*****************************************************************
06/22/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.148
*****************************************************************
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 IPS-English IRAN-U.S.-NUKE PROGRAMME: Ambiguity and
2 A negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is within
3 [NYTr] Attacking Iran: Bad Policy a Bipartisan Affair
4 Iran Ready To Negotiate Over Nuclear Programme 'without Precondition
5 IRNA: President: Iran not to yield to foreign pressures
6 Guardian Unlimited: White House Seeks Prompt Reply From Iran
7 Guardian Unlimited: Annan: Iran Taking Nuclear Offer Seriously
8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Presses Iran for Response to Offer
9 IRNA: President: Iran will not give up its legal rights
10 New York Times: Bush's Visit to Vienna Is Marked by Tension -
11 IRNA: Iran determined to find negotiated solution to nuclear case -
12 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran welcomes broad participation with Europe
13 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran welcomes EU's cooperation
14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI nation will defend its rights
15 AFP: Iran defiant over call for nuclear halt
16 AFP: World powers join US in seeking prompt Iran answer
17 AFP: China urges Iran to respond to nuclear incentive package -
18 IRNA: EU-US summit sees chance for negotiated settlement to Iran's n
19 AFP: Iranians to meet EU's Solana on nuclear issue
20 Guardian Unlimited: Iran rejects US 'pressure' on nuclear issue
21 North Korea offers to halt missile launch
22 Independent: The Big Question: How concerned should we be about Nort
23 AFP: US warns of consequences for North Korea if it launches missile
24 AFP: Cheney rebuffs call for pre-emptive strike on NKorean missile
25 Guardian Unlimited: Pre-Launch Strike on N. Korea Unlikely
26 US: Smashing Nuclear Warheads -- in the U.S.
27 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Bill allocates hefty slice of defense funding
28 Guardian Unlimited: How to buy a nuclear deterrent
29 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear leviathans stalk the seas
30 BBC: Papers mull Brown's nuclear pledge
31 BBC: Do UK nukes make military sense?
32 Independent: MPs may be denied vote on Trident decision
33 Guardian Unlimited: Brown under fire after he pledges to replace Tri
NUCLEAR REACTORS
34 US: FW: FEMA asked to prove plan for TMI crisis is adequate
35 Guardian Unlimited: No.10 promises nuclear White Paper
36 BBC: Mapping out the UK's nuclear future
37 Platts: Turkey to build three nuclear power plants by 2015
38 US: Platts: Georgia Power can track, ask for nuke costs to be in rat
39 US: toledoblade.com: U.S. report cites problems with NRC's 'safety c
40 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Marlboro asks NRC for inclusion into
41 TheStar.com: No time for nuclear assessment - Premier
42 TheStar.com: Panel supports nuclear future
43 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
44 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
45 US: The Mercury: Court ruling could affect local nuke project
46 US: Public Citizen: New Nuclear Plants Too Risky to Build and Too
47 Scotsman.com: Blair turns up pressure on Scottish Executive to accep
48 US: Houston Chronicle:
NUCLEAR SECURITY
49 US: Platts: Barton asks Bodman to sack embattled nuclear security ch
NUCLEAR SAFETY
50 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senate Panel OKs $160M for Vet Monitoring
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
51 US: [NukeNet] Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club
52 US: Nuke Train Derails in Michigan; Will Continue to Utah
53 US: [NYTr] Nuke Train Derails in MI; Will Continue to Utah
54 US: AP Wire: Nebraska village takes back nuke-waste dump land
55 AU ABC: Nuclear dump protesters take their case to Canberra
56 reviewjournal.com: Official: States should withhold money for Yucca
57 US: NWTRB Calendar
58 US: LA Daily News: Water board overturns Boeing ruling
59 US: BLET Convention Update: Delegates Warned of Radioactive Rail
60 US: Mos News: Russia, Kazakhstan Sign $1Bln Uranium Supply Contract
61 US: UPI: Russia to import Kazakh uranium
62 Whitehaven News: Sellafield unions lobby Tony Blair
63 Whitehaven News: Manx oppose Thorp restart
PEACE
64 US: Vets disarm American nuke
65 US: [NYTr] US WMD - Activists Disarm US Nuke Warheads
66 Guardian Unlimited: Labour MPs demand vote on Trident
67 Guardian Unlimited: What are the weapons for?
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
68 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant cost rises to $11.55 billion
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English IRAN-U.S.-NUKE PROGRAMME: Ambiguity and
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:58:26 -0700
IRAN-U.S.-NUKE PROGRAMME: Ambiguity and time-buying tactics only prolong
tension
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
ABU DHABI, June 22 (WAM) - A major United Arab Emirates (UAE) English daily
today commented on the ongoing tussle between the West, represented by the
U.S. and its allies -- Britain, France and Germany -- and Iran over the
latter's nuclear programme.
Commenting on this issue under the title "Iran must prove its intent", the
'Gulf News' said: "The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was
strongly in support of Iran yesterday. For the past two weeks, the world
has been waiting for Iran's answer to the Big Powers' offer of talks on
its atomic programme. The carrot-and-stick package, offered by the United
States and its partners Britain, France, Germany, as well as Russia and
China made Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing
activities a condition for the proposed talks. So far Tehran has indicated
it rejects pre-conditions. So have Muslim countries at their meeting in
Baku.
"We express our conviction that the only way to resolve Iran's nuclear
issue is to resume negotiations without any preconditions," OIC members
said in the Baku Declaration. However, Iran has yet to formally spell out
its position. The ambiguity and the time-buying tactics on both sides only
prolong the tension.
"Tehran has the right, just like any other state, to pursue alternative
energy sources for peaceful purposes, but it should be within the UN's
International Atomic Energy Agency's comprehensive safeguards. Also, the
goodwill gesture shown by Iran's Gulf neighbours, who endorsed the OIC
position, should be acknowledged by Tehran. The region needs to be assured
by the Iranian government of the peaceful nature of its programme,"
concluded the paper. (WAM)
(WAM)
*****************************************************************
2 A negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is within
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:03:38 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive
Jun 22 2006
COA News
www.coanews.org
A negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is within reach
By
Noam Chomsky
The urgency of halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and moving
toward their elimination, could hardly be greater. Failure to do so is
almost certain to lead to grim consequences, even the end of biology's only
experiment with higher intelligence. As threatening as the crisis is, the
means exist to defuse it.
A near-meltdown seems to be imminent over Iran and its nuclear programmes.
Before 1979, when the Shah was in power, Washington strongly supported these
programmes. Today the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear
power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons programme. "For a
major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of
resources," Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post last year.
Thirty years ago, however, when Kissinger was secretary of state for
President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both
provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil
reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals".
Last year Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his
reversal of opinion. Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness:
"They were an allied country."
In 1976 the Ford administration "endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive
nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a
multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large
quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium - the two pathways to a nuclear
bomb", Linzer wrote. The top planners of the Bush administration, who are
now denouncing these programmes, were then in key national security posts:
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Iranians are surely not as willing as the west to discard history to the
rubbish heap. They know that the United States, along with its allies, has
been tormenting Iranians for more than 50 years, ever since a US-UK military
coup overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the Shah, who
ruled with an iron hand until a popular uprising expelled him in 1979.
The Reagan administration then supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran,
providing him with military and other aid that helped him slaughter hundreds
of thousands of Iranians (along with Iraqi Kurds). Then came President
Clinton's harsh sanctions, followed by Bush's threats to attack Iran -
themselves a serious breach of the UN charter.
Last month the Bush administration conditionally agreed to join its European
allies in direct talks with Iran, but refused to withdraw the threat of
attack, rendering virtually meaningless any negotiations offer that comes,
in effect, at gunpoint. Recent history provides further reason for
scepticism about Washington's intentions.
In May 2003, according to Flynt Leverett, then a senior official in Bush's
National Security Council, the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami
proposed "an agenda for a diplomatic process that was intended to resolve on
a comprehensive basis all of the bilateral differences between the United
States and Iran".
Included were "weapons of mass destruction, a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Lebanon's Hizbullah organisation
and cooperation with the UN nuclear safeguards agency", the Financial Times
reported last month. The Bush administration refused, and reprimanded the
Swiss diplomat who conveyed the offer.
A year later the European Union and Iran struck a bargain: Iran would
temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, and in return Europe would provide
assurances that the United States and Israel would not attack Iran. Under US
pressure, Europe backed off, and Iran renewed its enrichment processes.
Iran's nuclear programmes, as far as is known, fall within its rights under
article four of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which grants non-nuclear
states the right to produce fuel for nuclear energy. The Bush administration
argues that article four should be strengthened, and I think that makes
sense.
When the NPT came into force in 1970 there was a considerable gap between
producing fuel for energy and for nuclear weapons. But advances in
technology have narrowed the gap. However, any such revision of article four
would have to ensure unimpeded access for non-military use, in accord with
the initial NPT bargain between declared nuclear powers and the non-nuclear
states.
In 2003 a reasonable proposal to this end was put forward by Mohamed
ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency: that all
production and processing of weapon-usable material be under international
control, with "assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their
supplies". That should be the first step, he proposed, toward fully
implementing the 1993 UN resolution for a fissile material cutoff treaty (or
Fissban).
ElBaradei's proposal has to date been accepted by only one state, to my
knowledge: Iran, in February, in an interview with Ali Larijani, Iran's
chief nuclear negotiator. The Bush administration rejects a verifiable
Fissban - and stands nearly alone. In November 2004 the UN committee on
disarmament voted in favour of a verifiable Fissban. The vote was 147 to one
(United States), with two abstentions: Israel and Britain. Last year a vote
in the full general assembly was 179 to two, Israel and Britain again
abstaining. The United States was joined by Palau.
There are ways to mitigate and probably end these crises. The first is to
call off the very credible US and Israeli threats that virtually urge Iran
to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
A second step would be to join the rest of the world in accepting a
verifiable Fissban treaty, as well as ElBaradei's proposal, or something
similar.
A third step would be to live up to article six of the NPT, which obligates
the nuclear states to take "good-faith" efforts to eliminate nuclear
weapons, a binding legal obligation, as the world court determined. None of
the nuclear states has lived up to that obligation, but the United States is
far in the lead in violating it.
Even steps in these directions would mitigate the upcoming crisis with Iran.
Above all, it is important to heed the words of Mohamed ElBaradei: "There is
no military solution to this situation. It is inconceivable. The only
durable solution is a negotiated solution." And it is within reach.
--
Noam Chomsky's new book is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault
on Democracy; he is professor of linguistics and philosophy at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
======
http://coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1033
======
*****************************************************************
3 [NYTr] Attacking Iran: Bad Policy a Bipartisan Affair
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:26:13 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Ed Pearl
ZNet Commentary - Jun 20, 2006
http://www.zmag.org
Attacking Iran: Bad Policy Is a Bipartisan Affair
By Robert Jensen
Will the United States attack Iran?
