's chief government
delegate for the celebrations.
This week's events mark the anniversary of the summit between
then-South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and North Korean leader
Kim Jong Il, the first and only such meeting.
Kim Dae-jung won the Nobel Peace Prize for the summit. He plans
to visit Pyongyang later this month for talks with the North's
leader.
Gwangju, about 200 miles southwest of Seoul, was the scene of a
harshly suppressed uprising against Seoul's former military
dictatorship. Some 60 North Koreans on Wednesday visited a
national cemetery in Gwangju where the dead from the 1980
uprising are buried.
``To realize the will patriots left behind, we should well
implement the June 15 joint declaration, open the door of
unification and walk toward the path of prosperity,'' Kim Young
Dae said before touring several tombs.
About 10 anti-North Korean activists rallied along the route of
the buses carrying the North Koreans. One banner bearing the
picture of Kim Jong Il and a hunger-stricken child read: ``Will
you stand on the side of a dictator or stand on the side of the
human rights of people?''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
16 AFP: US should stay focused on North Korean nuclear issue
by P. Parameswaran Wed Jun 14, 2:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US senator called on the administration of
President George W. Bush " /> President George W. Bushto focus on
ending a nuclear standoff with North Korea " /> North
Koreainstead of pushing the Stalinist state to act on
counterfeiting charges.
"The United States must focus its efforts toward North Korea
first and foremost on the nuclear issue," said Senator Lisa
Murkowski, who is from Bush's Republican party and chairwoman of
a key Senate panel on Asia-Pacific affairs.
"While the issues of currency counterfeiting, weapons
proliferation, and human rights are all very important, the
reality is that without an agreement on the primary source of
irritation, there will be no progress on the other issues either.
"We need to solve the nuclear issue first, and then concentrate
on getting North Korea to act on other areas of concern," she
said, warning that US moves to sidetrack the nuclear issue had
also led to a "a growing split" in the six-nation forum aimed at
ending North Korea's nuclear weapons drive.
The United States had been involved with China, Russia, Japan
and South Korea
" /> South Koreain talks with North Korea to disband the
reclusive state's nuclear arms program in return for security
and diplomatic guarantees and energy aid.
Six-party talks climaxed in September 2005, with North Korea
agreeing in principle to end its atomic weapons program.
But talks collapsed two months later after the United States
imposed financial sanctions on Pyongyang for alleged US dollar
counterfeiting and money laundering activities.
North Korea refused to come back to the table unless sanctions
were lifted while the United States did not budge, saying it
cannot compromise on issues such as counterfeiting that
threatened national sovereignty.
But Murkowski, speaking at a forum here of the US-based Asia
Society, said that South Korea and China, both of which she
visited together with Japan recently, felt that the introduction
of the counterfeit currency issue only gave North Korea an
excuse not to return to the table.
"They urge the United States to prioritize its goals and have
patience with the talks," she said. "I agree."
China is concerned that action by the United States on the
counterfeit currency issue was harming its ability to bring
Pyongyang back to the negotiating table, she said.
"Basically, the message was that if the United States would stop
making a mess of things, they could get the talks going again
and the overall chance of achieving peace, stability, and
denuclearization is good," she said.
In addition, she said, if the United States was going to bring
up the issue of counterfeit currency in the six-party context,
then Tokyo would want the issue of North Korea's abduction of
Japanese nationals decades ago included as well.
"But even as there is recognition of the benefits of the
six-party talks, cracks are showing in the alliance and North
Korea is trying very hard to widen those gaps," said Murkowski,
who is considering plans to travel with several senators to
Pyongyang.
"It is just in the initial stage of planning," her spokesman
Kevin Sweeney told AFP.
The nuclear standoff with North Korea began in 2002 when
Washington accused the hardline communist state of running a
secret uranium-enrichment program.
The North Koreans responded by throwing out UN International
Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic Energy
Agencyweapons inspectors and abandoning the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
17 [NYTr] Who IS the REAL Nuclear Threat - Iran or the US?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:46:25 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Simon McGuinness
Irish-Anti War Movement, Tuesday, June 13, 2006
http://irishantiwar.org/index.adp
US or Iran who is the REAL nuclear threat?
The Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM) announced today that it is sponsoring
and organising a full debate on Iran to take place in the Royal Dublin
Hotel on Thursday June 15th 7.30 pm. Main speakers in the debate, that
will be chaired by Vincent Browne, of RTE and Village magazine,
arguing the US position will be:
Michael McClennan, Councellor of the US Embassy in Dublin,
Richard Delevan of the Sunday Tribune
Constantin Gurdgiev of the Business & Finance magazine.
Counter arguments will be presented by:
Elehah Rostami Povey, an Iranian activist and lecturer in the School of
Oriental and African Studies,
Harry Browne of DIT and Village
Richard Boyd Barrett Chairperson of the IAWM
Debate 15-06-2006 7:30 PM
Note: This meeting must start at 7:30 PM SHARP as Vincent Browne has to
get out to RTE!
*
To set-up a standing order with the Irish-Anti War Movement please go
to the following link
http://irishantiwar.org/donate/standing-order-form.doc
fill in the form and post to the Irish Anti-War Movement P.O. Box 9260
Dublin 1.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a message to
info@irishantiwar.org with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject
line.
To contact the webmaster send an email to webmaster@irishantiwar.org or
ring +353 0 878289243
Irish Anti-War Movement
Tel (fixed) 353 (0) 1 8727912,
Tel (fixed) 353 (0) 1 8727913
Tel (mobile) 353 (0) 87 6329511
Postal Address
Irish Anti-War Movement
PO Box 9260
Dublin 1
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
18 UN Nuclear Chief Calls For New Approaches To Fight Nuclear Proliferation
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:00:10 -0400
UN NUCLEAR CHIEF CALLS FOR NEW APPROACHES TO FIGHT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
New York, Jun 14 2006 2:00PM
The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog today called for fresh
approaches to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
the possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorist,
outlining a multinational framework to control access to the sensitive
technologies of uranium enrichment and plutonium separation.
“Either we begin finding creative, outside-the-box solutions or the
international nuclear safeguards regime will become obsolete,”
International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/index.html">IAEA)
Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei wrote in an opinion
piece in the Washington Post, the latest in a series of similar
calls he has made this year.
The approaches he urged include a recommitment to disarmament, moving
away from national security strategies that rely on nuclear
weapons, which serve as a constant stimulus for other nations to
acquire them.
Second, he called for tightened controls on the proliferation-sensitive
parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. “By bringing multinational
control to any operation that enriches uranium or separates plutonium,
we can lower the risk of these materials being diverted to
weapons,” he said. A parallel step would be to create a mechanism
to ensure a reliable supply of reactor fuel to bona fide users,
including a fuel bank under IAEA control.
He added that a third area was more problematic: how to deal creatively
with the three countries that remain outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) – Pakistan and India, both holders
of nuclear arsenals, and Israel, which maintains an official policy
of ambiguity but is believed to be nuclear-weapons-capable.
“However fervently we might wish it, none of these three is likely
to give up its nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons option outside
of a global or regional arms control framework,” he wrote.
“Our traditional strategy – of treating such states as outsiders
– is no longer a realistic method of bringing these last few countries
into the fold.”
He referred at length to the recent nuclear technology exchange agreement
between the United States and India, noting that if handled
properly it will be a first step forward for both India and the
international community.
“India will get safe and modern technology to help lift more than
500 million people from poverty, and it will be part of the international
effort to combat nuclear terrorism and rid our world of
nuclear weapons,” he said of the accord, which brings India’s civilian
nuclear facilities under international safeguards.
“As we face the future, other strategies must be found to enlist
Pakistan and Israel as partners in nuclear arms control and non-proliferation,”
he added.
The IAEA announced today that a framework to strengthen controls
over access to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, essential
ingredients for nuclear bombs, would be the focus of a special
event on 19 and 20 September at the Agency’s General Conference
in Vienna.
With sensitive nuclear technology in “too many hands,” the Special
Event will examine options to bring facilities capable of producing
weapon-usable nuclear material under multinational control.
“With some 35-49 countries ‘in the know,’ the margin of security
under the current non-proliferation regime has become too slim for
comfort,” Mr. ElBaradei said.
In a speech to the graduating class at Johns Hopkins University School
of Advanced International Studies in Washington last month,
Mr. ElBaradei said it was up to the new generation to develop an
alternative system of collective security based not on the build-up
of armaments but on addressing root causes of insecurity ranging
from poverty and repression to unresolved conflicts.
And in accepting the International Four Freedoms award presented
by the Roosevelt Stichting Foundation Middelburg, the Netherlands,
earlier in May, he noted that many of the world’s ills could be
eliminated for less than a third of the global annual expenditure
on armaments, dismissing the current global approach to security
as dysfunctional and urging a new emphasis on universal freedoms
to eliminate extremism and terrorism.
2006-06-14 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/
*****************************************************************
19 The Hindu : India-U.S. nuclear deal a step forward: El Baradei
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 15, 2006
Washington : International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Director-General Mohammed El Baradei has said the U.S.-India
civilian nuclear agreement that allows India access to sensitive
technology in exchange for bringing its nuclear reactors under
IAEA safeguards is a creative break with the past that, if
handled properly, will be a step forward for both India and the
international community.
Writing in the Washington Post, Mr. El Baradei said India will
get technology to help lift more than 500 million people from
poverty, and will be part of the effort to combat nuclear
terrorism and "rid our world of nuclear weapons''.
He said, ``Strong support of India and the U.S. - as well as all
other nuclear weapons states - is sorely needed to make this
treaty a reality.'' India, he said, agreed to follow the
guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an organisation of
States that regulates access to nuclear material and technology.
It has also agreed to bring its civilian nuclear facilities
under international safeguards.
Addressing critics who have raised questions of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty being watered down, the Nobel Laureate
clarified there is no such thing as a ``legitimate'' or
``illegitimate'' nuclear weapons state.
UNI
Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of
*****************************************************************
20 IRNA: IAEA Board of Governors begins third-day session
Vienna, June 14, IRNA
IAEA-Iran-Meet
The 35-member Board of Governors of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) has opened its third day's session in
Vienna, Austria on Wednesday.
The IAEA will likely discuss Iran's nuclear case this afternoon,
focusing on a three-page report to be presented by the agency's
chief Mohamed ElBaradei on the country's nuclear program.
The Board of Governors will also discuss the IAEA's annual
budget as well as the issue of fuel transfers for Poland and
Portugal.
The IAEA Board of Governors' seasonal meeting began in Vienna on
Monday and is scheduled to wrap up later today.
*****************************************************************
21 [NukeNet] Radioactive gases escape reactor
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:52:51 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19471051-5001028,00.html
Radioactive gases escape reactor
By Peter Veness and Paul Carter
June 14, 2006
RADIOACTIVE gases escaped after an accident at Australia's only nuclear
reactor, days after Prime Minister John Howard announced his inquiry into
nuclear power.
Secret emails made public by the Labor Party today show that last Thursday
various gases, including krypton, escaped into the atmosphere at the Lucas
Heights reactor in southern Sydney.
One staff member was forced to wash off contamination from the leak, and
had to undergo a full body examination to ensure he was safe from
radiation exposure.
The Government has played down the incident, but Labor deputy leader Jenny
Macklin accused it of deliberately trying to hide the accident from the
public.
She said the incident was just a forerunner to what the country might face
if nuclear power was ever allowed.
"The local community deserves to be told what actually happened at the
Lucas Heights reactor last Thursday, and why the release of radioactive
gases was not made public," she said.
"Accidents like this show that the community is right to be concerned
about the safety of nuclear reactors.
"This accident is a stark reminder that things can go wrong with nuclear
reactors."
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) said a
pipe inside a radioactive hot cell had ruptured, halting the production of
an isotope used in medical procedures.
"Only one worker was in the vicinity of the incident, but after
examination he has been found not to have received any radiation dose,"
ANSTO spokesman Craig Pierce said.
Science Minister Julie Bishop assured Parliament no staff or community
members had been injured in the accident.
"There has been no impact at all upon the health of workers at Lucas
Heights or indeed the surrounding community and that the matter is under
control," she said.
An email from Lucas Heights' chief of operations Ron Cameron backed up Ms
Bishop's assertions.
"No radiation alarms went off, so there was no significant dose rate
anywhere in the building," Mr Cameron wrote.
"Although some small amounts of contamination were found on the face of
the hot cell, on the floor in front of the hot cell and in the office."
Ms Bishop said Labor was scaremongering in the face of a debate on nuclear
energy in Australia.
"This is just a beat-up by Labor trying to deflect from the fact that
we're having an open debate on nuclear power," Ms Bishop said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation's Don Henry said the accident was a
reminder of the inherent risks of nuclear energy.
"This pipe rupture is just the latest in a pattern of accidents that have
plagued every aspect of the nuclear cycle around the world from uranium
mining and enrichment to power generation, right through to the long-term
management and storage of radioactive waste," Mr Henry said.
An investigation into the cause of the rupture was due to report in a
couple of weeks.
The rupture occurred at a key stage in the production process of medical
isotopes used in nuclear medicine scans of bones and organs.
Supply of medical isotopes to some hospitals and nuclear medicine
practices will be disrupted for the next week.
AAP
This report was published at dailytelegraph.news.com.au
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries
ago": Sir George Porter, quoted in The Observer, 26 August 1973
"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military
service": Albert Einstein
"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have
acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence
of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible
for evil to triumph": Haile Selassie
Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
22 Guardian Unlimited: Carbon pricing to encourage new nuclear power stations
Patrick Wintour, political editor
Wednesday June 14, 2006 The Guardian
The British nuclear industry will build new nuclear power
stations without direct state subsidies so long as the
government sets a high price on carbon-polluting electricity,
Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, said yesterday. He said a
proposed carbon pricing framework will encourage use of all
non-carbon electricity sources including renewable energy,
nuclear and even micro wind turbines for home supply.
His remarks represent the clearest explanation yet of how the
government believes the nuclear industry will be encouraged to
make the huge capital investment investment Tony Blair regards
as essential to secure British energy supplies. Mr Wicks is
leading the government's energy review that includes a
controversial examination of how to replace Britain's ageing
nuclear and coal fired power stations.
Article continues
Thirty per cent of UK generating capacity needs to be
replaced over the next 20 years. The proposed carbon pricing
framework will allow the government to argue that it is not
favouring nuclear over renewables. The review will also shorten
planning procedures, and allow pre-licensing of stations.
Critics of nuclear power claim the industry is not economic and
will have to rely on state subsidies.
But Mr Wicks ruled out direct subsidies, or a guaranteed price
for nuclear on the electricity grid. He also refused any direct
help with the £63bn estimated cost of decommissioning nuclear
waste. "What is important for government to do is find ways to
incentivise clean forms of energy. I don't think it is for us to
favour nuclear as opposed to renewables, but if we can produce
that framework based on a price for carbon, I think that is
conceptually the way ahead. It is not for us to say that nuclear
should have at least this price for 20 years. That would be
absurd."
His remarks to the Welsh affairs select committee suggest the
government will commit itself to a framework that sets a
long-term price for carbon either through a domestic, EU-wide or
eventually wider international trading agreement. The EU's
fledgling emissions trading scheme could be expanded eventually
into a broader international scheme, Mr Wicks said. Such a
pricing mechanism would act as a disincentive for electricity
generators to use relatively more polluting coal, gas and oil
fired stations. He said: "On the one hand we are involved in
some clear public policy imperatives around climate, energy
supply and security, but in a situation where we are in a
privatised energy market, so it is about the commercial players
understanding the public policy framework over a very long
period so they can make investment decisions.
"The key players in the market place are telling us is that they
need some clarity about carbon so that we incentivise clean
forms of energy that reduce emissions. They need that kind of
framework and I am confident that if they get that they will
come forward and invest. Whether it is is in nuclear or
something else will essentially be an commercial judgment."
But he added: "We are in an era of high energy prices in terms
of traditional fuels such as gas. This makes the economics of
nuclear look more favourable than only a few years ago." The
current renewables obligation designed to ensure that 10% of the
electricity industry comes from renewables was too blunt an
instrument, and he was looking at making the system more
flexible.
The Liberal Democrats have pulled out of a joint climate change
initiative with the Tories, saying David Cameron will not commit
his party to any specific policies.
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
23 Radio New Zealand: Govt says atomic power not an option for NZ
Posted at 6:16pm on 14 Jun 2006
The Institution of Professional Engineers wants to see the
nuclear debate reopened; saying the country may be forced to
consider its use to meet future energy demands.
Chief executive, Dr Andrew Cleland, says that in 20-30 years,
nuclear power generation close to Auckland may be the best way
to produce large amounts of electricity.
While Australia has set up an inquiry into nuclear power
generation, Acting Energy Minister Trevor Mallard says there is
no intention to do the same in New Zealand.
Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand
*****************************************************************
24 AU ABC: Lucas Heights accident 'no threat'
ABC Sydney | Local News | Story
No threat: Ms Bishop says the leak is under control. [File
photo]Reuters
Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says there was no
radiation threat to workers at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor
when a pipe ruptured last week.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) says it will be at least three weeks before production
of radio isotopes can resume at the site.
It will also be several weeks until the cause of the rupture in
the radioactive hot cell is determined.
Ms Bishop has told Parliament there was no threat to the health
of workers.
"I am aware that there was a breakdown in the production process
at Lucas Heights," she said.
"I am informed that there has been no impact at all on the
health of workers at Lucas Heights or indeed the surrounding
community, and that the matter is under control."
Radio isotopes contain technetium, which is used in nuclear
medicine scans of bones and organs.
Supplies of another radio pharmaceutical, which can be used for
some heart imaging, have been increased.
A spokeswoman for ANSTO says the first imports are expected to
arrive within days and supplies should return to normal by the
end of the week.
*****************************************************************
25 Radio New Zealand: Official papers say nuclear power too costly
and risky for NZ
Posted at 11:31am on 15 Jun 2006
Papers prepared for the Energy Minister and released to Radio
New Zealand under the Official Information Act say nuclear
energy in New Zealand would be too costly and too risky.
In the papers, the Ministry of Economic Development and the
Electricity Commission say a nuclear power plant would not be
practical because the country would still need huge power
reserves from other sources in case the plant ever went offline.
The papers also point to the high costs, including the
establishment of a nuclear industry and regulatory framework,
and the risks associated with the treatment, storage and
disposal of nuclear waste.
Electricity Commission chair, Roy Hemmingway, says although
nuclear power is unfeasible now, things could change.
He says plans and prototypes are being discussed and even
constructed for smaller nuclear power plants that conceivably
could be used in the future.
The Government, the National Party and the Greens all agree that
nuclear power is not a viable option for New Zealand.
Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand
*****************************************************************
26 RIA Novosti: Rosenergoatom, Sevmash sign contract to build floating NPP
14/ 06/ 2006
ST. PETERSBURG, June 14 (RIA Novosti) - State-owned nuclear
power generating monopoly Rosenergoatom and Sevmash shipyard
have signed a contract to build the world's first floating
nuclear power plant, the Russian nuclear agency said Wednesday.
Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear
Power, said at a conference on floating NPPs in the northern
city of Severodvinsk that Russia possessed "unique experience
... on using small- and medium-power NPP reactors."
The NPP will mainly provide power supplies for Sevmash, which
won a tender in May to build a floating reactor for a low-power
thermal and electric power plant that will sell one fifth of its
energy to the energy-hungry Asia-Pacific region.
Sergei Obozov of Rosenergoatom said Tuesday the project would
cost 9.1 billion rubles ($337 million) and would be commissioned
in October 2010.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
27 POAC: DEP tries new angle on Oyster Creek N-plant hearing
The request filed Monday came after the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board turned down the
state Department of Environmental Protection's petition Feb. 27
to hold a hearing regarding concerns that certain weak areas at
the Lacey Township plant could harm the environment if a
terrorist attack occurred. " />
[PressofAtlanticCity.com]
Happenings Plumbing the inlet
NRC preliminary report finds no reason to block renewal of Oyster
Creek license Stormy passage in Barnegat Light In Your County
Happenings Stafford Township celebrates Founder's Day Car flips
into sign, injuring 3 in Stafford Stafford Township celebrates
Founder's Day Three rescued off Barnegat Inlet Winslow crash
kills motorcyclist Dog bounces back during CPR training LBI's
needed easements may delay replenishment this year No decision
this month on Stafford plan
By ZACH PATBERG Staff Writer, (609) 978-2010 Published:
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 Updated: Wednesday, June 14, 2006
In an attempt to strengthen its chances of getting a hearing
that would further scrutinize Oyster Creek's environmental
effects, the state has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion
to consider a recent California ruling that requires the threat
of terrorism to play a hand in any nuclear plant's
license-renewal process.
The request filed Monday came after the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board turned down the
state Department of Environmental Protection's petition Feb. 27
to hold a hearing regarding concerns that certain weak areas at
the Lacey Township plant could harm the environment if a
terrorist attack occurred.
The concerns included the maintenance of gas-fired turbines as a
backup power source in case of an emergency as well as the
protection of Oyster Creek's spent-fuel pool. The pool adjacent
to the reactor has along its bottom metal rods that store
radioactive waste. DEP claims the above-ground rods are
vulnerable to terrorist attack.
The board found that these concerns did not merit a hearing. The
state appealed the decision March 28. It is now counting on the
June 2 decision in California to help with the appeal, which is
currently being considered by the five-member commission,
appointed by the president, that oversees the NRC.
The Ninth Circuit federal court decision in California ruled
that the NRC should consider and welcome public comment on the
environmental repercussions of a terrorist strike on a nuclear
facility in its review prior to a license renewal.
“It is unreasonable for the NRC to categorically dismiss the
possibility of a terrorist attack,†the opinion said.
“We can only hope this'll bolster our chance for a positive
outcome,†DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura said.
The NRC released its environmental review of Oyster Creek last
week, in which it gave the plant a passing grade in that respect
toward renewing its license in 2009. A safety review, which
focuses solely on whether the plant is too old to operate
safely, is expected to be released in August. NRC spokesman Neil
Sheehan said the commission did not include terrorism in either
review since inspectors already monitor the risk on a routine
basis.
“It's an issue that needs to be dealt with in the here-and-now
and not just in the context of license renewal,†he said.
Sheehan said the NRC has 45 days to appeal the California
decision and will consider whether or not to wait until that it
is filed before deciding on the DEP's appeal.
New Jersey's requested hearing would run parallel to the public
hearing NRC has planned for July 12 regarding its review of
Oyster Creek's environmental impact.
To e-mail Zach Patberg at The Press:
ZPatberg@pressofac.com
*****************************************************************
28 Pravda.Ru: Russia to build world's first floating nuclear reactor -
15 June 2006
Reactor will be built by the Sevmash plant in the Arctic port of
Severodvinsk beginning next year said Sergei Obozov, head of the
state-controlled Rosenergoatom consortium in charge of nuclear
power plants. It will provide heating and electricity to Sevmash,
the AP reports.
Atomic Power Agency head Sergei Kiriyenko denied that the reactor
would pose a security or safety risk, telling the ITAR-Tass news
agency that "there will be no floating Chernobyl," and that the
Sevmash plant, the only Russian plant where atomic submarines are
manufactured, was sufficiently well guarded.
Obozov said the reactor was the perfect solution for supplying
energy to remote Arctic sites. Russian authorities are looking
at 11 other possible sites for such a reactor, he said.
C 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in
*****************************************************************
29 The Local: Alliance agrees to keep nuclear
[The Local: Sweden's news in English]
Published: 14th June 2006 11:33 CET
The centre-right Alliance has reached agreement on energy
policy, saying it will not close additional reactors in Sweden
nor will it allow the construction of other plants until 2010 at
the earliest.
“Finally, after 30 years of disagreement we have come to an
understanding regarding energy policy, said Maud Olofsson,
leader of the Centre Party on Wednesday.
The most challenging topic on which to come to agreement was
nuclear energy, which has divided the Alliance since the 1970s.
According to the agreement, the Alliance will not push for
additional reactors to be closed during the next parliament, a
deal that was reached between traditional nulcear opponents in
the Centre Party and the pro-nuclear Liberals.
No additional operating permits would be provided for additional
power plants, while no other plants would be shut down.
The Alliance will ask for increased energy production from the
plants now operating.
Liberal Party leader Lars Leijonborg pointed out that the
Alliance is agreeing to the proposed energy policies for the
near future and the deal does not mean a long-term party policy
change.
The four water power stations will remain under the agreement.
The Alliance called for oil to no longer be used in heating
homes.
The group said it will place climate policy high on its agenda,
and would support increased use of energy efficient vehicles.
The Alliance also said it would push cars and planes to use
environmentally-friendly fuels such as ethanol, biogas and green
diesel.