That was the question on everyone's mind at a recent political talk I gave
in a small college town in Texas. I ran through some of the many reasons
such an attack would be ill-advised, bordering on insane:
U.S. forces are bogged down in a failed war in Iraq and have limited
capacity to fight anywhere; Iran is militarily a much more formidable
opponent than Iraq, and its people are even less likely than Iraqis to
welcome the U.S. military; Iranian nuclear sites are dispersed around the
country, making it difficult for U.S. (or U.S.-backed Israeli) air strikes
to achieve the stated goal; and any aggression in a region already enraged
about U.S. bullying, prison torture, and war crimes would risk setting off
an uncontrollable conflict that would be potentially catastrophic, leaving
U.S. troops in Iraq and American citizens everywhere exposed to heightened
dangers.
"Given all that," I asked the audience, "can you imagine any sane politician
or policymaker deciding to invade or bomb Iran?"
"No, of course not," they responded.
"Even though all this is obvious," I asked, "are you still worried that the
Bush administration is going to bomb Iran?"
"YES!" they shouted back.
The Bush administration's ongoing propaganda campaign to paint Iran as a
grave threat to U.S. security -- which just happens to look a lot like the
propaganda campaign that targeted Iraq -- suggests that whether or not
policymakers have definitive plans to invade and/or bomb, they are creating
the context for attack if they deem it necessary to their project of total
domination of the Middle East and Central Asia.
So, many in the United States -- and even more people around the world --
are scared that among top U.S. policymakers, rational arguments can easily
be trumped by ideology, willed ignorance, and self-delusion. While U.S.
military commanders likely view an attack on Iran as dangerous folly -- and
are the likely source of leaks to journalists about the planning process,
perhaps in an attempt to derail such plans -- civilian leaders seem to be
insulated from reality and responsibility.
Indeed, the fanatics in the Bush administration pose a serious threat to
peace and are an impediment to the pursuit of justice in the world. But that
should not obscure the other lesson of the current "crisis" around Iran's
nuclear program: We are dealing with the consequences of 60 years of
dangerous U.S. policies around the world.
Let's remember the basics of post-World War II U.S. policy in Iran: A
CIA-supported coup in 1953 overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq's
government after his nationalization of the oil industry, leading to more
than two decades of harsh rule by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi enforced by a
brutal secret police, SAVAK. Support for the shah, who played a key role as
a mostly obedient U.S. surrogate in the region, continued through Republican
and Democratic administrations alike -- including that of Jimmy Carter, the
so-called "human-rights president." All that is well documented, but the
public memory of U.S.-Iranian relations and the 1979 Islamic revolution
typically is reduced to the "hostage crisis," in which the United States
casts itself as a victim of crazed Muslims gripped by irrational hatreds.
But we forget history at our own peril. Today many of our problems around
the world are a result of what has been called "blowback" -- support of
reactionary forces for short-term advantage has often created unforeseen
problems. A bit more attention to those decades of immoral and shortsighted
U.S. policy around the world would suggest a new course, one that requires
the U.S. public to do what doesn't come naturally in this ahistorical,
propaganda-driven society: Study honest accounts of our history, evaluate
the facts, and apply basic legal and moral principles. That's not only the
right thing, it's the sensible thing to do out of self-interest.
We can start with a simple question: If Iranian leaders do indeed want to
acquire nuclear weapons, why might that be? Other major players in that part
of the world (Pakistan, India, China) have nukes, as does Iran's primary
regional enemy (Israel). And let's not forget that the occupying army in
Iran's next-door neighbor belongs to the United States, whose president has
designated Iran as a member of the "axis of evil." Iranians no doubt have
observed that of the two other original members of that exclusive club, one
is thought to have nuclear weapons (North Korea) and one quite clearly
didn't (Iraq). Which one got invaded?
What does Iran want? As would any nation in its position, Iran seeks
security guarantees -- exactly what the United States refuses to give. As
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton put it this spring, the
Iranians "must know everything is on the table and they must understand what
that means."
Got it, Mr. Ambassador, we understand: The United States, once again, is
ignoring a fundamental principle of international law. The U.N. charter
states that nations "shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state."
So, everything is on the table, including bombing, which has many people
nervous. But we should remember this is not a new U.S. policy. Go back to
President Carter's 1980 State of the Union address, in which he outlined the
"Carter Doctrine": "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the
Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of
the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any
means necessary, including military force."
Throughout the post-WWII period, U.S. policymakers have interpreted "outside
force" to include inside forces -- that is, any force that doesn't bow to
U.S. demands, no matter where it lives. The Bush administration, while more
brazen in its threats and use of force than some past administrations, is
not straying too far from a time-honored U.S. principle, articulated most
clearly by his father, the first President Bush, in 1991: "What we say
goes."
Two simple, but haunting, questions were on the minds of the folks at my
talk in Denton, Texas, that night: What if "what we say" is crazy? And, do
those in power actually have the power to make sure a crazy idea "goes"
forward?
With the attack on Iraq, the Bush administration -- along with
fellow-travelers in both the Republican and Democratic parties -- ignored
international law, a global mass movement against the war, and the opinions
of the vast majority of the world's governments in pursuit of a policy of
domination-through-violence.
The same forces are lined up for and against an attack on Iran. The
difference may be that this time even the most fanatical in the
administration will have a hard time convincing themselves such an attack
can succeed.
We hope.
[Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at
Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center
http://thirdcoastactivist.org/. He is the author of The Heart of Whiteness:
Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle
to Claim Our Humanity (both from City Lights Books). He can be reached at
rjensen @uts.cc.utexas.edu .]
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
4 Iran Ready To Negotiate Over Nuclear Programme 'without Preconditions,' Annan Says
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:01:24 -0400
IRAN READY TO NEGOTIATE OVER NUCLEAR PROGRAMME WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS, ANNAN SAYS
New York, Jun 22 2006 3:00PM
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Motaki has assured him his country will
come to the negotiating table without preconditions in any talks
on its nuclear programme which it insists is for peaceful purposes,
but which the United States and others see as a weapons threat.
I hope it will give the sufficient answer before too long, Mr.
Annan <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=890">told reporters
in Geneva after meeting with the Iranian minister, referring
to the offer of incentives by the five Permanent Security Council
Members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US)
and Germany in return for Irans abandoning its uranium enrichment
programme.
Iran maintains that its interest in nuclear energy is purely for
peaceful purposes, and I have stressed to Iranian leaders, including
Mr. Motaki, that it is very much in their interest to convince
the world of that by cooperating fully with IAEA [International
Atomic Energy Agency], he added.
Despite years of inspections after the discovery in 2003 that Iran
had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of
its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
the IAEA has said it still cannot conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear activities although it has not seen any diversion
of materials to nuclear weapons.
But it has called on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment, which
can produce fuel for nuclear energy production or for making nuclear
weapons. Iranian leaders have insisted on their right to enrichment.
Asked whether Mr. Motaki indicated that Iran might be prepared to
give up enrichment, Mr. Annan replied: Their point of view is that
they are coming to the table without preconditions and that everything
can be discussed at the table. That, I presume, includes
the question of enrichment. They are considering the package very,
very seriously.
He was also asked if he thought the Washington should be more engaged
in getting a diplomatic solution on the issue. I think we saw
a major shift in US policy when it indicated that it will be prepared
to join the talks once the issue of the enrichment or its
suspension thereof was resolved, he replied.
I hope that initial shift and signal will bear fruit as we move
forward with the discussions with the Iranians, and that sooner or
later and rather sooner than later we will see the US joining
the talks.
He also said he had discussed with Mr. Motaki the timing of the Iranian
reply to the latest offer. I don't think they will give an
answer before the G-8 meeting in St. Petersburg, he noted, referring
to the meeting of the major industrial nations in Russia at
the beginning of next month. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has said the reply wont be ready until late August.
2006-06-22 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/
*****************************************************************
5 IRNA: President: Iran not to yield to foreign pressures
Razan, Hamedanprov, June 22, IRNA
Iran-President-Hamedan
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, "Iran will not
yield to any foreign pressures." Speaking in a gathering of
Razan city residents, the president said, " We declare as we had
already stated that Iran does not intend to invade any country,
but Iranians are determined to defend their rights strongly."
He added current problem of mankind is that the superpowers, in
spite of their false claims are stockpiling chemical, biological
and atomic weapons while at the same time, they shout slogans
about peace and defence of human rights.
The president said Iran wants peace, security and tranquility
for all nations in the world.
Ahmadinejad noted that, "We have said many times that we want
dialogue, negotiation and we don't want war with anybody, but
the negotiation and dialogue must be without pre-conditions.
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: White House Seeks Prompt Reply From Iran
[UP]
Thursday June 22, 2006 10:01 AM
AP Photo VAH109
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Speaking firmly but softly, the Bush
administration is looking for an answer from Iran as early as
next week on a package of inducements designed to halt its
development of what the United States fears are nuclear weapons.
The U.S. and its partners are holding open the option of seeking
a U.N. Security Council resolution to force Iran's hand if
Tehran does not respond or if its response is unacceptable.
By making a public show of unity with the Europeans, Russians
and Chinese, the administration is both signaling Tehran there
is little to be gained by trying to promote division and also
closing ranks for any U.N. drive for sanctions against Iran.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that his
country would respond in mid-August to the package of
incentives. The U.S. and its partners have said they wanted a
response within weeks not months.
The decision to stick to the original schedule the partners gave
Iran - a response by next week or the partners begin plotting
action at the U.N. - was reaffirmed quickly after Ahmadinejad's
statement in a round of telephone calls by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and other diplomats.
Setting a calm tone at a U.S.-European summit in Vienna,
Austria, President Bush calmly disputed Ahmadinejad's timeline,
saying it ``seems like an awfully long time'' to respond.
The offer by the five permanent U.N. Security Council members
plus Germany seeks to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium
enrichment in return for incentives, which would include the
U.S. providing Iran with peaceful nuclear technology as well as
joining in direct negotiations with Tehran.
``It shouldn't take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a
reasonable deal,'' Bush said. ``We'll come to the table when
they verifiably suspend. Period.''
The State Department, also taking a gentle line, suggested that
if Iran had questions about the package, Iranian nuclear
negotiator Ali Larijani could submit them to senior European
diplomat Javier Solana.
This offer, made during the daily department media briefing on
Wednesday, is far short of a take-it-or-leave-it stance. Still,
Bush made it clear that there will be no budging on the U.S.
demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and submit to
verification that it has followed through.
In a calculated show of unity, top U.S., European and Chinese
diplomats exchanged telephone calls. Undersecretary of State
Nicholas Burns, the U.S. point man on the Iranian nuclear issue,
and his counterparts in the British, French, German, Chinese and
Russian governments also conferred by phone and agreed that Iran
should accept the offer ``within weeks, not months,'' State
Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said.
The foreign ministers of the G-8 industrialized democracies are
due to meet in Moscow next Thursday, which coincides with the
drive for a reply from Tehran within a week's time.
China, which could play an opposing role in the Security Council
and is not part of the G-8, called on Iran to earn international
trust.
``Iran needs to use real actions to win the confidence of the
international community,'' Foreign Minister Wen Jiabao said
during a visit to South Africa.
Uranium enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor
or material for a warhead. Iran says it is pursuing peaceful
energy generation. The United States and some Europeans accuse
Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
---
AP Diplomatic Writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report.
---
On the Net:
CIA World Factbook on Iran:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: Annan: Iran Taking Nuclear Offer Seriously
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday June 22, 2006 11:16 AM
AP Photo GE105
GENEVA (AP) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said after
meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Thursday
that he believes Tehran is taking ``very seriously'' an offer of
incentives to roll back its disputed nuclear program.
``I hope it will give its official answer before too long,''
Annan said, adding that it might come after the Group of Eight
summit conference starting June 29 in Moscow.
But Iran's president said Wednesday his country would take until
mid-August to respond to the incentives package, prompting
President Bush to accuse Tehran of dragging its feet.
The United States wants a fast response to the offer it made
with the four other permanent members of the Security Council
and Germany. The partners are holding open the option of seeking
a U.N. Security Council resolution against Iran if they find its
response unacceptable.
Annan said his talks with Mottaki were ``very useful.''
``Iran maintains that its interest in nuclear energy is purely
for peaceful purposes, and I have stressed to Iranian leaders,
including Mr. Mottaki, that it is very much in their interest to
convince the world of that by cooperating fully with the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency),'' Annan told reporters.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Presses Iran for Response to Offer
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday June 22, 2006 2:16 PM
AP Photo VAH109
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States prodded Iran on Thursday to
respond no later than next month to an offer of incentives to
suspend its disputed nuclear program.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said it would be
``helpful and useful if we could get a response and know where
the Iranians are'' before foreign ministers of major countries
meet in Moscow on June 29 and world leaders gather in St.
Petersburg on July 15.
Iran's president said Wednesday that his country would take
until mid-August to respond to the incentives package designed
to halt its development of what the United States fears are
nuclear weapons. That prompted President Bush, who is traveling
in Europe, to accuse Tehran of dragging its feet.
The foreign ministers' meeting and the gathering of world
leaders are part of the annual summit of wealthy industrialized
nations.
``Obviously it would be helpful to have a response before that
set of meetings associated with the G8 to come forward,'' Hadley
said, briefing reporters during Bush's visit to Budapest,
Hungary. ``What we need is an authoritative response.''
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 IRNA: President: Iran will not give up its legal rights
, June 22, IRNA
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Wednesday evening that
while Iran favors negotiation and other peaceful means to settle
its nuclear case, it would by no means cave in to pressure and
give up its indisputable rights.
Addressing a group of war veterans and martyrs' families in
this western city, the president said that the independence and
dignity enjoyed by the Iranian people today are the fruit of the
sacrifices and bravery of their war veterans and martyrs.
"Today certain bullying powers in the international arena seek
to impose their wishes on our nation through force or threats of
the use of force to deprive us of the benefits of modern
technologies," he said.
"It is our duty to thwart the goals of these bullying powers by
maintaining our unity," stressed the president.
He reminded bullying powers that the era of threats is over and
and that they "can no longer impose their will on other peoples"
by any means.
President Ahmadinejad arrived in this western province
Wednesday afternoon accompanied by members of his cabinet.
This current visit is his 15th to various provinces of the
country since he assumed office in August 2005.
Later, at a meeting with a number of provincial elites before
leaving Hamedan for the city of Razan, President Ahmadinejad
said that his government was committed to upholding justice and
the rule of law in Iranian society.
He urged Iranian citizens to strengthen their national
trademark so that "no world arrogant power can even think of
asserting its dominance over this nation."
Today the president travels to the provincial cities of
Malayer, Nahavand, Touyserkan, Asadabad and Bahar to deliver
speeches and interact with local residents.
Later in the day he will return to Hamedan city, where he is to
preside over his cabinet's 15th provincial session to discuss
the province's needs and problems.
*****************************************************************
10 New York Times: Bush's Visit to Vienna Is Marked by Tension -
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGPublished: June 21, 2006
VIENNA, June 21 President Bush, visiting this central European
city with the aim of promoting trans-Atlantic unity, instead
issued an impassioned defense of his Iraq policy today amid
pointed reminders of how far the United States has fallen in the
eyes of many Europeans. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge this
Image [ border=] Roland Schlager/European Pressphoto Agency
President George Bush spoke with Austria's chancellor, Wolfgang
Schssel, center, and Jos Manuel Barroso, the European Union's
chief executive, at their joint press conference at the Vienna
Hofburg today following the EU-US Summit.
Excerpts From Bush News Conference
"Russia and the Post-Soviet Nations">Russia and the Post-Soviet
Nations Wide-ranging coverage of Russia and the former Soviet
republics, updated by The Times's Moscow bureau. Enlarge this
Image [ border=] Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
Hundreds of people marched through the streets of Vienna today
carrying banners reading "World's No. 1 Terrorist." Enlarge this
Image [ border=] Robert Jaeger/EPA As the president met with
President Heinz Fischer of Austria, hundreds marched with banners
reading "World's No. 1 Terrorist."
"That's absurd!" Mr. Bush declared, dismissing a reporter's
suggestion that most Europeans regard the United States as a
bigger threat to global stability than North Korea, which has
proclaimed it has nuclear weapons, and Iran, which is suspected
of developing them.
Later, asked about polls showing Europeans have a low opinion of
him, the president said: "Look, people didn't agree with my
decision on Iraq, and I understand that. For Europe, September
the 11th was a moment; for us, it was a change of thinking."
Mr. Bush's heated exchange with European reporters under the
glittering chandeliers of the marble-columned throne room in the
Hofburg Palace, once the imperial home of the Hapsburgs
followed a summit meeting between the president and leaders of
the European Union, who spent the morning talking about a wide
range of issues, from nuclear tensions in North Korea to a
faltering world trade agreement.
Chancellor Wolfgang Schssel of Austria, the current president
of the European Union, and Jos Manuel Barroso, the president of
the European Commission, stood by Mr. Bush's side at the news
conference. At one point, Mr. Schssel, stepped into defend Mr.
Bush, recalling his own boyhood in post-World War II Vienna,
when the city lay in ruins and Americans stepped in to help.
"I think we should be fair from the other side of the Atlantic,"
Mr. Schssel said.
Mr. Bush's remarks on Iraq were not substantively different
than what he has said before. But the vigor of his defense,
coming at a time when he is trying to repair frayed relations
with the Europeans and has joined them in trying to negotiate a
peaceful end to Iran's uranium enrichment program, underscored
how fragile those relations remain.
One particularly contentious issue is the detention center at
Guantnamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Bush is under pressure from the
Europeans to close it; the issue was so front and center in the
talks that, during the news conference, Mr. Schssel and
President Bush each said the other brought it up first.
"Obviously, they brought up the concern about Guantnamo," Mr.
Bush said, reiterating that he would like to close the detention
center. But, as in the past, the president said he was waiting
for the Supreme Court to determine where those being held there
should be tried.
For his part, Mr. Schssel said: "The president started,
himself. He didn't wait that we raise the question. He came up
and said, 'Look, this is my problem, this is where we are.' "
The trip to Austria was the first by an American president in 27
years; the last was Jimmy Carter, who met Soviet leader Leonid
I. Brezhnev to sign a nuclear arms agreement.
After completing his Vienna visit today, Mr. Bush flew to
Budapest where he will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
unsuccessful 1956 Hungarian uprising against Soviet rule.
The official agenda for the summit meeting included fighting
terrorism as well as talks on energy and trade, including the
troubled negotiations on the so-called Doha round, a stalled
trade-expanding proposal named for the city in Qatar where
negotiations. first began. But other matters Guantnamo, Iran,
the killing of two American soldiers captured soldiers in Iraq,
and North Korea's work on a long-range nuclear missile loomed
large.
Responding to the announcement by President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejadof Iran that he would respond to the offer from the
Americans and Europeans by Aug. 22, Mr. Bush said that "seems
like an awful long time" to wait, adding, "It shouldn't take the
Iranians that long to analyze what is a reasonable deal."
On North Korea, Mr. Bush sidestepped a question about what
action the United States might take if a missile is launched.
Chancellor Schssel said the two men discussed "what to do when
and if, and there will be a strong response on that." But
American officials attending the meeting would not elaborate,
and the president was vague.
"The North Koreans have made agreements with us in the past, and
we expect them to keep their agreements," Mr. Bush said, adding,
"We think it would be in the world's interest to know what
they're testing, what they intend to do on their test."
Today's summit meeting reflected what Ivo Daalder, a foreign
policy analyst at the Brookings Institution, calls Mr. Bush's
"delicate minuet" with Europe. The president's trip to Europe in
February 2005 went a long way toward soothing tensions, but even
then, Mr. Daalder said, Mr. Bush "couldn't help himself but talk
about military options." Now, with the president emphasizing a
peaceful resolution, political analysts say Mr. Bush has more
credibility with European governments, if not the European
people.
"I don't think Europeans are ever going to learn to love George
Bush; he probably remains the most unpopular U.S. president in
history within the European Union," said Mark Leonard, director
of foreign policy at the Center for European Freedom, a research
institution in London.
"I think there has been a remarkable honeymoon between
governments and their rhetoric and the way they talk about
issues, their desire to find agreement rather disagreement," Mr.
Leonard said. "But it is quite fragile; on a whole series of
different issues the wheels could come off at any point. Iran is
the most obvious."
That honeymoon does not extend to the local press. Mr. Bush's
image is plastered around Vienna on the cover of the Austrian
news magazine Profil, under the headline "The Mad World of
George Bush." On Tuesday, anticipating Mr. Bush's arrival, an
Austrian commentator, Hans Rauscher, offered a brutal assessment
of the president in the daily newspaper Der Standard.
"George W. Bush is probably the worst president of the past 100
years," Mr. Rauscher wrote. "The world has to suffer him until
2008.
The European opposition to Mr. Bush was underscored by the
protests that greeted him today. Hundreds of people marched in
Vienna carrying banners reading "World's No. 1 Terrorist," a
reference to Mr. Bush, whose policies on Iraq remain hugely
unpopular here.
But Mr. Bush was defiant today, citing American aid to Africa to
fight the AIDSepidemic, and his declaration that the situation
in Darfur amounted to genocide, as examples of how American
foreign policy can be both tough and compassionate.
"I will do my best to explain our foreign policy," he said. "On
the one hand, it's tough when it needs to be; on the other hand,
it's compassionate. And we'll let the polls figure out people
can say what they want to say."
NYTimes.com
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
11 IRNA: Iran determined to find negotiated solution to nuclear case -
Italian FM -
Rome, June 22, IRNA
Italy-Iran-D'Alema
Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said here Wednesday
evening that Iran was determined to go back to the negotiating
table to find a solution to the nuclear issue.
D'Alema, who is also his country's deputy prime minister, made
the remarks during a meeting with his Iranian counterpart,
Manouchehr Mottaki.
Highlighting Iran's key role in regional affairs, he said Rome
was very much interested in solving the Iran nuclear issue
through diplomatic means.
He voiced his country's willingness to further promote
bilateral cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
"We believe that Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy
is undeniable," the Italian FM reiterated.