The Alliance also wants to stimulate the development of a green
transport sector by including it in the European Union’s
Emissions Trading Scheme.
The deal did not specify how much money would be invested on the
measures.
The Alliance is made up of The Moderate Party, The Liberal
Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats. National
elections are September 17.
Adam Ewing
*****************************************************************
30 PR: United States - Nuclear Power Is Coming Back to Life
Duane Morris LLP -
(14/06/2006 14:28:27) from Mondaq
By Stephen L. Teichler and Charles W. Whitney
This article originally appeared in the Legal Times and is
republished here with permission from law.com.
Sunday, April 16, may be remembered as the day that nuclear
power was reborn....
This service is completely FREE but for the full article and
thousands of other articles from 100+ countries please tell us
about yourself by registering (and yes, our lawyers like to
think you've read our Disclaimer).
It only takes 30 seconds and as well as great content you get
articles more relevant to you and other advanced features like
an optional personalised once-weekly news alert and
forward-to-colleague capabilities.
© Mondaq® 1994-2006.
All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
31 AFP: Blair defends support for nuclear energy
Wed Jun 14, 1:02 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair " /> Tony Blairhas
defended his support for a new generation of British nuclear
power plants, arguing that they will be necessary for Britain to
meet its future energy needs.
Blair also warned of the "absolute necessity" to tackle climate
change and urged the international community to reach an
agreement on the issue.
Challenged on his decision to consider the nuclear option at
weekly prime minister's questions in parliament, he said it
would help resolve concerns about energy supply, rising fuel
costs and global warming.
"Energy prices are rising the entire time which is why the whole
issue to do with nuclear energy is back on the agenda not just
of this country but many other countries round the world," Blair
told MPs.
He said 50 to 60 nuclear power stations were being built around
the world this year including one in Europe.
"When we look at our own self-sufficiency in energy we're about
80-90 percent sufficient in oil and gas -- over the next 15-20
years that's going to reverse. We'll have to import it," the
prime minister said.
"I am not saying only nuclear is the answer -- of course it's
not, there are renewables, there is energy efficiency, there is
everything else -- but I still think that that has got to be at
least part of the debate and argument if we are to make sure
that our energy needs are properly and cleanly met."
Environmentalists oppose the development of new nuclear power
stations to replace old ones. They argue that Britain can meet
its future energy needs and cut polluting emissions without such
a move, especially since no conclusive solution has been found
to deal with the problem of radioactive waste.
Britain, which is undertaking a major energy policy review, has
about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the
1960s and 1970s.
Turning to climate change, which featured prominently at a
summit of the Group of Eight (G8) world powers last July hosted
by Britain, Blair warned that the process of global warming may
be happening faster than anticipated.
"My greatest worry is that there is a mismatch between the
timing of the international community to get the right
agreements in place and the absolute necessity of taking urgent
action now," he added.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
32 Brattleboro Reformer - WRC: Energy issues are top concern
By CATE LECUYER, Reformer Staff
Wednesday, June 14 BRATTLEBORO -- The Windham Regional
Commission is plugged into energy issues.
As the commission updates its plan for the next five years,
selectboards in the 27 towns the WRC represents put energy at
the top of the list.
Executive director Jim Matteau said about 60 percent of the
towns said energy deserves more attention than other issues,
like housing and the economy.
The state of Vermont requires regional commissions to update
their plans at least once every five years. The last plan was
crafted in December 2001.
"We won't go that long without doing it again," Matteau said.
Housing and the economy will be beefed up in the plan next year,
but for now, "there's one overriding priority and that's
energy," Matteau said.
From wind farm proposals, to the relicensing of the Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant, to an intensive plan by Central
Vermont Public Service to restructure the southern loop to keep
up with a growing demand for power, the region is beginning to
prepare for its future energy consumption, Matteau said.
"If things keep going the way they're going, at some point the
general population is going to be fed up, and new energy
transmission systems are going to be able to go up without the
care and controls that are needed," Matteau said.
The new plan will give Windham Regional direction when it comes
to weighing projects, asking questions and making sure they are
done correctly.
Like with wind turbines.
"Do you have to build six miles of road to bring those turbines
in, or can you use a helicopter?" he asked.
The new plan, a draft that Matteau hopes will be accepted by
selectboards around August, creates a number of policies Windham
Regional will adhere to as energy proposals are presented.
"This sort of guides our part, whether it's the next Vermont
Yankee, or wind project or southern loop," he said. "What we can
do is help with public discussions with these policies, and step
in when it's appropriate to push for a better energy future," he
said.
The plan calls for more energy sources, fewer environmental
effects, like carbon monoxide emissions from cars, and greater
public awareness about energy efficiency and conservation on a
small scale.
"Efficiency is when you replace an incandescent light bulb with
a compact fluorescent light bulb. Conservation is turning off
the light when you leave the room," he said.
With a focus on individuals and businesses making their own
changes, a successful energy future, Matteau said, could mean
neighborhood wind turbines, group net metering, solar panels on
every rooftop, federal tax credits for those that take the
initiative, and a self-sufficient community that can still enjoy
a high quality of life and maybe even lower gas mileage.
Petroleum accounts for 70 percent of the energy consumed in
Vermont, and most of it is used to get from place to place.
Matteau said the Windham Regional Commission will work with
other agencies, like Brattleboro Climate Protection, to
encourage people to drive less, carpool or buy more efficient
vehicles.
Paul Cameron, executive director of Brattleboro Climate
Protection, said 77 percent of the people in Brattleboro drive
to work alone.
Between 2000 and 2004, the average number of miles traveled a
year have risen by 15 percent in Brattleboro, and 31 percent in
the state.
The organization promotes walking and biking to work to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and has teamed up with the
Massachusetts towns of Northampton, Chicopee and Holyoke, as
well as Hartford, Conn., the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
based in Springfield, Mass., and the Windham Regional Commission
to reduce traffic along Interstate 91 by encouraging car
pooling.
Windham Regional's plan will be mailed to town officials on
Thursday, and will then go to the public for comments. There are
three public hearings scheduled at 7 p.m. on July 18, at the
Wilmington town office, July 20 in Brattleboro at the River
Garden, and July 25 at the Townshend town office.
Cate Lecuyer can be reached at or (802) 254-2311, ext. 271.
» (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT
05301-9242
*****************************************************************
33 INSIDER | The nuclear option serves Ontario best
THERECORD.COM |
(Jun 14, 2006)
The greatest threat to human survival comes from neither
terrorists nor plagues nor weapons of mass destruction. No, as
real, terrifying and intractable as each of these menaces is,
the greatest danger to the continued existence of the human
species and the planet Earth comes from the global thermostat
that, quite likely twisted by the hands of billions of people,
is rapidly and inexorably rising towards a lethal threshold.
It is in the context of this challenge, surely one of the
greatest in the human experience, that the Ontario government's
decision to build more nuclear reactors must be understood.
There will be those who reflexively shudder at the mere mention
of the words nuclear power, as if we are talking about some
virulent strain of bacillus insinuating its way under our skins,
as if this energy form is the most dangerous and sinister of any
and every option facing us. But it is not, and Premier Dalton
McGuinty's Liberal government is correct in carefully embracing
the nuclear option to fill Ontario's power needs.
Occasions such as this demand a clear, dispassionate,
intellectual honesty. The population of this province is growing
at a rate of more than one million people each decade. Ontario
is, by common agreement, the engine that drives Canada's humming
economy. And the engine requires more energy -- lots more.
The belief that we do not need to increase Ontario's capacity to
generate more electrical power is both fond and foolish. Wise
and well-intended initiatives to conserve are promising and
necessary. One day, such initiatives could even change the
behaviour of not only the inhabitants of Ontario but hundreds of
millions of other energy gluttons in the industrial world. But
those initiatives will not, in the short term of the next 20 or
so years, let us meet our electrical needs without vastly
increasing the supply of power.
There is no perfect solution and every one comes with its own
weaknesses, liabilities and price tag. The problems with nuclear
generation are obvious. It is exceedingly expensive. We have yet
to find a way of safely disposing of it forever. And ever since
the disaster that hit Ukraine's Chornobyl nuclear station in
1988, countless fair-minded people have dismissed nuclear energy
as an unnecessary, unacceptable risk -- a radioactive time bomb.
In reality, there has been but one Chornobyl. Out of roughly 450
nuclear generating stations in the world, it is the only one in
the past 50 years that has had an accident that killed a member
of the public. The safety record of nuclear energy in Ontario
after more than four decades is good, and this record stands
despite flaws in operational procedures that were identified
several years ago.
Besides, what are the alternatives? Wind power, geothermal
energy, power from the sun or hydrogen all have this in common:
they may be humanity's salvation -- but not for another
generation. If we do not build more nuclear stations, we will
have to keep Ontario's coal-fired generating stations belching
out more carbon dioxide emissions. We will have to rely even
more on coal or natural gas. And the more fossil fuels we burn,
the more we risk cranking up the heat for ourselves and the
planet. With drastic results.
Canada has just come through its warmest winter and its hottest
spring on record. Like many of his scientific peers, Environment
Canada climatologist Bob Whitewood is convinced that the rising
temperatures around the world are due to human-caused emissions
of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which is released by
burning fossil fuels. "The debate is over," he says frankly.
Last month, the draft report from the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that the
world's average temperature will likely climb by three degrees
Celsius by 2100 if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas
continue to rise.
Many scientists fear that anything more than a two-degree
temperature hike will be catastrophic, triggering killer heat
waves, extensive droughts, sea level rise, extreme flooding and
more intense tropical storms. Meanwhile, amid all these
concerns, Canada's emissions have actually risen by about 30 per
cent since 1990.
The Chornobyl disaster killed thousands. But let's face the
facts. Climate change could kill millions -- some think even
worse. Humanity is staring into an abyss, perched on a precipice
being melted by its own greed and irresponsibility. In the short
term, the safety rope that will draw us back from the brink is
nuclear power. Premier McGuinty is right to reach out and grasp
that rope.
160 King St. East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5
519-894-2231
[Torstar Digital] [City Media Group]
*****************************************************************
34 NRC: [Docket No. PRM-35-19] Petition
FR Doc E6-9246
[Federal Register: June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 34285-34288] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn06-21]
William Stein III, M.D.; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by
William Stein III, M.D. (petitioner). The petition has been
docketed by the NRC and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-35-19.
The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend the regulations
that govern medical use of byproduct material concerning training
for parenteral administration of certain radioactive drugs used
to treat cancer. The petitioner believes that these regulations
do not adequately consider the training necessary for a class of
physicians, namely medical oncologists and hemotologists, to
qualify as an Authorized User (AU) physician to administer these
drugs. The petitioner requests that the regulations be amended to
clearly codify an 80-hour training and experience requirement as
appropriate and sufficient for physicians desiring to attain AU
status for these unsealed byproduct materials.
[[Page 34286]]
DATES: Submit comments by August 28, 2006. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so,
but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to
comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods. Please include the following number (PRM-35-19) in the
subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be made available for public
inspection.
Because your comments will not be edited to remove any
identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including personal information such as social security numbers
and birth dates in your submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply
e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact
us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via
the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Address comments about our rulemaking website to Carol Gallagher,
(301) 415-5905; (e- mail cag@nrc.gov). Comments can also be
submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm
on Federal workdays.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC
Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents,
including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically
via the NRC rulemaking website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publically available documents created or received at the NRC
after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the
NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the
public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located
in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415- 4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. For a copy of the
petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or
E-mail: MTL@NRC.Gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The NRC has received a
petition for rulemaking dated March 20, 2006, submitted by
William Stein III, M.D. (petitioner). The petitioner requests
that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 35, ``Medical Use of Byproduct
Material.'' Specifically, the petitioner requests that a
requirement be added to 10 CFR part 35 or that 10 CFR 35.396 be
revised to define and specify the number of classroom and
laboratory training hours appropriate and sufficient for
physicians who seek AU status limited to parenteral
administrations of Sm-153-lexidronam (Quadramet), I-131-
tositumomab (Bexxar), and Y-90-ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin).
The petitioner believes the current regulations are burdensome
and deficient. The NRC has determined that the petition meets the
threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking
under 10 CFR 2.802. The petition has been docketed as PRM-35-19.
The NRC is soliciting public comment on the petition for
rulemaking.