Pointing to the great political, economic and cultural
potentials for expansion of bilateral relations, he stressed
that the two nations have always enjoyed friendly relations.
Rome is seeking an active role in resolving the Iran nuclear
issue, he said, and described the new offer of the Group 5+1 to
Iran as "important."
The offer refers to a package of incentives for Tehran by the
US, Russia, China, France, Britain plus Germany (5+1 Group) to
convince it to give up all its uranium enrichment-related
activities and resume talks to settle the dispute over its
nuclear program.
For his part, Mottaki said that negotiations to remove
ambiguities in the incentives package and reach a consensus were
very crucial.
He said that given the amicable ties enjoyed by Italy and Iran,
Tehran would welcome involvement of Rome in solving its nuclear
issue through negotiation.
Noting that the UN Security Council has not been involved in
discussions on the Iran nuclear issue, he said this was a
"positive step" and said Tehran was carefully studying Europe's
package of incentives.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran will not back down on its
legitimate rights," Mottaki emphasized.
Following the meeting, the Iranian foreign minister and his
accompanying delegation attended a dinner banquet hosted by
D'Alema after which they left for Geneva.
Mottaki arrived in Rome Wednesday afternoon for a day-long,
official visit.
Mottaki's visit was his first to Italy since he assumed
office.
*****************************************************************
12 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran welcomes broad participation with Europe
Rome, June 21, IRNA
Iran-Mottaki-Italy
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki upon arrival in Rome
Wednesday said that Iran welcomes all kinds of participation
with the European friendly countries to settle existing
misunderstanding about Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
However, Mottaki said."This does not mean that Iran is seeking
new channels for negotiation with Europe."
On the aim of his visit to Italy, Mottaki said he will talk
with his Italian counterpart and exchange views on bilateral
relations and the latest situation of Iran peaceful nuclear
activity.
By appreciating Iran-Italy traditional and old good relations,
the foreign minister expressed hope that bilateral ties in
political and economic affairs can expand and develop.
Mottaki arrived at Ciampino Airport of Rome on Wednesday and is
to meet with Italy's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister
Massimo D'Alema.
1391/1771
*****************************************************************
13 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran welcomes EU's cooperation
2006/06/22
10:44:53 .
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki upon arrival in Rome
Wednesday said that Iran welcomes all kinds of participation
with the European friendly countries to settle existing
misunderstanding about Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
However, Mottaki said,"This does not mean that Iran is seeking
new channels for negotiation with Europe."
On the aim of his visit to Italy, Mottaki said he will talk with
his Italian counterpart and exchange views on bilateral
relations and the latest situation of Iran peaceful nuclear
activity.
By appreciating Iran-Italy traditional and old good relations,
the Foreign Minister expressed hope that bilateral ties in
political and economic affairs can expand and develop.
Mottaki arrived at Ciampino airport of Rome on Wednesday and is
to meet with Italy's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister
Massimo D'alema.
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI nation will defend its rights
2006/06/22
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wednesday evening said that the
Iranian nation will unitedly defend the country's rights and not
give up their legitimate demands.
Addressing the huge crowd of local residents in the city of
Kaboudar-Ahang, he added that Iranian people clamor for the
right to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful ends.
"Today, the main objective of the government is to build the
country on the foundations of justice and benevolence," he
said,adding that unity, solidarity and justice are the
prerequisites for nation-building.
Elsewhere in his speech, the President said countries of the
world are working to establish peace and tranquility but are
continually thwarted in their efforts by big powers who have
other agenda for this world.
Expounding on certain problems facing the people of Kaboudar-
Ahang, the President expressed hope these problems would soon be
solved.
President Ahmadinejad, accompanied by Vice President forex
ecutive affairs Ali Saeedlou, Presidential office chief
Gholamhossein Elham and members of his Cabinet, arrived in
Hamedan on Wednesday for a two-day visit.
FK
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Iran defiant over call for nuclear halt
[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
declared the Islamic republic wants to keep hold of its
sensitive nuclear fuel technology, in another sign that Tehran
is unwilling to bow to international demands for a suspension.
The comments came the day he announced the hardline regime would
take until late August to respond to an international initiative
aimed at resolving the crisis, despite calls for a prompt answer
and threats of UN Security Council action.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert meanwhile warned Iran "not to
cross the line," saying it would be "intolerable" for its arch
enemy to have nuclear arms.
"The nuclear fuel cycle belongs to all Iranians and everyone has
a right to use it. All people insist on maintaining this right,"
Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the western province of Hamedan
on Thursday.
He also said Iran was "not backing down an iota on its rights"
-- a clear reference to the process of enriching uranium, which
Iran says it wants to legally exploit to generate energy and not
make weapons.
A suspension of enrichment is a non-negotiable precondition in a
proposal from the five permanent UN Security Council members --
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus
Germany.
The offer presented to Iran on June 6 involves incentives and
multilateral talks if Iran agrees to temporarily halt the
activity and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).
Diplomats say Iran was asked to reply by June 29, just before
world leaders gather in Saint Petersburg for a G8 summit.
But Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that it would take until August
22 to answer -- prompting immediate telephone consultations
between the foreign ministries of the six powers.
"The delay suits Iran for two reasons: tactically, they want to
pass the G8 meeting, and from an internal point of view there
may be structural difficulties within the regime to take a
stragtegic decision," a Western diplomat told AFP.
"Obviously we would like an answer by the end of the month. It
looks like buying time, but there may also be a genuine debate
within the Iranian leadership regarding a suspension," another
diplomat commented, adding that a freeze of enrichment remained
"non-negotiable".
"Regardless of the date when they reply, Iran will be the centre
of the G8 meeting," the source added.
But several regime insiders said the need for more time was
genuine.
"This needs many enormous decisions to reach a concensus within
the system whiccle taking into account our national interests,"
commented Ali Agha Mohammadi, a former national security
spokesman.
"It's a very sensitive subject, so it is better not sacrifice
precision by being hasty," he added, calling on the European
powers to urge Washington to be patient.
And Sadegh Kharazi, a former Iranian ambassador to Paris, told
AFP that the regime was probably taking time to work out "a
formula to keep enriching but at the same time providing
objective guarantees" that it is not seeking weapons.
Nevertheless, China also urged Iran to respond to the offer as
soon as possible.
"We believe that an early resumption of the talks on the Iranian
nuclear issue as soon as possible is the common aspiration of
the international community," Chinese foreign ministry
spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters.
And Israel's prime minister fired off a fresh warning.
"The chances of Iran possessing nuclear weapons is intolerable,"
Olmert told Nobel Peace laureate Elie Wiesel during an informal
chat on the sidelines of a Nobel laureate in Jordan.
"I hope Iran will understand that this game is serious. They
have to understand they can't cross the line," he said.
Copyright 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 AFP: World powers join US in seeking prompt Iran answer
Thu Jun 22, 4:21 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - World powers joined US President George W.
Bush" /> in pressing Iran" /> to respond within weeks rather than
months as proposed by Tehran to a call to end its controversial
nuclear research.
The new round of diplomatic jostling came after Iran's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said for the first time Wednesday
that Tehran would respond to the international plan on the
nuclear row within two months.
"We will study the offer and, God willing, will give our opinion
at the end of the Mordad," Ahmadinejad said in a speech,
referring to the Iranian month that ends on August 22.
The statement prompted immediate telephone consultations between
the foreign ministries of Britain, China, France, Russia, the
United States -- the UN Security Council permanent members --
plus Germany over a unified stance to the delay.
Bush reacted first by saying after an EU-US summit in Vienna
that Iran was dragging its feet over a "reasonable deal" and
that global powers believed an answer should come within weeks."
"It seems like an awful long time for a reasonable proposal,"
Bush told a press conference after the talks.
"It shouldn't take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a
reasonable deal," Bush said. "I said weeks, not months, and I
believe that is the view of our partners."
Washington and the European Union" /> further warned in a joint
statement that the issue could again return to the UN Security
Council -- despite Iranian objections -- should Tehran fail to
join direct talks.
"We have agreed that if Iran does not engage in negotiations,
further steps would be taken in the Security Council," the EU-US
joint statement said. "We urge Iran to take this positive path."
Meanwhile Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said in his
capacity as EU president that "time is limited. We should not
play with time."
Diplomats say Iran was originally asked to reply by June 29.
China urged Iran Thursday to respond to the offer by world
powers over its nuclear program, while also calling for
international talks on the stand-off to resume as soon as
possible.
"China hopes that Iran can positively respond to the efforts of
the international community," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang
Yu told reporters in Beijing when asked about Iran's position of
not responding to the offer until August.
"We believe that an early resumption of the talks on the Iranian
nuclear issue as soon as possible is the common aspiration of
the international community."
The offer, presented to Iran on June 6, involves incentives and
multilateral talks if Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment
-- at the center of fears it could acquire nuclear weapons --
and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
(IAEA).
But Iran has so far only said it wants fresh negotiations
without preconditions, indicating it will not stop enriching
uranium.
A joint stance on Iran remains critical amid earlier refusal by
Russia and China -- who both have strong trade and military ties
with Tehran -- to use either economic sanctions or force to
prompt Iran to halt nuclear research.
The US State Department said the six foreign ministers agreed in
phone talks that Iran must accept the "very good offer" quickly
because patience from the global powers "isn't unlimited."
"They discussed this latest development," State Department
spokesman Adam Ereli said of the six foreign ministry officials.
"They all agreed that the P5-plus-Germany has made a very good
offer to Iran, and we all urge Iran to accept that proposal."
Ereli said the six foreign ministry officials "reiterated the
common view that we said on June 1, we expect a response within
weeks, not months. And that was reaffirmed today in the call."
He said world powers expected Iran to respond through European
Union foreign affairs chief Javier Solana, who originally made
the international offer to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijani.
"We look forward to hearing back from Larijani to Solana, in
weeks, not months, about our response," he said.
"Now is the time for Iran to accept this offer. It's not -- our
patience isn't unlimited," Ereli said.
Iran replied by telling Bush not to rush it into providing an
answer to the offer by major world powers over its uranium
enrichment programme.
"President Bush cannot and must not be in a rush," said Iranian
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on a visit to Rome.
"When (European Union foreign policy chief) Javier Solana gave
us his suggestions on June 6 no time limit was set", he told
Italian television.
"The only undertaking required from Iran is not to divulge the
content of the offer as long as an agreement has not been
reached and we respect that commitment," Mottaki said.
The proposal had "many ambiguities. It is right for Iran to
study the document seriously and precisely until August 22."
Mottaki's brief visit to Rome included a meeting with Italian
Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema, who said his country backed
the negotiating position of the EU over Iran's nuclear programme
and urged Tehran to overcome any reservations about reopening
negotiations.
burs-zak/ch
+
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
17 AFP: China urges Iran to respond to nuclear incentive package -
Thu Jun 22, 4:12 AM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - China has urged Iran" /> Iranto respond to the
offer by world powers over its nuclear program, while also
calling for international talks on the stand-off to resume as
soon as possible.
"China hopes that Iran can positively respond to the efforts of
the international community," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang
Yu told reporters.
"We believe that an early resumption of the talks on the Iranian
nuclear issue as soon as possible is the common aspiration of
the international community."
Jiang was reacting to a question about Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's comments Wednesday that Tehran would respond to
the international plan on the nuclear row within two months.
"We will study the offer and, God willing, will give our opinion
at the end of the Mordad," Ahmadinejad said in a speech,
referring to the Iranian month that ends on August 22.
The statement prompted immediate telephone consultations between
the foreign ministries of Britain, China, France, Russia, the
United States -- the UN Security Council permanent members --
plus Germany over a unified stance on the delay.
US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushsaid
after an EU-US summit in Vienna that Iran was dragging its feet
over a "reasonable deal" and that global powers believed an
answer should come within weeks.
"It shouldn't take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a
reasonable deal," Bush said. "I said weeks, not months, and I
believe that is the view of our partners."
The offer, presented to Iran on June 6, involves incentives and
multilateral talks if Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment
-- at the center of fears it could acquire nuclear weapons --
and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency.
But Iran has so far only said it wants fresh negotiations
without preconditions, indicating it will not stop enriching
uranium.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
18 IRNA: EU-US summit sees chance for negotiated settlement to Iran's nuclear issue -
Brussels, June 21, IRNA
EU-US-Iran
The EU-US summit in Vienna Wednesday said the two sides have
agreed on a set of proposals to resolve Iran's nuclear issue and
urged Iran to take the "positive path."
The text of the joint EU-US summit declaration on Iran is as
follows :
"Over the past year our cooperation on Iran has reached a new
level. We have worked closely together at every stage of the
ongoing attempts to address the question of Iran's nuclear
programme." "We have agreed on a set of far-reaching proposals
as a basis for discussion with Iran. We believe that they offer
Iran the chance to reach a negotiated agreement based on
cooperation, if Iran is willing to make that choice. "
"The United States has made clear that it is prepared to join
the negotiations should Iran resume full and verifiable
suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities
as required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
"We have agreed that if Iran decides not to engage in
negotiations, further steps would be taken in the Security
Council.
We urge Iran to take the positive path."
260/1771
*****************************************************************
19 AFP: Iranians to meet EU's Solana on nuclear issue
Friday June 23, 02:53 AM
TEHRAN (AFP) - Senior Iranian officials are to meet with EU
foreign policy chief Javier Solana in the coming weeks,
officials said as pressure mounted on the Islamic republic to
give a quick reply to an international nuclear proposal.
"We have a meeting with Mr Solana before July 6," a senior
Iranian official Thursday, who asked not to be named. He added
that the venue for the meeting had not yet been fixed, but gave
no further details.
Solana handed Iran the proposal from the five permanent UN
Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and
the United States -- plus Germany on June 6.
It promises incentives and multilateral talks if Iran agrees to
temporarily halt uranium enrichment, work that is at the centre
of fears the hardline regime could acquire nuclear weapons.
Diplomats say Iran was asked to reply by June 29, but Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday the Islamic
republic would take until August 22 to answer.
Speaking in Brussels, Solana confirmed plans for a high-level
meeting, although it was not clear if Iran would be expected to
provide an early indication of how it viewed the offer.
"I expect to meet in the coming days, next week probably with Mr
Larijani," he told reporters in Brussels, referring to Iran's
top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.
Meanwhile US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said an
Iranian reply by the end of June would be "helpful" in resolving
the crisis.
"The Iranians ought to come back and provide some indication of
acceptance so that we can start working through the details,"
Hadley told reporters in Budapest, where he was accompanying US
President George W. Bush.
With a key cycle of G8 encounters coming up, starting with a
gathering of foreign ministers in Moscow on June 29, "it would
be helpful to have a response before that set of meetings," he
asserted.
The G8, grouping the world's eight leading industrialised
nations, is due to meet for a summit in Saint Petersburg,
Russia, from July 15 to 17.
Bush has warned Iran of UN Security Council action, which could
mean sanctions, if Iran does not freeze enrichment. He also
warned Wednesday that Iran could not put off its response until
late August.
The French government also reaffirmed that Iran should respond
within the coming weeks.
"In our mind, its is a case of weeks rather than months,"
foreign ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei told reporters,
while calling on Iran "to answer favourably" to "a good
proposal".
China also pressed Iran for an answer.
"We believe that an early resumption of the talks on the Iranian
nuclear issue as soon as possible is the common aspiration of
the international community," Chinese foreign ministry
spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters.
But President Ahmadinejad meanwhile said the Islamic republic
wants to keep hold of its sensitive nuclear fuel technology, in
another sign that Tehran is unwilling to accept the deal.
"The nuclear fuel cycle belongs to all Iranians and everyone has
a right to use it. All people insist on maintaining this right,"
Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the western province of Hamedan.
He also said Iran was "not backing down an iota on its rights"
-- a clear reference to the process of enriching uranium, which
Iran says it wants to legally exploit to generate energy and not
make weapons.
Diplomats and analysts said Iran was clearly trying to buy time
to avoid a showdown ahead of the G8 meeting, but added that
decision-making within Iran's complex power structure may also
be slowing down a decision.
"The delay suits Iran for two reasons: tactically, they want to
pass the G8 meeting, and from an internal point of view there
may be structural difficulties within the regime to take a
strategic decision," a Western diplomat told AFP.
"Obviously we would like an answer by the end of the month. It
looks like buying time, but there may also be a genuine debate
within the Iranian leadership regarding a suspension," another
diplomat commented, adding that a freeze on enrichment remained
"non-negotiable".
"Regardless of the date when they reply, Iran will be the centre
of the G8 meeting," the source added.
Several regime insiders also said the need for more time was
genuine.
"This needs many enormous decisions to reach a consensus within
the system while taking into account our national interests,"
commented Ali Agha Mohammadi, a former national security
spokesman.
"It's a very sensitive subject, so it is better not to sacrifice
precision by being hasty," he told AFP, adding that the European
powers should urge Washington to be patient.
Copyright 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: Iran rejects US 'pressure' on nuclear issue
Simon Tisdall, Ewen MacAskill, Robert Tait in Tehran
Thursday June 22, 2006
[Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani.
Photograph: Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters]
The US is determined to topple Iran's Islamic government whether
or not the crisis over the country's nuclear activities is
resolved, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said
today.
US enmity towards Iran was entrenched, Mr Larijani told the
Guardian. "The nuclear issue is just a pretext. If it was not
the nuclear matter, they would have come up with something else."
The compromise package offered by the west on Iran's nuclear
activities amounted to a "sermon", he said, rejecting outright
President George Bush's demands this week that Iran suspend all
uranium enrichment.
"If they want to put this prerequisite, why are we negotiating at
all? Mr Bush is like a mathematician. When the equation becomes
very difficult to work out, he likes to wipe it out altogether
... the pressure they are putting on us is reason enough for us
to be suspicious."
Mr Larijani's remarks represented his most negative assessment
since the west's package was presented on June 6, suggesting a
quick resolution was unlikely. Diplomats say Iran has been given
a de facto deadline of the G8 summit in St Petersburg in
mid-July for a formal response.
But Mr Larijani said Iran would present extensive and detailed
counter-proposals only when it was ready to do so, although
committees of experts were "working round the clock". A debate
is underway inside the government with hardline ayatollahs
calling for outright rejection of the west's ideas and some
officials stressing their positive aspects.
Mr Larijani, former deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards,
is the most influential political figure in the country after
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and answers directly to the
Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. As chairman of the Supreme
National Security Council, he oversees security and defence
strategy.
Mr Larijani said American policies in the Middle East, from Iraq
to Palestine, were deeply destabilising and had complicated
efforts to cut a deal. "If they continue on the same path, the
price of oil will skyrocket and it will strengthen our resolve.
They want to set fire to the region. The American strategy is to
use force to secure their interests."
He also blamed Israel for many of the region's problems. "I
think those people advising the CIA are the Zionists. They are
pushing [the Americans] into this quagmire of war."
He denied reports that Iran was planning to block oil export
routes through the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Gulf,
if it was attacked or if UN sanctions were imposed. But he
warned that if hostile action was taken through the UN security
council, Iran would "reconsider its relationship" with the
International Atomic Energy Agency. That could spell an end to
already limited UN inspections of the nuclear plants at Natanz
and Isfahan.
Mr Larijani said he was in constant contact by telephone with
the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, contrasting Iran's
dialogue with the Europeans with a lack of contact with the Bush
administration.
But he offered to talk to the White House if US policies
changed. "We should put aside the [US] sanctions and give up all
this talk about regime change. This is what we are looking for
... if the Americans change their behaviour in the region and
change their strategy, I assure you that talking over the phone
will not be a serious problem."
He was critical of US attempts to promote democracy inside Iran.
"They said they wanted to turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy.
And out of that whole venture came Abu Ghraib and atrocities
that were committed there on a daily basis ... the Palestinians
chose a Hamas government. Why are they so hostile towards them?"
The $70m earmarked by the Bush administration to aid propaganda
efforts inside Iran was an insult, he said. "I think that money
is very little, to be honest," he said with a wry smile. "The
minimum acceptable amount should be $70bn so the citizens of
this country would at least get something out of it."
Mr Larijani declined to discuss the specifics of Iran's coming
counter-proposals. "But suffice it to say [the west's package]
has a lot of ambiguous points. These ambiguities persist from
the beginning to the end of the package. On many of the points,
we do not know how they intend to go about them. The package is
more like a statement. If we are going to get agreement, we do
not need a sermon."
Mr Larijani said there was no doubt that security guarantees
were badly needed as part of any deal - "but not what they have
talked about. They should not try to repackage their needs as
incentives and offer that to us as a concession".
But he reiterated Iran's insistence that, despite western
suspicions to the contrary, it has no wish to acquire a nuclear
weapons capability. "We are not trying to construct the bomb. We
don't want the bomb. The Americans know this. And Mr [John]
Negroponte [the US intelligence tsar] announced some time ago
that that Iranians don't have the bomb and wouldn't be able to
make the bomb, even if they wanted to, for more than 10 years."
He strongly objected to the west's perceived double standards in
objecting to limited nuclear-related "research and development"
by Iran while acquiescing in Israel's and India's nuclear
weapons programmes.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
21 North Korea offers to halt missile launch
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:55:49 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1094691.ece
Independent/UK
North Korea offers to halt missile launch
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington Published: 22 June 2006
In a new bout of brinkmanship with Washington, North Korea has
suggested it would halt its apparent plans to test-fire a long-range
missile if the US agreed to direct talks with the reclusive Communist
regime.
This latest gambit from Pyongyang comes amid escalating tensions in
the region, as a former South Korean president dropped plans for a
rare visit to the North, and Pentagon officials hinted that if a
missile was launched, the US might try to shoot it down. Speaking at
the US-European Union summit in Vienna yesterday, President George
Bush condemned the idea of "non-transparent regimes, who have
announced they have nuclear warheads, firing missiles," adding that
"this is not the way you conduct business in the world". European
leaders also appealed to the North to cancel any launch, while China
urged all parties not to destabilise the region.