Discussion of the Petition The petitioner states that the
training and experience requirements for physicians who seek AU
status for parenteral administration of Quadramet, Bexxar, and
Zevalin to treat certain cancers should reflect current
requirements in 10 CFR 35.394, ``Training for the oral
administration of sodium iodide I-131 requiring a written
directive in quantities greater than 1.22 Gigabecquerels (33
millicuries),'' and not those currently in 10 CFR 35.396,
``Training for the parenteral administration of unsealed
byproduct material requiring a written directive.'' The
petitioner believes that the requirements in 10 CFR 35.396 are
too restrictive and unnecessarily burdensome because they require
700 hours of training and board-certification in radiation
oncology.
Quadramet is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
for pain relief in bone cancer patients and is administered
intravenously. The petitioner states that the average dosage is
70 mCi and that the main route of elimination is urinary
excretion which is usually complete within the first six hours of
administration. Less than one percent of the administered dosage
remains in the blood five hours after administration. Any
remaining activity will be retained in the skeleton for the
physical half-life of Sm-153 and results in minimal risk of
radiation exposure to health care workers, family members, or
other individuals who have contact with the patient. The
petitioner believes that the patient can be released under the
provisions specified in NUREG 1556, Vol. 9. The petitioner also
states that patients can be released immediately if the
administered activity of Sm-153 is less than 700 mCi and that no
instructions are required if the administered activity is less
than 140 mCi.
Bexxar has been approved by the FDA for intravenous treatment of
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The petitioner indicates that the average
dosage administered ranges from 33 to 161 mCi, averaging about 84
mCi, generally less than the dosage used for oral treatment of
thyroid cancer with Na I-131. The petitioner states that a
patient who receives an oral dosage of 30 mCi of I-131 for
hyperthyroidism presents more of a radiation exposure hazard than
a patient who is treated with an average dosage of Bexxar, for
which the dose to other persons is usually less than the 500 mrem
limit. The petitioner believes an oral dosage of I-131 remains in
the body much longer than the typical Bexxar dosage. The
petitioner also states that the I-131 present in Bexxar is firmly
attached to the protein antibody and therefore, represents a much
lower contamination hazard than from oral I-131 administration.
Zevalin has also been approved by the FDA for intravenous
treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and is administered according
to the patients body weight up to a maximum dosage of 32 mCi. The
petitioner states that the Y-90 radionuclide presents a minimal
risk to individuals who may come in contact with the patient and
that the patient can be released after treatment under the
provisions specified in NUREG 1556, Vol. 9. The petitioner notes
that all administrations of Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin
require written directives and believes that these drugs are
[[Page 34287]] generally less hazardous than oral dosages of
I-131. The petitioner therefore believes that the training and
experience requirements should not exceed the 80 hours specified
for an endocrinologist who treats thyroid disorders with oral
dosages of I-131. (See, 10 CFR 35.392 and 35.394.) The petitioner
has concluded that the training and experience requirement for
parenteral administrations under 10 CFR 35.396 is unnecessarily
burdensome because it requires board certification in radiation
oncology.
The petitioner notes that 10 CFR 35.390 requires 200 hours of
classroom training and laboratory experience for oral
administration of I-131 and all parenteral administrations, Sec.
Sec. 35.392 and 35.394 require 80 hours of training for oral
administration of I-131, and Sec. 35.396 requires 80 hours for
all parenteral administrations, but only applies to
board-certified radiation oncologists. The petitioner also notes
that in SECY-05-0020, ``Final Rule: Medical Use of Byproduct
Material-Recognition of Specialty Boards'' (January 19, 2005),
the NRC justified the 200-hour classroom training requirement in
Sec. 35.390 by stating that these physicians are authorized to
prepare radioactive drugs and administer many types of
radionuclides that require written directives and that pose a
greater risk of exposure to radiation.
The petitioner states that Sec. 35.396 was published in the
Federal Register on March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16335), as part of the
final rule that amended training and experience requirements for
administration of radiopharmaceuticals. The petitioner believes
that the NRC's rationale for the training and experience
requirements in Sec. 35.396 is not known and that an opportunity
for public comment period was not provided for this provision
before it appeared in the final rule. The petitioner also states
that preparation of Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin does not
require use of generators and reagent kits. These
radiopharmaceuticals are usually prepared at a commercial
facility and then supplied to medical facilities as a unit dosage
that the petitioner believes is much less than the dosage used
for oral administration of I-131 for thyroid cancer treatment.
The petitioner has concluded that because the parenteral
administration of Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin poses no greater
potential risk than oral administration of I-131, use of these
drugs should be considered a medical issue, not a radiation
safety issue.
The petitioner believes that physicians who seek AU status for
the limited authorization of parenteral administration of
Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin should only be subject to an
80-hour training and experience requirement, plus supervised work
experience and written attestation, similar to the current
requirement for oral I-131 administrations at 10 CFR 35.394. The
petitioner states that, moreover, the NRC has not considered
codification of new drugs that require written directives as they
become available for medical use and that there is an unmet
regulatory need to address the ability of physicians to qualify
for medical use authorization for certain unsealed byproduct
materials that are currently commercially available and for which
written directives are required. The petitioner also states that
under 10 CFR 35.390(b)(1)(ii)(G)(3) and (4) and Sec. 35.396
(d)(2)(iv), only two generic types of parenteral administrations
for which written directives have been considered: Parenteral
administration of any beta emitter, or photon-emitting
radionuclide with a photon energy of less than 150 keV; and
parenteral administrations of any other radionuclide.
The petitioner states that the current training and experience
requirements governing all parenteral administrations do not
adequately consider the training necessary to attain AU status
for Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin. The petitioner recognizes
that other more hazardous parenterally-administered drugs may
become commercially available that require the increased training
specified in Sec.
Sec. 35.390 and 35.396. However, the petitioner believes that
radiopharmaceuticals should be subjected to training requirements
according to potential radiation risk as is the case for oral
administrations of I-131, rather than being lumped into a
collective group, which the petitioner characterizes as being the
NRC's current practice. The petitioner believes that the current
requirements are burdensome and deficient in this regard and
that, without regulatory relief, physicians would be discouraged
from providing these FDA- approved and commercially available
treatments resulting in an adverse impact on their ability to
practice medicine. Under the current requirements, the petitioner
believes that physicians would be required to become
board-certified radiation oncologists under Sec. 35.396 or
complete 700 hours of training (including 200 hours of classroom
and laboratory training) under Sec. 35.390 to attain AU status
to parenterally administer Quadramet, Bexxar, or Zevalin.
The petitioner also states that to be able to conclude that
parenteral administration of Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin
requires more than 80 hours of training, the NRC would have to
assert that each of these drugs presents more potential radiation
hazard than oral administration of I-131. The petitioner believes
this is more of a practice of medicine issue than a radiation
safety issue. The petitioner also states that the NRC would be
intruding into the practice of medicine if it did not conclude
that medical oncologists/ hematologists who have completed 80
hours of classroom and laboratory training, appropriate work
experience, and obtained written attestation could be granted AU
status for these drugs. The petitioner also believes that such a
prohibition would prevent physicians from administering these
radiopharmaceuticals and limit patients' access to treatments for
life threatening diseases. The petitioner therefore requests that
the NRC recognize as adequate and sufficient the 80-hour
classroom and laboratory training requirement for physicians to
attain AU status to administer Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin as
is required for oral Na I-131 administrations to treat thyroid
cancer.
The petitioner states that the additional training required under
Sec. Sec. 35.390 and 35.396 is justified because these
physicians prepare radioactive drugs and handle unsealed source
material in quantities that can involve increased radiation
exposure risks. However, the petitioner notes that physicians who
administer parenteral doses of Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin do
not need to prepare radioactive drugs.
The Petitioner's Conclusion The petitioner has concluded that the
current 700-hour training and experience requirement (that
includes a minimum of 200 hours of classroom and laboratory
training) governing parenteral administrations of
radiopharmaceuticals in 10 CFR part 35 with regard to
administration of Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin is unnecessarily
burdensome.
The petitioner therefore requests that the NRC recognize that 80
hours of classroom and laboratory training, supervised work
experience, and a written attestation for physicians is adequate
and sufficient to attain AU status for parenteral administrations
of Quadramet, Bexxar, and Zevalin, all requiring written
directives. The petitioner offers the following options for
addressing this issue: (1) A specific requirement should be added
to 10 CFR part 35 essentially equivalent to the language in Sec.
35.394 that governs oral administration of I-131
[[Page 34288]] particularly with regard to the alternate pathway.
An important language change should be made as specified in Sec.
35.394(c)(2)(vi) to require administering dosages to patients or
human research subjects that includes at least three cases
involving each of these parenteral administrations.
(2) A separate requirement should be added for Quadramet, Bexxar,
and Zevalin similar to the training and experience codification
for administration of I-131 to allow the NRC to evaluate each
substance individually so all radioactive drugs can be handled
appropriately from a radiation safety perspective.
(3) 10 CFR 35.396 should be revised to specify an 80-hour
classroom and laboratory training period, appropriate work
experience, and a written attestation to apply to the alternate
pathway for any physician, not limited to board-certified
radiation oncologists. Specifically, the petitioner recommends
removing the current Sec. 35.396(c) and redesignating Sec. Sec.
35.396(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) as Sec. Sec. 35.396(c)(1),
(c)(2), and (c)(3). However, the petitioner recognizes that the
Commission may not agree with this change if other more hazardous
parenterally-administered radiopharmaceuticals become available,
necessitating the increased training currently specified in this
requirement.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of June, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-9246 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety
FR Doc E6-9252
[Federal Register: June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)]
[Notices] [Page 34397] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jn06-133]
and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission
dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR
28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR
2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is
hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being
established to preside over the following proceeding: Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) A Licensing Board is being
established pursuant to a March 21, 2006 notice of opportunity
for hearing (71 FR 15220 (March 27, 2006)) to consider the April
27, 2006 request of the Town of Marlboro, Vermont, and the May
26, 2006 requests of the Massachusetts Attorney General, the
State of Vermont Department of Public Service, and the New
England Coalition, challenging the January 25, 2006 application
for renewal of Operating License No. DPR-28, which authorizes
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), to operate the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. renewal application seeks to extend the current
operating license for the facility, which expires on March 21,
2012, for an additional twenty years.
The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:
Alex S. Karlin, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Richard E. Wardwell, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Thomas S. Elleman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed
with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302.
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of June 2006.
G. Paul Bollwerk III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E6-9252 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 globeandmail.com: Ontario to build two nuclear reactors
POSTED ON 14/06/06
Province says it also plans to increase its use of renewable
power sources
KAREN HOWLETT
The Ontario government plans to spend up to $40-billion building
two new nuclear reactors and refurbishing up to half a dozen
existing ones to address the province's growing electricity
needs. But while nuclear energy figures prominently in the
20-year plan unveiled yesterday, it is much less clear what role
conservation plays or when the smokestacks from coal-burning
power plants will disappear.
Nuclear power will continue to be the backbone of Ontario's
electricity generating system, despite the province's
controversial history with building reactors and threatened
opposition from environmental groups. The government also said
it plans to increase electricity output from renewable sources,
including hydroelectric dams, and reduce demand through
conservation measures.
"Our vision is for an Ontario with a safe, clean, reliable,
secure and affordable supply of electricity to power our
communities, our businesses, our homes and our farms," Energy
Minister Dwight Duncan said at a news conference.
However, it typically takes 10 years to build a new reactor and
it will be a few years before the first shovel even goes in the
ground. If environmental groups succeed in slowing things down,
the process could take even longer. Yesterday, Shawn-Patrick
Stensil of Greenpeace Canada vowed to be "in the ministry's
face" for the next 10 years. Seven Greenpeace activists chained
themselves together and occupied Mr. Duncan's office at Queen's
Park, demanding that he withdraw his plans to expand the
province's stock of nuclear reactors.
Mr. Duncan said he has given the go-ahead to government-owned
Ontario Power Generation to get the process under way for
building two new reactors at an existing nuclear station,
including a federal environmental assessment, which takes at
least two years to complete.
He has also asked OPG to look at refurbishing four of its aging
reactors at its Pickering B station. While some of the units
might be refurbished, it might not be feasible to do so in all
cases, Mr. Duncan acknowledged. Last August, OPG scrapped plans
to restart two mothballed reactors at the Pickering A station,
saying it was not economically viable to spend $2-billion
refurbishing them.
Mr. Duncan said the government plans to have nuclear energy
supply about 30 per cent of the province's energy needs by 2025,
down from about 40 per cent today as the province moves toward
renewable energy and conservation.
But New Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton said the
government has no plan for energy conservation. "This is all
about go nuclear and go big," he told reporters.