But outwardly at least, Pyongyang shows no signs of acceding to the
pressure, arguing that its self-imposed moratorium since 1999 on
testing long-range missiles no longer applied because the North was
not in direct talks with the US.
North Korea was a sovereign state that had the right to test missiles,
and if the US had objections, "then we should resolve the issue
through negotiations", Han Sol Ryol, the deputy head of the country's
mission to the United Nations, said.
The missile in question is the Taepodong-II, with a range of up to
3,700 miles and theoretically capable of hitting Alaska and parts of
the US west coast. Satellite images have indicated that a missile has
been fuelled for launching, but "the intelligence is not conclusive at
this point", Stephen Hadley, Mr Bush's national security adviser, told
reporters as the President was travelling to Europe.
No one here is suggesting that a launch would be anything other than a
test. But an earlier such exercise in 1998, when the North fired a
missile over northern Japan into the Pacific, sent political and
military shock-waves through the region.
Some US officials have warned that if a Taepodong-II was fired,
Washington would conduct its own test in retaliation - of the $11bn
anti-missile defence system currently being deployed in Alaska and
California.
But most analysts consider this unlikely, not least because a failed
interception would cast further doubts on a programme that has already
suffered several setbacks.
More likely are political and economic sanctions, especially from
South Korea. In Seoul, former president Kim Dae-Jung announced that he
had cancelled a planned visit to the North next week, a rare
high-level contact between the two countries. A South Korean
government spokesman also warned that a missile test would endanger a
requested 350,000 tons of rice shipments requested by the North, but
to which Seoul has not agreed.
The new diplomatic collision comes as six-nation talks aimed at
securing an end to North Korea's nuclear weapons programme remained
stalled. Pyongyang is demanding a bilateral security pact with the US
first. Washington says it will only agree such a deal after the North
has agreed to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
In a new bout of brinkmanship with Washington, North Korea has
suggested it would halt its apparent plans to test-fire a long-range
missile if the US agreed to direct talks with the reclusive Communist
regime.
This latest gambit from Pyongyang comes amid escalating tensions in
the region, as a former South Korean president dropped plans for a
rare visit to the North, and Pentagon officials hinted that if a
missile was launched, the US might try to shoot it down. Speaking at
the US-European Union summit in Vienna yesterday, President George
Bush condemned the idea of "non-transparent regimes, who have
announced they have nuclear warheads, firing missiles," adding that
"this is not the way you conduct business in the world". European
leaders also appealed to the North to cancel any launch, while China
urged all parties not to destabilise the region.
But outwardly at least, Pyongyang shows no signs of acceding to the
pressure, arguing that its self-imposed moratorium since 1999 on
testing long-range missiles no longer applied because the North was
not in direct talks with the US.
North Korea was a sovereign state that had the right to test missiles,
and if the US had objections, "then we should resolve the issue
through negotiations", Han Sol Ryol, the deputy head of the country's
mission to the United Nations, said.
The missile in question is the Taepodong-II, with a range of up to
3,700 miles and theoretically capable of hitting Alaska and parts of
the US west coast. Satellite images have indicated that a missile has
been fuelled for launching, but "the intelligence is not conclusive at
this point", Stephen Hadley, Mr Bush's national security adviser, told
reporters as the President was travelling to Europe.
No one here is suggesting that a launch would be anything other than a
test. But an earlier such exercise in 1998, when the North fired a
missile over northern Japan into the Pacific, sent political and
military shock-waves through the region.
Some US officials have warned that if a Taepodong-II was fired,
Washington would conduct its own test in retaliation - of the $11bn
anti-missile defence system currently being deployed in Alaska and
California.
But most analysts consider this unlikely, not least because a failed
interception would cast further doubts on a programme that has already
suffered several setbacks.
More likely are political and economic sanctions, especially from
South Korea. In Seoul, former president Kim Dae-Jung announced that he
had cancelled a planned visit to the North next week, a rare
high-level contact between the two countries. A South Korean
government spokesman also warned that a missile test would endanger a
requested 350,000 tons of rice shipments requested by the North, but
to which Seoul has not agreed.
The new diplomatic collision comes as six-nation talks aimed at
securing an end to North Korea's nuclear weapons programme remained
stalled. Pyongyang is demanding a bilateral security pact with the US
first. Washington says it will only agree such a deal after the North
has agreed to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
*****************************************************************
22 Independent: The Big Question: How concerned should we be about North Korea's
nuclear weaponry?
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 22 June 2006
Why is there trouble with North Korea again?
Satellite pictures shared by the US with its ally South Korea
are believed to show that North Korea is about to carry out its
first long-range missile test since 1998, when it fired a
missile across Japanese territory.
The Taepo Dong II missile theoretically has the range to reach
Alaska. International anxiety has been fuelled by North Korea's
claim that it has nuclear weapons. The Korean peninsula has
always been tense and bristling with weaponry, as the two Koreas
are technically still at war, never having signed a peace treaty
after the Korean war in 1953. The Americans have 37,000 troops
patrolling the demilitarised zone.
What is behind the decision to test such a missile?
Given the lack of reliable information about what is happening
inside the paranoid, hardline Communist state ruled by Kim
Jong-il, pictured, it's difficult to know why the North Koreans
have deliberately ratcheted up the pressure with the West.
In the past, North Korea has fed nuclear fears to blackmail the
Westinto sending food aid to help North Korea's famine-stricken
people. (In 1994, the Clinton administration agreed to provide
North Korea with a "safe" light-water nuclear reactor in return
for Pyongyang agreeing to mothball its military programme. That
deal has now been abandoned.) But this year, the harvest has
been good, and North Korea has received donations from China and
South Korea.
The one consistent factor behind North Korean policy is their
desire for bilateral talks with the US, something which
Washington has consistently rejected. The US is, however, taking
part in long-running six-party talks which include North Korea,
China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, in the hope of curbing
North Korea's nuclear programme. The latest brinkmanship could
be an attempt to get the six-party talks moving again.
Should we be alarmed?
Yes. The International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohamed
ElBaradei, says North Korea's nuclear weapons programme poses
the most urgent challenge to the world today - even more so than
Iran, which does not have a nuclear weapon. Concerns have been
raised by the nature of North Korean society, hermetically
sealed for decades from its neighbours, meaning its leadership
may be taking decisions not necessarily based on solid
intelligence. Although Kim Jong-il is believed to be an avid
surfer of the internet, his people are banned from internet
access. The risk of missteps, miscalculations and
misunderstanding between North Korea and the rest of the world
is very real. The situation could easily get out of control
through escalation, with the Americans threatening to consider a
missile test as a "provocative act".
What do the North Koreans say?
Seen from their perspective, they are surrounded by US allies,
and George Bush has described North Korea as part of the "axis
of evil", along with Iraq and Iran. With the Iraqi government
already overthrown, and fears that Iran may be targeted by the
US for regime change, the North Koreans think that the US could
be out to get them next. They say they are responding to
"provocations" by the US and its "followers Japan and other
bellicose forces".
They have already taken steps to curb what they perceive as
Western snooping in the country. Agencies such as the UN's World
Food Programme, were told at the end of last year that emergency
aid is no longer required, as donations had allowed humanitarian
workers to travel to remote regions.
How many nuclear weapons does North Korea have?
Nobody knows for sure, as UN weapon inspectors were thrown out
in 2002. But the best guess is from the IAEA director-general,
who has said the North Koreans may have enough reprocessed
plutonium for up to six bombs.
What's the best way to deal with North Korea?
The options are to either bomb it, isolate it, or hug it close.
Nobody is seriously talking about bombing the North Koreans into
submission, and in fact the North Korean leadership knows that
it is protected from military action by its nuclear capability.
So the best option for the international community seems to be
negotiations through the six-party talks, to persuade North
Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programme in exchange for
technology and trade benefits. The talks were suspended in
November. North Korea has refused to return to the negotiations
until the US removes sanctions it imposed over allegations of
money laundering and counterfeiting by North Korean companies.
Are there similarities with Iran?
You could say both countries have leaders with a death wish
because of their insistence on developing nuclear weapons. But
the similarities end there. While North Korea has a deeply
paranoid leadership, Iranian diplomats have kept the leadership
abreast of developments abroad, thus providing Tehran with a
reality check. North Korea broke out of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty to produce its nuclear weapons away
from the prying eyes of UN inspectors. It is hoped that Irancan
be persuaded to stay in the NPT and curb its nuclear ambitions
in return for trade incentives. Another important difference
between North Korea and Iran is that the latter is a major oil
exporter.
What's likely to happen next?
The satellite pictures may not be of a missile standing on a
launchpad at all. The South Koreans said yesterday the North may
be about to launch a satellite, rather than test a missile,
which would be a much more benign interpretation. But if the
missile test goes ahead, we are into crisis territory. Japan has
served notice that it would lodge a "fierce protest" with the UN
Security Council, and the US could argue its territory has been
threatened, leading to further escalation. Everybody is hoping
that having got the world's attention again, North Korea will
step back from the brink - possibly with a carrot from the West,
once again.
Does North Korea represent a serious military threat?
Yes...
* They are mad, bad, and dangerous because they have nuclear
weapons which they might not be afraid to use
* This regime is a danger to world peace because it has exported
its nuclear technology
* A dictator as eccentric as Kim Jong-Il is genuinely scary and
is a cause for international concern without even opening his
mouth
No...
* North Korea boasts that it has nuclear weapons, but nobody has
proof - it has only ever tested conventional missiles
* Pyongyang is unlikely to use its nuclear deterrent even if it
has the bomb
* If the US changed its policy and held direct talks with North
Korea, the current crisis could be resolved
2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
23 AFP: US warns of consequences for North Korea if it launches missile
by Jim Mannion Thu Jun 22, 2:57 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States warned North Korea" /> North
Koreait will pay "some cost" if it launches a long-range missile,
and the US military signaled its readiness to use missile
defenses to protect Americans.
"If such a launch takes place, we would seek to impose some
cost on North Korea," Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of
defense for international security affairs, said during
testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.
"It is the policy of the United States and some of our allies
that the launch of a missile would be a provocation and a
dangerous action which would have to have some consequences," he
said.
He added that he did not know whether the launch would take
place but warned "there would be a reaction, and it would be a
mistake for North Korea to do it."
The United States and its allies in Asia have repeatedly warned
North Korea against launching a long-range missile.
Preparations for the launch of a multi-stage Taepodong-2 with a
range of up to 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) have been underway
for several weeks at Musudanri on the remote northeast coast of
North Korea.
But South Korean Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said Thursday
that a launch was not imminent, while another senior Seoul
official said the communist North has made no substantial moves
for several days towards a firing.
And Russia warned North Korea's ambassador Thursday against his
country threatening regional stability with apparent plans to
test a ballistic missile.
A senior US defense official, meanwhile, said the US military
would use any capability it has to protect the American people
if North Korea launched a missile at the United States.
The official, however, said the US missile defense system would
not necessarily be used if North Korea launched a missile that
was headed into open ocean.