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory criticized the
government during Question Period for breaking its promise to
close the province's four remaining coal-burning plants by 2009.
Premier Dalton McGuinty vowed during the 2003 election campaign
that they would be shut by 2007. That deadline was extended to
2009. And the government is now saying it will be up to the
Ontario Power Authority, the agency responsible for carrying out
the government's electricity plan, to determine when to close
the plants.
"Your Minister of Energy became very fond of suggesting to
anyone who said that we might need the coal plants for a while
that they were cavemen," Mr. Tory said. "Now we know on which
side of the House Barney Rubble and Fred Flintstone really sit."
The plan announced by the government yesterday was in response
to a report submitted by the OPA last December, recommending
that the province spend up to $40-billion on nuclear plants over
the next two decades. The OPA said demand for electricity will
exceed supply by 2014. By 2025, the OPA estimates that the gap
will be about 10,000 megawatts.
Under the government's plan, nuclear plants would supply 14,000
megawatts of electricity by 2025. By comparison, nuclear plants
supplied 11,400 megawatts of power last year.
© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada M5V
2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher -->
*****************************************************************
37 Mos News: First Contract to Build Floating Nuclear Power Plant Signed in Russia -
NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
Photo from www.nuclear.ru
Created: 14.06.2006 14:00 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:00 MSK
MosNews
The state-owned nuclear power generating monopoly Rosenergoatom
and Sevmash shipyard have signed a contract to built the world’s
first floating nuclear power plant (NPP), the Russian nuclear
agency said Wednesday, RIA Novosti reports.
Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear
Power, said at a conference on floating NPPs held in the
northern city of Severodvinsk, that Russia possessed “unique
experience ... on using small and medium-power NPP reactors.”
The NPP will mainly provide power supplies for Sevmash, which
won a tender in May to build a floating reactor for a low-power
thermal and electric power plant that will sell one fifth of its
energy to the energy-hungry Asia-Pacific region.
Sergey Obozov of Rosenergoatom said Tuesday that the project
will cost 9.1 billion rubles ($337 million) and will be
commissioned in October 2010.
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
38 Scoop: Sydney's nuclear scare timely
Wednesday, 14 June 2006, 9:30 pm
Press Release: Australian Green Party
Damage to a pipe inside Sydney's nuclear reactor core will
reinforce the public opposition to nuclear power, Senator Nettle
said today. She also called on the government to ensure that all
details of an investigation into the accident are made public.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
revealed today that a rupture to a pipe inside the Lucas Heights
reactor's radioactive "hot cell" occurred last Thursday.
"This accident reinforces the dangers of the nuclear cycle for
Australia", Senator Nettle said.
"Nuclear power is not safe and the nuclear industry can not
protect the public from such accidents."
"It is concerning that it has taken almost a week for the
government's nuclear agency to reveal that the accident
occurred."
"This is not the first time an accident has occurred at Lucas
Heights and it won't be the last with a new reactor due to be
switched on shortly public concern and opposition to nuclear
power will increase."
"People in NSW, particularly those people living and working in
Sydney, must be told if any radiation leaks as a result of
accidents. The government must make public any results of an
investigation."
"The Greens believe that the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor should
be shutdown and the new reactor should not be switched on."
"Solar and wind power pose no risk to the public and are the only
way for Australia to address the challenges of climate change."
*****************************************************************
39 CBC Toronto: Ontario will build new, refurbish old, nuclear plants
Last updated Jun 14 2006 07:45 AM EDT
CBC News
The Ontario government has raised the ire of environmentalists,
but says it will push ahead with plans to refurbish old plants
and build new nuclear power reactors to supply the province's
energy needs.
[Dwight Duncan]
Energy Minister Dwight Duncan made the announcement on Tuesday,
saying that the province didn't have many alternatives.
"Listen, if I had my druthers, it would be 100 per cent
hydroelectric, the way it was the first 50 years of the 20th
century."
But, said Duncan, "nuclear power has an important role to play."
The energy minister said only two new reactors will "likely" be
built. The rest of the power the province will need over the
next 20 years will come from energy conservation and renewable
resources like wind and hydroelectric power.
Duncan calls the building of two new reactors just a modest
expansion of nuclear power.
But Sean-Patrick Stensil, spokesman for Greenpeace, disagrees.
"Spending $40 billion refurbishing old plants, and building new
plants, that's basically what [former Ontario premier] William
Davis did in the 1970s, and we know it didn't work."
[Old nuclear plants will be refurbished]
The opposition parties think the government won't be able to
meet its targets for energy conservation and renewable energy.
"If they're not increasing the floor, they're not going to be
able to meet their targets unless everything falls into place,"
said Conservative critic John Yakabuski.
NDP Leader Howard Hampton said there will only be one
alternative if the government cannot meet its targets for
conservation and renewable energy: build more than just the two
reactors. "There's a real attempt here by the McGuinty
government, to [put off] all of these electricity supply issues,
all of the environmental issues & [until] after the next
election."
Mark Winfield, with the Pembina Institute, an environmental
think-tank, said the announcement is carefully designed to
appear to be a compromise. Any decision, he said, to adopt more
nuclear energy poses a risk to the public. He also points out
that Ontario's nuclear history is filled with
multibillion-dollar cost overruns and missed deadlines.
Winfield said other nations have avoided nuclear power
altogether by embracing alternative energy and conservation
programs. "The alternatives are there for the taking. It's a
question of whether the government can summon the courage to go
down that path, and unfortunately its courage failed it today."
It could take up to 15 years to bring more reactors on line in
Ontario, while the province's energy consumption continues to
grow.
But Ontario government officials say they will meet the targets
for energy conservation because for the first time they'll be
relying on laws and regulations to force tougher building codes
and more efficient air conditioners and lighting.
Copyright© CBC 2006
*****************************************************************
40 NEWS.com.au: Radioactive gases escape reactor - BN NSW -
From: AAP
By Peter Veness and Paul Carter
June 14, 2006
RADIOACTIVE gases escaped after an accident at Australia's only
nuclear reactor, days after Prime Minister John Howard announced
his inquiry into nuclear power.
Secret emails made public by the Labor Party today show that
last Thursday various gases, including krypton, escaped into the
atmosphere at the Lucas Heights reactor in southern Sydney.
One staff member was forced to wash off contamination from the
leak, and had to undergo a full body examination to ensure he
was safe from radiation exposure.
The Government has played down the incident, but Labor deputy
leader Jenny Macklin accused it of deliberately trying to hide
the accident from the public.
She said the incident was just a forerunner to what the country
might face if nuclear power was ever allowed.
"The local community deserves to be told what actually happened
at the Lucas Heights reactor last Thursday, and why the release
of radioactive gases was not made public," she said.
"Accidents like this show that the community is right to be
concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors.
"This accident is a stark reminder that things can go wrong with
nuclear reactors."
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) said a pipe inside a radioactive hot cell had ruptured,
halting the production of an isotope used in medical procedures.
"Only one worker was in the vicinity of the incident, but after
examination he has been found not to have received any radiation
dose," ANSTO spokesman Craig Pierce said.
Science Minister Julie Bishop assured Parliament no staff or
community members had been injured in the accident.
"There has been no impact at all upon the health of workers at
Lucas Heights or indeed the surrounding community and that the
matter is under control," she said.
An email from Lucas Heights' chief of operations Ron Cameron
backed up Ms Bishop's assertions.
"No radiation alarms went off, so there was no significant dose
rate anywhere in the building," Mr Cameron wrote.
"Although some small amounts of contamination were found on the
face of the hot cell, on the floor in front of the hot cell and
in the office."
Ms Bishop said Labor was scaremongering in the face of a debate
on nuclear energy in Australia.
"This is just a beat-up by Labor trying to deflect from the fact
that we're having an open debate on nuclear power," Ms Bishop
said.
The Australian Conservation Foundation's Don Henry said the
accident was a reminder of the inherent risks of nuclear energy.
"This pipe rupture is just the latest in a pattern of accidents
that have plagued every aspect of the nuclear cycle around the
world from uranium mining and enrichment to power generation,
right through to the long-term management and storage of
radioactive waste," Mr Henry said.
An investigation into the cause of the rupture was due to report
in a couple of weeks.
The rupture occurred at a key stage in the production process of
medical isotopes used in nuclear medicine scans of bones and
organs.
Supply of medical isotopes to some hospitals and nuclear
medicine practices will be disrupted for the next week.
Michael Priceman, a spokesman for the Sutherland Shire
Environment Centre, later said the reactor had been scheduled to
undergo hot cell upgrades several months ago.
"It was going to cost quite a lot of money and it was
postponed," he said.
"If this is, in fact, what caused the accident, then they are
not doing the right thing by their workers or by the community."
Mr Priceman called on ANSTO to come clean about the nature of
the contamination.
"We are keen to know exactly what has happened. If the
government does not know all the details they should find out
and let locals and workers know."
Search for more stories on this topic on
Newstext, our news archive service. Click Here [bigger
text] [smaller text] [print version] [email story] Also
In BN NSW Teen charged over party snub attack
*****************************************************************
41 NEWS.com.au: Government covered up leak - Labor -
By Gerard McManus
June 15, 2006
RADIOACTIVE gases escaped after an accident at Australia's only
nuclear reactor days after Prime Minister John Howard announced
an inquiry into nuclear power.
Secret emails show that various gases, including krypton,
escaped at the Lucas Heights reactor in southern Sydney last
Thursday.
Science Minister Julie Bishop played down the incident, saying
no workers were affected and the dangerous gases did not escape
into nearby suburbs. But Labor accused the Government of hiding
the incident from the public.
An explosion happened when a pipe inside a radioactive hot cell
ruptured. One worker was washed down and checked for
contamination.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation,
which manages Lucas Heights, said the gases did not escape from
the immediate area. No workers were injured.
Labor deputy leader Jenny Macklin took the Government by
surprise during Question Time yesterday when she produced a
leaked internal memo from the reactor's chief of operations, Ron
Cameron.
According to the memo, an operator at the reactor had to be hosed
down after "small amounts of contamination were found on the face
of the hot cell, on the floor in front of the hot cell and in the
office".
No alarms went off and the area was later checked for
contamination, the memo said.
Ms Macklin told Parliament: "The local community deserves to be
told what actually happened, and why the release of the
radioactive gases was not made public."
| | Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +
10).
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: Heather Astwood Named as NRC Nuclear Safety Attaché
News Release - 2006-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-080 June 14, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has named Ms. Heather Astwood
as the agencys new Nuclear Safety Attaché at the U.S. Mission to
International Organizations in Vienna, Austria. As attaché, she
will serve as the U.S. Missions expert on nuclear safety issues
and programs and provide programmatic and policy oversight of
the International Atomic Energy Agencys safety program on behalf
of the United States.
Ms. Astwood will assume the attaché position formally in
October. She will replace Mr. James Linville who will be
returning to the NRCs Office of International Programs in
October.
Ms. Astwood is currently serving as Commissioner Edward
McGaffigans Executive Assistant and Chief of Staff. She joined
the NRC in 1991 as an intern in the Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards. She has served as a geochemist, an
environmental reviewer, a project manager, and acting supervisor
in the areas of nuclear waste management and fuel cycle safety
and safeguards. She has also worked in another Commissioners
office and in three of NRCs regional offices.
Ms. Astwood received her bachelors degree in geology from
Clemson University in 1989 and her masters degree in nuclear
geochemistry from the University of South Carolina in 1991.
Last revised Wednesday, June 14, 2006
*****************************************************************
43 Boston Globe: Bill would study possible National Guard uranium exposure -
Boston.com
Associated Press Worries about possible exposure to depleted
uranium among members of the National Guard serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan is prompting state lawmakers to take action. June
14, 2006 --> [The Associated Press]
June 14, 2006
BOSTON --Worries about possible exposure to depleted uranium
among members of the National Guard serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan is prompting state lawmakers to take action.
The Massachusetts House gave initial approval Wednesday to a
bill creating a task force to study the health effects of
exposure to hazardous materials, including depleted uranium,
during military service.
The bill calls for the creation of a new health registry for
veterans and military personnel returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan or any other country where there could have been
exposure to depleted uranium.
The task force would help track those who might have been
exposed and "develop a plan for outreach to and follow up of
military personnel."
The bill also instructs the adjutant general of the National
Guard to assist anyone with fears of exposure during military
service to seek federal treatment services.
Some U.S. soldiers have said they have fallen ill due to
exposure to depleted uranium artillery shells in Iraq, but the
Pentagon has said the metal does not cause ailments.