"If there is a test in which a missile goes up, for example, and
it is headed into the ocean or whatever, would that be
necessarily a trigger for our defensive systems? No, it wouldn't
be," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Asked if the United States would be obliged to use its missile
defenses to try to shoot down a missile headed at its territory,
the official said: "Obviously the United States military would
use any capabilities it had if it could protect the American
people."
His comments were the clearest official indication yet that the
United States has activated its missile defense system in the
face of North Korean preparations for a launch of a long-range
Taepodong missile.
Former US defense secretary William Perry went even further,
calling Thursday for an ultimatum for North Korea to defuel and
put away the missile or face a US missile strike to destroy it
before it can be launched.
In an opinion piece in the Washington Post co-authored with
Ashton Carter, a Pentagon" /> Pentagonofficial during president
Bill Clinton" /> Bill Clinton's administration, Perry said
"intervening before mortal threats to US security can develop is
surely a prudent policy."
"Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations,
the United States should immediately make clear its intention to
strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it
can be launched.
"This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile
launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead,"
Perry and Carter said.
They argued that while the US missile defense system in theory
could destroy the payload of an incoming long-range missile, the
system is unproven against a North Korean threat and has
performed unevenly in tests.
"A failed attempt at interception could undermine whatever
deterrent value our missile defense may have," they said.
But President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush's
national security adviser, Stephen Hadley" /> Stephen Hadley,
said the administration wanted to solve the crisis
diplomatically and called on North Korea to respect a
self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests.
He warned that a missile launch would be "disruptive" to stalled
six-party talks aimed at convincing Pyongyang to drop its
nuclear weapons ambitions. North Korea has boycotted the talks
since November.
"The solution is for North Korea to decide to respect its own
moratorium, not to test this missile, come back to the six-party
talks, and let's talk about how to implement the agreement for
the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula that was reached
last September," Hadley said.
"We think diplomacy is the right answer, and that is what we are
pursuing," he told reporters during a visit by Bush to Hungary.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
24 AFP: Cheney rebuffs call for pre-emptive strike on NKorean missile
site
Friday June 23, 11:21 AM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Vice President Dick Cheney rebuffed a call
for a pre-emptive missile strike to knock out a long-range
missile that North Korea has been preparing for launch.
Former defense secretary William Perry urged the United States
to strike the North Korean launch site if Pyongyang does not
take steps to stop the launch, insisting Washington act rather
than allow a "mortal threat" to develop.
"I think, at this stage, we are addressing the issue in the
proper fashion," Cheney said in an interview with CNN
television.
"And I think, obviously, if you're going to launch a strike at
another nation, you'd better be prepared to not just fire one
shot," he said.
Pentagon officials earlier warned North Korea the United States
would "seek to impose some cost" if it went ahead with the
missile launch and signaled US readiness to use a missile
defense system to protect Americans.
Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international
security affairs, said a North Korean missile launch "would be a
provocation and a dangerous action which would have to have some
consequences."
He told lawmakers "there would be a reaction, and it would be a
mistake for North Korea to do it."
The United States and its allies in Asia have repeatedly warned
North Korea against launching a long-range missile. Russia
Thursday expressed its concerns about a launch to the North
Korean ambassador to Moscow.
Preparations for the launch of a multi-stage Taepodong-2 with a
range of up to 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) have been underway
for several weeks at Musudanri on the remote northeast coast of
North Korea.
South Korean officials said a launch was not imminent, and the
communist North has made no substantial moves for several days
towards a launch.
A senior US defense official, who spoke on condition of
anonymity, said the US military would use any capability it has
to protect the American people if a missile is launched at the
United States.
"Obviously the United States military would use any capabilities
it had if it could protect the American people," he said
However, he said the US missile defense system would not
necessarily be used if a missile launched by North Korea was
headed into open ocean.
"If there is a test in which a missile goes up, for example, and
it is headed into the ocean or whatever, would that be
necessarily a trigger for our defensive systems? No, it wouldn't
be," said the official.
His comments were the clearest official indication yet that the
United States has activated its missile defense system.
In an opinion piece in the Washington Post co-authored with
Ashton Carter, a former Pentagon official, Perry said
"intervening before mortal threats to US security can develop is
surely a prudent policy."
"Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations,
the United States should immediately make clear its intention to
strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it
can be launched.
"This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile
launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead,"
Perry and Carter said.
They argued that the US missile defense system is unproven
against a North Korean threat and has performed unevenly in
tests.
"A failed attempt at interception could undermine whatever
deterrent value our missile defense may have," they said.
Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, said
President George W. Bush wanted to solve the crisis
diplomatically and called on North Korea to respect a
self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests.
He said that a missile launch would be "disruptive" to stalled
six-party talks aimed at convincing Pyongyang to drop its
nuclear weapons ambitions. North Korea has boycotted the talks
since November.
"The solution is for North Korea to decide to respect its own
moratorium, not to test this missile, come back to the six-party
talks, and let's talk about how to implement the agreement for
the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula that was reached
last September," said Hadley, who was traveling with Bush in
Hungary.
Copyright 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
25 Guardian Unlimited: Pre-Launch Strike on N. Korea Unlikely
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday June 22, 2006 11:31 PM
AP Photo WX104
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. suggested Thursday it has limited
ability to shoot a North Korean missile out of the sky and
spurned suggestions of a pre-emptive strike on the ground.
Still, it warned the Koreans would pay a cost for a missile
launch.
The nation's missile defense system, which now includes about a
dozen interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and on some
Navy ships, has suffered multiple test failures since President
Bush ordered the Reagan-era program accelerated in early 2001.
Missile defense experts disagree on current U.S. ability to
destroy a long-range missile once it is fired. But they seemed
in agreement that shooting at it - and missing - would be a huge
embarrassment.
A better solution, said Bush's national security adviser,
Stephen Hadley, was for the North Koreans to ``give it up and
not launch'' the missile that the U.S. believes is being fueled
and prepared. ``We think diplomacy is the right answer and that
is what we are pursuing,'' he said.
Tensions persisted over North Korea's apparent preparations to
test-fire a Taepodong-2 missile amid disagreements over U.S.
military options for responding. The missile, with a believed
range of up to 9,300 miles, is potentially capable of reaching
the mainland United States.
Pentagon officials said they were prepared to use the nation's
missile defense system if needed.
Asked under what circumstances it would be used against a North
Korean missile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said
Thursday, ``The president would make a decision with respect to
the nature of the launch, whether it was threatening to the
territory of the United States or not, and the likely threat
that it would pose.''
Rumsfeld expressed no sense of alarm about the missile
situation. ``It's clear: All the intelligence suggests they have
been making preparations for a launch of a missile from the area
of Taepo Dong for some days now. There's a lot we know and a lot
we don't know. So we'll just have to see.''
The U.S. missile defense program is a downscaled land-and-sea
version of a global defense network first proposed by Reagan
that was dubbed ``Star Wars'' by critics. Interceptor missiles -
linked to a network of satellites, radar, computers and command
centers - are designed to strike and destroy incoming ballistic
missiles.
The Pentagon says the system is capable of defending against a
limited number of missiles in an emergency - such as a North
Korean attack. More than $100 billion has been spent on the
program since 1983, including $7.8 billion authorized for the
current fiscal year.
In the most recent test, a Navy ship late last month
successfully shot down a long-range missile in its final seconds
of flight. Before a successful test in the Pacific in December
2005, interceptor tests had failed five of 11 times.
In developments Thursday:
-William Perry, a Clinton administration defense secretary,
advocated a strike on the missile on its launch pad. ``Diplomacy
has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat
mature,'' Perry and former assistant defense secretary Ashton B.
Carter wrote in Thursday's Washington Post.
-Vice President Dick Cheney said North Korea's ``missile
capabilities are fairly rudimentary'' but developments were
being closely monitored. In a CNN interview, Cheney rejected
Perry's suggestion of a pre-emptive strike, saying, ``The issue
is being addressed appropriately.''
-Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international
security affairs, said Pyongyang risks unspecified retaliation
in proceeding. ``If such a launch takes place, we would seek to
impose some cost on North Korea,'' Rodman told the House Armed
Services Committee.
Loren Thompson, a defense consultant at the Lexington Institute
in Arlington, Va., cited ``two basic problems'' with trying to
shoot down a Korean missile in the air. ``Our system is barely
operational. And the impact on Korean perceptions if we miss
could be counterproductive.''
Said Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton national security aide now at
the Brookings Institution: ``Either it won't work, in which case
you've just undermined the rationale for the system. Or if it
does work, you have created an even bigger international
crisis.''
Hadley brushed aside Perry's suggestion for a pre-emptive
strike. Instead, he said, ``We hope it (North Korea) would come
back to the table, and we hope it would be a little sobered by
the unanimous message that the international community has
sent.''
No international talks to persuade North Korea to restrict its
nuclear program have been held since last November. The five
other nations in the talks - the U.S., China, Russia, Japan and
South Korea - have all strongly urged the North not to launch
the missile.
Hadley, who briefed reporters in Budapest, Hungary, during a
Bush visit, expressed some reservations about the U.S. ability
to intercept and destroy such a missile: ``It is a research
development and testing capability that has some limited
operational capability.''
``If the North Koreans fire the missile and the president
chooses to launch an interceptor, the administration has an odd
set of options,'' said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the
private Arms Control Association.
``If it hits the missile, will the North Koreans consider that
an act of war? And if the interceptor misses the North Korean
test missile, it would simply illustrate the fact that we spent
tens of billions of dollars for a system that's not effective -
even against one missile from one known launch point.''
---
Associated Press writers Terence Hunt in Budapest and Foster
Klug in Washington contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
26 Smashing Nuclear Warheads -- in the U.S.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:00:04 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
WMD Found - Disarmament Begins
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0621-15.htm
LUCK, Wisconsin - June 21 - A Roman Catholic Priest and two Veterans
went to a Minuteman III silo this morning and began to disarm the
nuclear weapon using hammers.
Reverend Carl Kabat, OMI, Gregory Boertje-Obed, and Michael Walli
entered the E-9 missile silo on the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation
in North Dakota about 75 miles southwest of Minot. Using a
sledgehammer and household hammers, they disabled the lock on the
personnel entry hatch that provides access to the warhead and they
hammered on the silo lid that covers the 300 kiloton nuclear warhead
that is targeted and ready to launch. The activists painted "It's a
sin to build a nuclear weapon" on the face of the 110-ton hardened
silo cover and the peace activists poured their blood on the missile lid.
They were detained and arrested by McLean County Sheriffs and are
being held in the McLean County jail. The three have been charged
with County Criminal Trespass and Criminal Mischief.
Speaking from jail, Greg Boertje-Obed, from Duluth, Minnesota,
explained, "I believe Jesus led us to do this witness based on his
teachings of intervening for the sake of the poor. These weapons are
killing us and the poor today. I believe this plowshares action is a
natural extension of our Catholic Worker mission which is
hospitality, providing for the needs of the poor, and defending the
poor."
Carl Kabat, OMI from St. Louis , Missouri added, "We now prepare for
the nuclear bombing of Iran with the reasoning that only weapons of
mass destruction can stop weapons of mass destruction. We bombed and
strafed in Iraq based on lies that the Iraqi's possessed nuclear
weapons. We have the weapons here."