Depleted uranium is the hard, heavy metal created as a byproduct
of enriching uranium for nuclear reactor fuel or weapons
material.[ /]
© Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
44 Deseret News: Comments pour in on hot-waste plan
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News
More than 7,000 comments have flooded into offices of the Bureau
of Land Management about whether to allow construction of
facilities needed by Private Fuel Storage for keeping high-level
nuclear waste.
['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic But don't expect a
BLM decision soon on the plans to build a nuclear-waste storage
facility in Skull Valley. In fact, forget about rulings from any
federal officials or courts before the end of this year.
The BLM's public comment period ended May 8 on two
competing proposals to get radioactive fuel from a rail line to
the Goshute Indian reservation, where PFS wants to build the
storage plant. The proposals are to build a railroad spur or to
construct an intermodal facility where huge protective casks
would be lifted from train cars and loaded onto trucks for the
26-mile drive to the reservation.
When Congress and President Bush approved the Cedar
Mountain Wilderness Area, blocking the railroad spur, that
option apparently became moot. But the proposal technically
remains on the books, as is the alternative plan to build an
intermodal facility.
BLM experts have been tallying comments since May 8.
"We really haven't finished our analysis yet," said Glenn
Carpenter, district manager of the BLM's Salt Lake District.
Some comments are still "straggling in," he said, although the
agency is marking them as late. If a late comment contains
consequential information, the BLM may consider it, he said.
Asked how many comments have arrived, Carpenter said, "My
guess is in excess of 7,000."
BLM officials are not going to make a decision on the
proposals in the near future, he said. "Our decision will follow
that of the Bureau of Indian Affairs."
The BIA is involved because the agreement between the
Goshutes and PFS must receive the bureau's approval before the
project can go forward. Carpenter speculates that the BIA won't
rule until a pending court case is decided. A BIA public
relations officer in Washington, D.C., did not return a
telephone call seeking comment Tuesday.
The lawsuit, filed by the state of Utah against the
nuclear Regulatory Commission, challenges the NRC's decision to
license the repository. The case is pending before the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
"I think the result of that lawsuit is one of the things
that will be influencing decisions subsequent to that,"
Carpenter said. "It's not really good practice to put into
position decisions which might be in conflict with the court's
decisions."
Denise Chancellor, an assistant Utah attorney general who
is handling legal issues involving PFS, said she does not know
when the case will be heard by the D.C. appeals court.
"We had expected to get what's called a briefings
schedule," she said Tuesday, "and we've received nothing yet
from the courts."
After a schedule is set, the parties will go through a
lengthy process before the court hears the lawsuit. The state
will file a brief, the NRC and PFS will file their own
interpretations, and then reply briefs will be filed.
The next step is for the court to take the matter under
consideration. That will be followed by oral argument and
further consideration until a decision is issued.
When will the court rule?
"My guess would be we wouldn't expect to see anything
this year," Chancellor said. If the losing party appeals, that
could add another lengthy process.
If the appeals court happens to agree with a ruling from
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, that the NRC
improperly brushed aside concerns about terrorism in a similar
controversy, "then it would go back to the NRC" for further
consideration, she added.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
45 BBC: Waste leak
Last Updated: Wednesday, 14 June 2006
[Dounreay]
Decommissioning at Dounreay is scheduled to take 30 years
An investigation has been launched into a radioactive leak which
was contained in a sealed cell at the Dounreay nuclear plant in
Caithness.
A routine check of a small storage vessel found that 4.5 litres
of liquid waste had spilled inside the cell, which is designed to
contain a leak.
Management said there was no exposure to the environment or
staff.
However, bosses said it underlined the importance of accelerating
the £2.9bn clear up of the site.
The decommissioning of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority-run site is expected to take 30 years.
*****************************************************************
46 TheNewsTribune.com: Federal judges ruling on I-297 no surprise |
| Tacoma, WA
The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA - Wednesday, June 14th, 2006 1:47 AM
Federal judges ruling on I-297 no surprise
THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Some ideas like the notion that Washington can veto federal
government decisions about where to send federal nuclear waste
really are too good to be true.
On Monday, a U.S. District Court judge in Yakima ruled as much,
striking down Initiative 297 as unconstitutional.
The measure, passed by voters in 2004 but put on hold pending
the courts decision, promised great things a mere state law
cannot deliver. I-297 purported to bar the federal government
from bringing more nuclear waste to Hanford in Eastern
Washington before the sites existing radioactive contamination
is cleaned up.
But, as Judge Alan McDonald wrote in his decision, Decisions
which need to be made at a national level addressing national
concerns cannot be trumped by protectionist regulations enacted
by individual states.
Critics of I-297 warned that it could not withstand a legal
challenge. Two decades ago, another federal judge invalidated a
similar ballot measure that prohibited transportation and
storage in Washington of radioactive waste produced elsewhere.
It might seem counterintuitive, but the constitutional
limitation on states ability to pre-empt federal nuclear waste
policy is in Washingtons best interests.
Getting rid of the nastiest nuclear wastes at Hanford depends on
access to repositories in Nevada and New Mexico, access that
I-297s isolationist approach could have jeopardized. If
Washington had been successful in banning incoming waste, other
states would have followed suit and Hanfords high-level wastes
could have wound up parked here.
Beside the legal flaws, I-297 had practical ones. The initiative
threatened to also halt work at private companies and research
labs that manufacture or use radioactive materials work as
diverse as cancer treatment and nuclear nonproliferation
research.
Thats not to say that voters who approved I-297 which has the
distinction of being enacted by Washington voters by the widest
margin of any initiative in state history didnt have valid
concerns. The initiative was prompted by the U.S. Department of
Energys plan to send low-level radioactive waste mixed with
chemicals to Hanford for permanent disposal.
That plan is now on hold. The federal government agreed in
January to stop waste shipments until it finishes a new
environmental study, which will probably take a couple of years
to complete.
The states best weapons in holding the feds to their cleanup
obligations remain the environmental protections that led to the
January settlement and the Tri-Party Agreement, a 17-year-old
accord that established the milestones for Hanford cleanup the
federal government agreed to meet. However, the states
congressional delegation and governor cannot rely on those
alone.
With the prospect of opening a permanent repository for
high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada growing
dimmer each year, Hanford has been eyed as a possible
temporary alternative. It doesnt take a nuclear engineer to
grasp how quickly temporary can turn into forever.
Vigilance is necessary now more than ever. But as I-297 shows,
it wont be as easy as merely passing a state law.
1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742
© Copyright 2006 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy
Company
*****************************************************************
47 Pahrump Valley Times: Hecht maintained DOE chef made university offer
June 14, 2006
By BOB MCCRACKEN
In this column, a lengthy interview with the late Chic Hecht is
continued.
Q. What has Nevada lost because of its politically based
opposition to Yucca Mountain?
A. You are asking a question that I have never answered to
anyone, but I'm going to answer it now. You've hit on a very,
very important point. What Nevada could have received is beyond
comprehension. I was offered, as a U.S. Senator at the time, by
the Secretary of Energy (John Herrington), the possibility,
which I felt was very forthcoming, a huge university in
conjunction with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (It) would
have more (Nobel Prize winning) scientists on staff (than any
institution on earth). ... Nobel Prize scientists (working) here
on the future of nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and so forth
... (at) the Nevada Test Site. That was to be the university of
far-reaching thinking. ... Dr. Teller endorsed it, and many
other people endorsed it. This was given to me by great
authority - the highest authority at the time - as a senator.
I brought it back and made an appointment with the then head of
the university, telling him Nevada would be the scientific
university of the world. I was not laughed at, but I was told
that if any professor at the university would endorse this
policy, they would not have a job the next day. ... He said, "If
I proposed something like this, I'd be out tomorrow." He said,
with the mood in Las Vegas, he didn't want any part of it.
Q. The president was responding to political opinions and
pressure, right?
A. Absolutely. The Secretary of Energy personally asked me
about it, so it was not from a low-level person; it was from the
Secretary of Energy. And I think there would have been cash
amounts at the end of the year, too.
Q. In addition to the university?
A. In addition. Plus, total funding for the university.
Q. We're talking billions here, right?
A. We're talking billions ... This nuclear university - it
would affect everyone in the world because nuclear medicine is
the medicine of the future. Cancer is one of the most feared
diseases, and nuclear medicine is on top of the cancer cure. And
so this was so far-reaching and beneficial to everyone.
Q. You feel that it would have led to a renaissance of sorts in
nuclear medicine?
A. There is absolutely no question. Absolutely no question . .
. We're only in the infancy of nuclear medicine, but it's being
used all over. Just think if we would have perfected this and
had the insight and had the scientists working on this the last
20 years, how far along we would be today.
Q. Did Dr. Teller think this was a good idea, or did you talk
to him about it?
A. Of course I talked to him about it.
Q. And he agreed?
A. Of course he agreed. When you talk with a man like Dr.
Teller, he's 100 years in the future, where most people, they
plan for tomorrow, this afternoon. Oh, no, Dr. Teller saw it.
Q. Do you think they (the Reagan administration) could have
delivered upon that politically?
A. Absolutely.
Q. No question in your mind?
A. No question. No question. Because of all the other things,
because it wasn't just a nuclear waste issue. It was nuclear
medicine; it was running out of fossil fuel.
Q. And they could have gotten it through the Senate and the
House, and then Reagan would have signed it?
A. How could you be against nuclear medicine? You're saving
lives from cancer every day . . . Knowledge is the key to the
future, and the fact that you would have so many Nobel Prize
winners here in Nevada . . .
Q. What was Dr. Teller's view of the nuclear waste?
A. Dr. Teller (told) me in our many, many conversations, "If
Nevada has to have the nuclear waste, make sure you get the
license to keep it - that it belongs to the state of Nevada.
Because in 50, 75 years, it is going to be so valuable that
you'll never have to have any taxes in Nevada. . . . Make sure
you get ownership of the nuclear waste."
Q. And he saw its value as mainly in generating energy?
A. Absolutely. He said, "You're going to run out of gas, oil,
(in) 50, 75 years. Nuclear's going to be all over the world. The
way we are using energy, in 50 years how much oil . . . will it
be $500 a gallon? What's it going to be? You have to look ahead
- you can't be shortsighted." It's been 20 years since we were
talking about the energy crisis looming in America and the whole
of the world, and as far as I know, not one thing has been done
in the last 20 years.
Q. Essentially nothing. And you know what? It's like a big wall
out there we're going to run into. There's no way to avoid it.
A. It is inconceivable to me that there have been no plans for
alternate sources of energy; nuclear is a bad word. What do they
think is going to happen?. . . We have no backup energy. Now,
many of us saw this 20 years ago . . . and that's the reason we
pushed nuclear energy. The fossil fuel energy is running out.
And if I would hazard a guess, I would say (in) 25 years there's
going to be a serious issue; not 50 years. Maybe 15 years.
Q. It's better to be the loyal opposition than to have to face
the challenge.
A. Of course. It's easier to criticize than it is to be
progressive and go ahead. And we're going to pay for this.
Q. Prior to the big university offer made by Secretary
Herrington, were there other offers made to Nevada?
A. Bennett Johnston put in some legislation in the Energy
Committee to give Nevada either $100 million or $200 million
every year. And it was voted down, I think in the House. If
Nevada didn't want it; they didn't want it . . . And so the
attitude was, it's a nothing issue, because Nevada doesn't want
it. So in other words, that was the first offer. Then the offer
of a nuclear university.
Q. It seems like there never was an effort to actively promote
the repository and the advantages it could bring to Nevada and
humanity. Were the opponents of Yucca Mountain given a 20-year
free ride with no real effort to counter their fear mongering
and misinformation?
A. The nuclear energy people back in Washington . . . I'm
trying to think. I don't remember any initiative they took to be
pro-nuclear. Just the opposite than in France. In France, they
said, "We have no oil, we have no coal, we have to have energy."
But I don't remember anyone in the forefront pressing this type
of talk in Washington. You would think the nuclear . . . they're
just sort of taking a defeatist stand, trying to cut their
losses rather than look to the future.
Q. There was no counterpoint. You almost never heard a really
strong pro-nuclear position. Occasionally you did, but basically
it was how terrible nuclear energy was. Early on the Department
of Energy had done research - I've got the reports in Tonopah -
that clearly stated the problem with high-level nuclear waste
storage was not technical, but social. I tried from 1983 to 1985
to get the DOE to study the dynamics of the issue in Nevada, but
they were afraid.
A. Well, in government, you have what they call a bureaucracy.
It's sort of like in the Army. If a man is a major and doesn't
make any mistakes, he becomes a lieutenant colonel. If he does
something good, it doesn't mean anything. But if he makes a
mistake, then he's down. And so, that's what they call
bureaucracy. ... Someone's got 14, 16 years. You think they're
going to do something? They're not. That's the problem with
government. And Reagan always said . . . he was always trying to
cut government down. He said, "The smartest people in the world
are bureaucrats. They get hired, and the next 30 years of their
life are spent keeping their jobs till they retire."
Q. Let me share a vision I have, and see if it's in any way
meaningful to you. I can see a repository at Yucca Mountain,
with a complex of transmutation or recycling plants operating in
the area. Reactors are burning the recycled waste. And there's
the Western power grid, which sits like a big doughnut over the
West. These power plants could be pumping energy into the
Western power grid. At the same time, we could have major wind
and solar power plants out there, so that the Test Site, much
like your university proposal, could become a major energy
center for the world, where people from everywhere come to study
and learn and to see how we're going to solve humanity's energy
problem.
A. That was exactly what (Secretary Herrington) had in mind.
Let me point out something. I don't like to say anything
disparagingly against my former colleagues, but I found it very
unusual for Dick Bryan, for Harry Reid to not see fit to take a
position on the energy committee (in the U.S. Senate). I asked
Bennett Johnston, who was the chairman of the committee, why
they didn't want to be on the committee, and his answer was, too
much would be thought that they should do, and they were afraid
of it. I would like to ask why they did not go onto it. Only on
a committee can you get things done.
I was elected by the people, so that's where I should be. But
isn't that interesting? When a person goes into public life, I
felt you must try and do the right thing for the future; don't
worry about getting elected tomorrow. And that was my attitude -
right or wrong, I don't know ... We've lost 20 years.
Q. How do you see the future of the nuclear power/waste issue?
A. I use an expression, "the dots are coming together" . . .
(Nuclear power) will be the energy of the future in spite of
what's going on. But we're going to waste billions of dollars.
... You (will) want to get people's attention (for the article
you plan to write on this interview). ... I'm going to bounce a
few things off of you as a lead. "Nevada's Stupidity, the
World's Loss."
For comment or questions, please e-mail
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
48 Scoop: GLW: Bush And Howard Plan Australian Nuclear Dump
Thursday, 15 June 2006, 11:09 am
Opinion: Green Left Weekly - Australia
Howard Pushes For Uranium Enrichment
Doug Lorimer Green Left Weekly
On June 6, PM John Howard announced the appointment of former
Telstra CEO Ziggy Switkowski, who is also a board member of the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO),
to head a six-member task force to “review” Australia’s uranium
mining industry and the possibility of building nuclear power
plants in Australia.
Australia’s current involvement in the nuclear industry is
limited to the mining and export of “yellowcake” (powderised
uranium ore) and the operation of a small research reactor at
Lucas Heights in southern Sydney. However, Australia has 40% of
the world’s known low-cost recoverable uranium reserves.
While promising that the task force would carry out an
“objective, scientific and comprehensive” review, Howard argued
that the establishment of nuclear power plants would be good for
Australia’s economy. “Energy prices and energy security are key
considerations for future economic growth in a lower [carbon
dioxide] emissions future”, he said.
The review will begin this month, with a draft report planned
for public consultation by November and the final report due by
the end of the year.
The corporate media has focused on Howard’s remarks since
returning from Washington on May 19 about nuclear power being
the solution to climate change caused by greenhouse gas
emissions from coal-fired power stations. The government is most
keen on massively expanding exports of Australian uranium, and
adding value by turning the yellowcake into nuclear fuel rods.
To do this, however, would require building a uranium enrichment
plant.
“It doesn’t seem to me to make a lot of sense to favour the
export of uranium without looking at enrichment”, Howard told
ABC TV’s June 3 Insiders program. “There is significant
potential for Australia to increase and add value to our uranium
extraction and exports”, he repeated on June 6. He also noted
that recent developments in global energy markets have renewed
international interest in nuclear power as a technology that
“can help meet growing demand for electricity without the fuel
and environmental costs associated with oil and gas”.
Australian Greens energy and climate change spokesperson Senator
Christine Milne said that everything about Howard’s announcement
“points to enrichment of uranium as the prime minister’s real
agenda ... During his recent visit to the United States, Prime
Minister Howard had talks in Washington with President [George]
Bush about the president’s desire to set up new nuclear fuel
supply centres around the world with a view to having these
supply centres enrich uranium and lease it with an agreement to
take back the spent fuel rods.”
The Bush administration is pushing a massive expansion of the
nuclear power industry as the “best” solution to global warming.
Last year, Bush won from the US Congress a host of “incentives”
for the nuclear power industry, including tax breaks and
insurance against regulatory and legal delays in constructing
new plants. On May 22, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
announced that 16 US corporations had expressed interest in
building 25 nuclear reactors in the US.
Bush has also proposed that Australia and Canada — the world’s
major uranium exporting countries — join with the US to form a
marketing cartel, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
They would enrich the uranium, then “rent” their nuclear fuel
rods out to user countries and take back the waste.
According to the June 6 Australian Financial Review, before and
during his visit to Washington, Howard was briefed by US
officials about the role they expect Australia to play in the
GNEP. This would involve “mining and enriching uranium at
Olympic Dam in South Australia, exporting it to India and China
via the Adelaide-Darwin rail line and re-importing the waste the
same way for storage at the former nuclear test site at
Maralinga ... The GNEP could create immediate profits for any
private firm building an enrichment plant at or near the Olympic
Dam uranium mine.”
The Olympic Dam mine, owned and operated by BHP Billiton, holds
the world’s largest known uranium ore deposit, with about 66% of
Australia’s proven reserves. Under the Bush plan, Maralinga
would become the world’s principal site for dumping used nuclear
fuel rods.
From Green Left Weekly, June 14, 2006.
Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz: Apology And Correction
Peter King Examines The New Zealand Defence Force - This study
is a private investigation into the value for money offered by
Vote Defence. It concludes that it should be possible to operate
a defence force that is better equipped and more capable of
responding to all likely emergencies than the one we have at
present. The force would have higher wages, lower operating
costs but have a headcount of just over two thirds of the
current force. See... A NZ Security Review - Opportunities Lost
Stateside: Where Rosalea Attends An NZ Maori Rugby Match - So
what if the only technical rugby terms I know are "whip" and
"arse"? They're all anyone needed to do a commentary for the
Barclay's Churchill Cup match on Wednesday evening at Santa
Clara University, down in the Silicon Valley. I will spare you
the commentary, but here are some pix. See... Stateside With
Rosalea: What Can I Say?
Jason Leopold: Where The Rove Indictment Is Now At - Four weeks
ago, during the time when we reported that White House political
adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in
the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand
jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was
filed under seal in US District Court for the District of
Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed. See...
Jason Leopold: Sealed vs. Sealed
MORE:
Evelyn Pringle - Karl Rove Gets Off - I Want My Money Back
Supercomputer Weather: Hurricane Alberto vs Florida - The
Atlantic Hurricane season for 2006 is expected to be one of the
worst ever. Last year's season was in fact the worst ever to
date, and will be hard to beat, however, so far 2006 is shaping
up as expected. See... Supercomputer Weather: Hurricane Alberto?
Gitmo – Where Suicide Is "A Good PR Move " - The US Government
today sought to distance itself from a statement calling the
suicides of three Guantanamo Bay prisoners "a good PR move to
draw attention" as human rights groups, legal experts and
newspapers in the Middle East renewed calls for the prison's
closing. Colleen Graffy, deputy assistant U.S. secretary of
state for public diplomacy, told the British Broadcasting
Corporation over last weekend that the suicides at the US-run
camp in Cuba were a "good P.R. move to draw attention" and "a
tactic to further the jihadi cause." See... William Fisher: Will
Gitmo Go Away? &William Fisher: And the Oscar Goes To ...
MORE:
*****************************************************************
49 Yggdrasil: Update to Critical Hour
A project of Earth Island Institute
June 13, 2006
June 13, 2006
Update to Critical Hour
Earthhealing has released an update to Critical
Hour: Three Mile Island , The Nuclear Legacy and National
Security, published by Earth Island/Yggdrasil in 2004. The
update, by Mary Byrd Davis and Albert J. Fritsch, covers the
period 2004-May 2006. A section on the civilian nuclear
industry, "Continuing down the Road to Disaster," discusses
reactor safety (due to aging, reactors are now even less safe
than they were when Critical Hour was published); impacts on
health and the environment (certain reactors have been found to
be leaking tritium); radioactive waste management (licensing of a
repository for high-level waste has been postponed, and
reprocessing irradiated fuel, even using new methods, produces
plutonium usable in weapons); nuclear security (measures to
protect nuclear power plants from terrorists are still grossly
insufficient); and the nuclear "resurgence" (the industry is
declining rather than reviving). Nuclear power is not an answer
to climate change if only for the reason that major steps to
reduce greenhouses gases must be taken now, and enough reactors
to make a difference cannot possibly be built fast enough. A
section on "Conversion from Nuclear Power" shows that the answer
is instead conservation and energy efficiency plus the use of
mature alternative technologies based on renewable resources.
Because the public has proven itself to be slow in adopting these
measures, some government regulations and incentives to induce
the public to do so now appear to be necessary.
The original Critical Hour can be accessed and the
update purchased at www.earthhealing.info/chupdate.html .
Yggdrasil is a project of Earth Island Institute
P.O. Box 910476, Lexington, KY 40591-0476
*****************************************************************
50 [NukeNet] Appeals Court Considers Livermore "hot lab"
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:52:50 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Hi, here is the early edition of the Contra Costa Times on our biowarfare
research laswusit hearing that took place on Thursday morning. There are
more than 100 articles stemming from the hearing. I will not send all of
them, of course -- but I will try and send maybe just one or two more later
today to offer you different "takes" that reporters had on the hearing. For
now, please read on... Peace, Marylia
Posted Tuesday, June 13, 2006, 2:30 pm PST
Appeals court considers Livermore 'hot lab'
**
*By Chris Metinko*
*CONTRA COSTA TIMES*
Watchdog groups want the federal government to further investigate the
impacts of possible terrorist attacks before it proceeds with its plan
to open a laboratory to study anthrax, plague and other deadly pathogens
at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
At a hearing Tuesday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco, the Livermore-based Tri-Valley Communities Against a
Radioactive Environment and Nuclear Watch New Mexico groups argued the
Department of Energy did not do an adequate assessment of the potential
environmental impacts of locating a "hot lab" in Livermore.
The groups' main concern is what it sees as a failing by the DOE to
consider possible terrorist attacks against the lab and what that could
mean to residents of the Bay Area if a deadly pathogen is released. The
groups argued such a study is crucial because combining nuclear
materials and bio-warfare agents in the same facility would make the lab
an even more attractive target for terrorists.
DOE lawyer Todd Aagaard said the department looked at a variety of
catastrophic events -- including earthquakes -- to see what the impacts
could be on the area. He told the panel of federal judges the lab's
environmental assessment report studied disasters that could be
considered even worse than a terrorist attack. He added the DOE could
not study every type of disaster in great detail for its assessment, but
did study what it thought to be most critical.
Steve Volker, Tri-Valley CAREs' attorney, questioned why the DOE did not
investigate possible alternative sites for such a lab, instead choosing
to put it in the densely populated Bay Area. That question seemed to
strike a chord with at least one of the three judges on the panel.
"What I find to be the most troublesome thing is this is being built in
a very highly populated area," said Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder.
Volker said he hopes the appeals court will have a decision sometime
before August, which is when the lab is expected to open. He would like
the court to order a new environmental assessment or for the DOE to do a
full-blown environmental impact statement.
Tri-Valley CAREs originally sued the Energy Department over proposed hot
labs at Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories in August 2003.
The following December, a federal judge barred shipments of biological
agents including botulism, anthrax, plague, valley fever and Q fever
until a final decision on the lawsuit was made. In September 2004, the
judge gave Livermore's biosafety lab the go-ahead.
The watchdog groups appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court in
November 2004, which prompted Tuesday's hearing.
In November 2005, the DOE announced it would do a full environmental
report for the proposed hot lab at Los Alamos.
--
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551
- is our web site address. Please visit us
there!
(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
51 Knox News: Munger: DOE's pension plans may attract a crowd at next week's meeting
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
June 14, 2006
A packed house seems assured next week when the Department of
Energy hosts a forum to explain forthcoming changes in the
pension plans for DOE contractors and to field questions from Oak
Ridge workers. The June 22 meeting will feature officials from
DOE headquarters in Washington, D.C. It is scheduled for 5:30-7
p.m. in the Performing Arts Center at Pellissippi State Technical
Community College on Hardin Valley Road.
"I would encourage any and all to go to that," said Kenny Cook,
president of the Atomic Trades and Labor Council, the umbrella
group that represents union workers at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex.
Cook said the ATLC is against the new DOE pension plan and plans
to instigate a letter-writing campaign to encourage Tennessee's
elected officials to back legislation blocking it.
DOE wants to replace the existing defined-benefit pensions, such
as those currently used by Oak Ridge contractors, BWXT and
UT-Battelle, with defined contribution plans - similar to a 401
(k).
Current workers and retirees would be grandfathered under the
existing system, with the new plan to take effect for new hires
by next spring.
Although ostensibly not affected by the change, the retirees
have questions about their future.
Some of them feel that Oak Ridge retirees haven't gotten a fair
shake historically compared to other DOE contractors elsewhere,
and they're also concerned about language in the DOE proposal
that seems to scuttle pay adjustments in the future or at least
make them difficult to get.
"I think we're going to raise issue with that and ask them to
clarify what their intent is," said David Reichle, president of
the Coalition of Oak Ridge Retired Employees.
Reichle said he, too, is encouraging people to attend the DOE
meeting.
This may be their only chance to ask questions of the DOE
officials involved in the pension program.
Thousands of Oak Ridge workers, current and retired, are
potentially affected by the changes, and that's why a big
turnout seems assured.
"You never know," said John Shewairy, DOE's public affairs
director in Oak Ridge. "It's for anybody who's interested. It's
for the whole community in terms of current employees and
retirees, although the plan itself largely is directed toward
future employees."
Seating capacity for the Pellissippi State auditorium is 500.
Those wanting a seat may want to come early.
+
Jeff Wadsworth, the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
is pretty proud of the lab's modernization program and rightly
so.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in new
buildings, putting a new face on an institution that traces its
origins back to the World War II Manhattan Project.
There's still a ways to go, however, and that point was driven
home last week when Wadsworth was undergoing his annual physical
exam.
The ORNL medical unit is housed in a corner of the 1950s-era
behemoth, Building 4500 North, and as Wadsworth was waiting to
have his blood pressure taken, a commotion erupted in a nearby
room.
Two squirrels apparently were chasing each other in the various
confines of the aged structure, and during their frolic one of
them dropped through the ceiling.
It created quite a stir, as you can imagine, but a squirrel
catcher soon arrived to settle things down.
"I don't know who the gentleman was, but within minutes he
emerged with a squirrel in a trap," Wadsworth said.
And, so, how did this unsettling event affect the lab director's
blood pressure?
"It was about as normal as it ever gets in this job," he
cracked.
Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion
section of knoxnews.com.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
52 ContraCostaTimes.com: Court hears 'hot lab' appeal
| 06/14/2006 |
LIVERMORE: Watchdog groups question putting bio-warfare facility
near a highly populated area
By Chris Metinko CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Watchdog groups want the federal government to further
investigate dangers of possible terrorist attacks before it
opens a new laboratory to study anthrax, plague and other deadly
pathogens at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
At a hearing Tuesday at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco, the Livermore-based Tri-Valley Communities
Against a Radioactive Environment and Nuclear Watch New Mexico
groups argued the Department of Energy did not do an adequate
assessment of the potential environmental impacts of locating a
"hot lab" in Livermore.
The groups' main concern is what it sees as a failing by the DOE
to consider what could happen to Bay Area residents if a deadly
pathogen is released. The groups argued such a study is crucial
because combining nuclear materials and bio-warfare agents in
the same facility would make the lab an attractive target for
terrorists.
The groups also are concerned there was not enough attention
paid to the possible effects of an earthquake on the hot lab.
Livermore lab sits within two miles of two active earthquake
faults.
DOE lawyer Todd Aagaard said the department looked at a variety
of catastrophic events -- including earthquakes -- to see what
the impacts could be on the area. Aagaard told the panel of
federal judges that the lab's environmental assessment report
studied disasters that could be even worse than a terrorist
attack. He added the DOE could not study every type of disaster
in great detail for its assessment but did study what it thought
to be most critical.
Steve Volker, Tri-Valley CAREs' attorney, questioned why the DOE
did not investigate possible alternative sites for such a lab,
instead choosing to put it in the densely populated Bay Area.
That question seemed to strike a chord with at least one of the
three judges on the panel.
"What I find to be the most troublesome thing is this is being
built in a very highly populated area," said Circuit Chief Judge
Mary Schroeder.
Livermore lab currently has a Biosafety Level 2 facility, which
is allowed to deal with moderate-risk agents such as salmonellae
or Hepatitis B virus. The new 1,600-square-foot hot lab would
allow scientists to step up those experiments and deal with
more-deadly pathogens in an effort to prepare for any biological
warfare or attack on this country.
Volker said he hopes the appeals court will have a decision
sometime before August, which is when the lab is expected to
open. He would like the court to order a new environmental
assessment or the DOE to perform a full-blown environmental
impact statement.
Tri-Valley CAREs originally sued the Energy Department over
proposed hot labs at Livermore and Los Alamos national
laboratories in August 2003. The following December, a federal
judge barred shipments of biological agents including botulism,
anthrax, plague, valley fever and Query fever -- a flu-like
syndrome that can lead to pneumonia and hepatitis -- until a
final decision on the lawsuit was made.
In September 2004, the judge gave Livermore's biosafety lab the
go-ahead. The watchdog groups appealed the decision to the 9th
Circuit Court in November 2004, which prompted Tuesday's
hearing.
In November 2005, the DOE announced it would do a full
environmental report for the proposed hot lab at Los Alamos.
Reach Chris Metinko at 510-763-5418 or cmetinko@cctimes.com.
*****************************************************************
53 Inside Bay Area: Judge questions building biodefense lab
Article Last Updated: 06/14/2006 02:43:22 AM PDT
Attorneys argue on whether government adequately studied risks
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals judge on Tuesday questioned
building a biodefense lab in Livermore, close to 7 million Bay
Area residents, for handling lethal and possibly weaponized
germs.
Federal attorneys and opponents sparred over whether the federal
government adequately studied the risks of the new biodefense
facility at Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab.
U.S. Justice Department environmental attorney Todd Aargaard
said analysts found the new biolab safe even in "catastrophic"
situations. The lab is needed immediately, federal officials
say, to develop new biodetection methods and provide
confirmation testing at the first whiff of a biological attack.
But critics, represented by Oakland attorney Stephan Volker,
argued to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the
government ignored alternative sites, as well as the risk from
active earthquake faults nearby and from terrorist attacks.
Federal officials want to begin the research at the lab in
August. Opponents have been trying for three years to prevent
the start-up of the biolab's operations. The appellate court's
ruling would allow the lab to operate or send the government
back for more environmental studies first.
Federal analysts determined a terrorist attack on the facility
was too remote, the probabilities too difficult to figure.
Assault by terrorists on the Livermore biolab was not
"reasonably foreseeable," federal analysts argued, and no more
dangerous in any event than an accidental release of highly
lethal germs inside the lab.
Livermore scientists would handle, and expose rodents to, the
germs that cause anthrax, Q fever, plague and hantavirus.
The U.S. Department of Energy already has built the biodefense
lab, and in the opinion of a federal research manager for the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, any delay in starting
operations would "directly and adversely impact the national
security of the United States."
Mary Schroeder, chief judge for the appeals court, questioned
putting the lab in one of the nation's largest urban areas.
"I don't see in the analysis any discussion, anywhere, of what
is the most troublesome thing," she told a federal lawyer. "This
is being built in a very highly populated area of Northern
California."
Federal analysts concluded the location did not matter much
because they had considered a "worst-case" accident: A worker
inside the lab fails to tighten caps on a half dozen test tubes
full of lethal germs and spins them in a centrifuge until the
contents are slung around the lab. That indoor release could be
fatal for any unvaccinated workers inside, but federal analysts
at Livermore concluded that double banks of high-efficiency air
filters would capture virtually all of the germs, so that a
person standing six feet outside of the building probably would
not get a lethal dose.
Livermore's analysts also concluded that any fire, earthquake or
explosion that broke open the lab and released its
microorganisms also would not pose a risk to human health.
Aargaard argued in court papers that "because microorganisms are
generally rendered innocuous by high temperatures, fire, and
sunlight, (the Department of Energy) determined such events
would reduce, rather than enhance, the consequences of a
release."
"There is no reason to believe that there is a significant
likelihood that an unfiltered release would ever occur.
Accordingly, it would have been an unrealistic assumption to
analyze the possibility of an unfiltered release," he wrote.
A different panel of 9th Circuit judges rejected similar
arguments two weeks ago when environmental groups and neighbors
challenged the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval of
new, above-ground storage for spent nuclear fuel at Diablo
Canyon nuclear power plant.
The court ruled that the commission wrongly limited its
environmental analyses by largely ignoring the risk and impacts
of terrorist attacks. In the Diablo Canyon case, the commission
argued that risk of terrorist attacks was too speculative and
remote and that evaluating the impacts of such an attack could
reveal dangerous information.
The U.S. Department of Energy made nearly identical arguments
for the biodefense lab at Livermore and added that no such
attack would pose more health risk than its worst-case scenario
of an indoor release.
"It's ridiculous to suggest that equates to a terrorist attack
when we all know the terrorist would be intent on causing the
release of pathogens outside," Volker said after Tuesday's
hearing.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.
© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
54 Knox News: TVA offers hot line for employees
By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press
June 14, 2006
The Tennessee Valley Authority's inspector general has hired an
outside contractor to provide a 24/7 hot line service for
whistleblower complaints.
Inspector General Richard Moore said the new hot line is intended
to confidentially collect tips on fraud, waste and abuse within
the nation's largest public utility while reaffirming his
office's watchdog role over the agency in the eyes of TVA's
12,600 employees.
Intercede Inc. of Charlotte, N.C., won the contract to provide
the service out of five bidders. Terms were not disclosed.
Intercede subcontracts with the Wackenhut security firm to run
the hot line's call-center in Florida.
"We are here to try to protect TVA's assets," Moore said in an
interview. "And if they (employees) know something looks fishy,
something doesn't look right, they don't have to be judge and
jury. I would just encourage them to call and let us know."
TVA's new Empowerline service was created in January in response
to the anti-fraud Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which includes job
protections for insiders who blow the whistle on suspected fraud.
Last month, a divided U.S. Supreme Court scaled back some of
those protections for government workers.
The system, which has its own Web site and toll-free phone
number, lets tipsters use case numbers and passwords to make
their claims and track their complaint investigations
anonymously.
But at TVA, where whistleblowers have suffered personally and
professionally from disclosures, particularly over health and
safety concerns that stalled nuclear plants, employee trust
remains an issue.
"I have been surprised at how much distrust I sense of whether
or not we can protect their identity and whether Big Brother is
really looking over their shoulder," Moore said Monday.
Moore, the first TVA inspector general who answers to the
president of the United States rather than the TVA board of
directors, has been on the job since 2003.
But he acknowledges that winning the confidence of the TVA work
force is a continuing challenge. He recently began visiting TVA
plant sites, attending safety meetings with blue-collar workers,
to get his message across.
"I think I have made some headway in convincing them that, 'Hey,
this is a new day. There is a new marshal in town,' " he said.
"We are serious about this stuff and we want to help you out."
However, at least one whistleblower advocate is not convinced,
calling the new hot line window dressing and "a waste of money."
"Just because they have a new boy on the block at the inspector
general's office does not mean that things have gotten fixed or
things are going to work better," said Ann Harris, a former TVA
whistleblower and founder of the worker support group We The
People.
"The inspector general has always had the independence to do
what they wanted to do and to listen. They have just never taken
it," she said Tuesday.
The inspector general's office previously ran its own
whistleblower hot line with limited daytime hours. Moore said it
just wasn't working, generating fewer than 10 calls a month.
Since Empowerline began, "we have been getting more than that, a
good bit more," Moore said. "What you mine for are the nuggets
out of all those calls. So it is going to be hard to tell for a
while how much we are going to get from it."
TVA operates within an 80,000-square-mile service area that
includes most of Tennessee and parts of Kentucky, Virginia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and North Carolina.
Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************