The Minuteman III missile is targeted and on alert for launch. The
missile is armed with a warhead that carries 27 times the heat, blast
and radiation of the bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima , Japan in
1945.
The activists say that they are following the nonviolent Jesus, that
they are taught by their faith to love their enemies, and that the
money used for these weapons of mass destruction is a theft from the
poor and should be used for food, housing, medical care and
rebuilding the infrastructure of our country.
For press updates, more information and images, go to
http://www.jonahhouse.org
*****************************************************************
27 Salt Lake Tribune: Bill allocates hefty slice of defense funding to Utah
Article Last Updated: 06/22/2006 12:20:21 AM MDT
The Salt Lake Tribune
Utah will get millions of dollars in defense-related funding
under a spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday. The
bill, which now heads to the Senate, includes $7 million for
building a joint public-private beryllium processing plant. The
metal, produced in Utah by Brush-Wellman in western Utah, is
heavily used in military aircraft and weapons systems.
Other Utah funding items include:
* $4 million to help further develop flight hardware for
ballistic missiles through ATK.
* $2.5 million for the Utah State University's Space Dynamics
Lab for a small satellite program.
* $2.5 million for a public-private proposal between ATK and
the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base to develop
cutting-edge carbon-fiber processing enhancements.
* $1.5 million for L3 Communications to develop an
intelligence system.
* $1 million for a pain therapy system by Utah's Ceramatec to
treat soldiers' chronic pain.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
28 Guardian Unlimited: How to buy a nuclear deterrent
With Gordon Brown announcing his intention to replace Britain's
Trident nuclear deterrent, Peter Walker looks at the market
options
Thursday June 22, 2006
[HMS Vigilant - one of the Royal Navy's Trident submarines.
Photograph: Royal Navy/PA ] HMS Vigilant - one of the Royal
Navy's Trident submarines. Photograph: Royal Navy/PA
While Gordon Brown's commitment to replace Britain's Trident
nuclear deterrent has sparked predicatable anger among some
Labour MPs, the next step for any Brown-led government is
perhaps also equally easy to anticipate.
For although the Treasury has insisted a range of options will
be examined when the current system is replaced, the inescapable
fact is that nuclear deterrence - at an estimated cost of up to
25bn - is one of those bits of government spending where you
can't shop around.
Britain currently builds its own nucear-powered strategic missile
submarines, the Vanguard class, currently due to be retired
towards the end of the next decade.
These carry US-made Trident D5 missiles, taken from a pool of
the weapons maintained at the US naval base in Kings Bay,
Georgia, although the nuclear warheads themselves are British.
In a world awash with acronyms, the most important one Brown
will have to consider is CASD, or Continuous-at-Sea Deterrence.
This means that one British Trident-armed submarine is
constantly in service and ready to fire up to 16 Tridents at
short notice - albeit with a short time lag for them to be
targeted. When the cold war ended the coordinates pointing
towards Russia were wiped.
Defence orthodoxy, which any government ignores at its peril,
overwhelmingly sees no alternative to CASD.
Land-based systems
When the House of Commons defence committee looked into the
issue back in March, a series of experts told the MPs that
replacing submarines with land-based missile silos or aircraft
fitted with cruise missiles would be very expensive and fraught
with problems.
Commodore Tim Hare, formerly the ministry of defence's director
of nuclear policy and now with defence group Thales, noted that
building a land-based system, as well as bringing "huge
difficulties in terms of costs and safety", also would require
the purchase of a brand new ballistic missile system.
Air-launched cruise missiles, meanwhile, were essentially a
military strike weapon and not a credible deterrent, he argued.
Britain already has a system of submarine-support infrastructure
in place, the experts noted, while new air or land bases would
cost vast sums and prove a focus for protest.
And if CASD is a given, any future prime minister will have
little more leeway when it comes to the hardware that will form
its backbone.
The eponymously named first model of Britain's four
Vanguard-class vessels entered service in 1994, and has a
planned operational life of 25 years.
In evidence to the defence committee, the MoD noted that
extending the submarines' life was "possible, albeit with
gradually increasing cost", but still only until the mid-2020s.
Longer-term options include whether the smaller Astute-class of
submarine can be modified to carry long-range missiles or
whether a new design is needed.
However, there would be intense political pressure for any
replacement to be built in Britain, most likely at the former
Vickers submarine yard in Barrow-in-Furness, as were the
Vanguards, safeguarding 2,000 or so jobs.
In terms of missiles, the overriding view in defence circles is
that there is even less room for manoeuvre although nothing
official has been decided.
In its submission to the committee the MoD noted that the
current Trident D5 can stay in operation into the 2020s "with
some relatively minor upgrading and refurbishment", while the US
Navy plans improvements keeping the model useable into the 2040s.
The home-made option
But why not build our own, as do the French, with their
much-cherished - and completely home-made - nuclear deterrent?
Because the enormous expense cannot be justified except in terms
of national pride.
Sir Michael Quinlan, a long-serving senior MoD civil servant who
is now a senior fellow at the International Institute of
Strategic Studies, told the committee that there are "two
different kinds of independence which are different levels of
insurance policy with different costs."
"One is independence of procurement, which the French for the
most part have gone for at high cost; the other is independence
of operation. We have gone for the latter which costs a great
deal less," he said.
And despite being US-bought, the expert view is that Britain can
do what it likes with its Trident missiles.
Commander Hare told MPs it was a myth that Washington held some
"technical golden key" to the Tridents, meaning Britain could
use them even if it hypothetically were to fall out with its
ally.
"The best analogy I can give is that if Ford went bust tomorrow
all the Ford Focuses in the country would not suddenly come to a
grinding halt," he said. "Certainly, it would be difficult if
the United States withdrew its design authority and logistics
support for the missiles, fire control launcher and navigational
sub-systems. Eventually, it would cause some difficulty, but I
argue that that would take quite a long time."
Of course Britain could shop elsewhere for its missiles -
France. But as one expert told the defence committee with some
understatement, this could be seen as "politically difficult".
Overall, notes Professor Wyn Bowen, director of research at the
defence studies department at King's College London, there is
one main decision which will be taken.
"The government really has two choice: one is the replacement of
both the missiles and the platform, and the other is to extend
their lifespan."
And with the latter option costing a lot less both financially
and perhaps politically, that appears the more likely.
Have your say
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
29 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear leviathans stalk the seas
Submarines that rival aircraft carriers in size carry Britain's
Trident missile 'deterrent'
Press Association
Thursday June 22, 2006
[The final trident nuclear submarine HMS Vengeance is
escorted by tugboats into the naval base at Coulport, Scotland
on April 30 1999 ]
HMS Vengeance, the fourth sub in Britain's Trident fleet.
Photograph: PA
Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent has long been a totemic
issue for the Labour party - both for and against.
Coming into service in the early 1990s, the submarine-based
missile programme is all that remains of Britain's nuclear
weapons system in the post-cold war era.
Four 16,000-tonne Vanguard class submarines, almost as large as
aircraft carriers, carry the UK's Trident missiles.
The subs - named Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance -
travel silently underwater, powered by a pressurised water
reactor - their whereabouts a closely guarded secret.
The 60-tonne missiles, capable of unleashing nuclear destruction
many times more powerful than that seen in Hiroshima, can be
fired up to 4,000 nautical miles with accuracy measurable in
metres.
Each missile can be equipped with up to 12 warheads, enabling a
number of different targets to be attacked. Each Vanguard-class
sub has 16 missile tubes.
With crews at sea for weeks on end, the Vanguard submarines have
large messes capable of being used as dining rooms, lecture
halls, lounges, games areas and even settings for church
services.
Trident, which replaced Polaris, was initiated during the
premiership of Margaret Thatcher and came into use from 1993.
Opposition to the scheme became a defining issue for Labour and
others split over the issue of nuclear disarmament in the 1980s.
Commitment to maintaining a nuclear deterrent has been
characterised as a cornerstone of New Labour, but many on the
left remain opposed.
Backers say Trident's very existence has helped secure peace but
opponents say that the end of the cold war, during which the
world was effectively divided into two armed camps, removes the
need for such weapons.
But with the submarines expected to be due for decommissioning
around 2024, the debate is likely to heat up.
Disarmament campaigners expect development of a new scheme to
begin around 2010 in order for a replacement to be ready.
Labour's last general election manifesto committed the party to
retaining the independent nuclear deterrent.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
30 BBC: Papers mull Brown's nuclear pledge
Last Updated: Thursday, 22 June 2006
[Mastheads of the national newspapers]
Gordon Brown's support for retaining Britain's nuclear deterrent
occupies several of Thursday's papers.
In his Mansion House speech, the chancellor is trying to show his
Labour leadership would not mean a lurch to the left, says the
Times.
The Financial Times calls Mr Brown's remarks politically
symbolic.
He has been under pressure from the Conservatives and Tony
Blair's allies to prove he is not a left-leaning "roadblock" to
reform, it says.
Water leaks
Thames Water's failure to meet its target for cutting leaks for
the third year in a row - while seeing a big rise in profits -
leads some of the papers.
No wonder the company's German owners are "laughing like drains",
says the Daily Mail in its headline.
Its columnist Edward Heathcoat Amory says the firm is a bad
advertisement for privatisation, but blames the "toothless"
regulator, Ofwat.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Thames Water faces a 140m
fine.
Justice campaign
A "Charter of Justice" is published in the Sun, as part of its
campaign for "justice to be put back into the criminal justice
system".
Among its demands are that judges who persistently give offenders
lenient punishments be sacked.
Meanwhile, in the Guardian, the children's commissioner has
criticised the government's proposal to inform parents of
paedophiles in their area.
Sir Al Aynsley-Green warns of vigilante attacks and an increased
risk of sex abuse.
Phone injury
The television presenter Noel Edmonds tells the Telegraph about
what he calls his first industrial injury in 40 years of
entertainment.
It is nothing to do with the antics of Mr Blobby or his House
Party - but the all-too-important telephone in his Channel 4 game
show, Deal or no Deal.
An orthopaedic consultant has found Mr Edmonds has repetitive
strain injury in his right elbow from lifting the phone.
"It's a bit ridiculous, but I'm in agony," he tells the paper.
*****************************************************************
31 BBC: Do UK nukes make military sense?
Last Updated: Thursday, 22 June 2006
By Rob Watson Defence and security correspondent, BBC News
There is no doubt Chancellor Gordon Brown has set off a major
ideological debate within his own, once avowedly, anti-nuclear
Labour Party.
But what are the military arguments for and against Britain
retaining an independent nuclear deterrent?
[HMS Vengeance]
Nuclear submarines are based at Faslane on the Clyde
Perhaps the first question to consider is why this is an issue
now.
At the moment Britain has 16 Trident missiles, based on four
nuclear submarines, providing a total of 200 warheads.
The problem is that the missiles will reach the end of their
operational life by the year 2024 and it is argued by some
experts that a decision is needed now to allow enough time to
replace the system, if indeed Britain is to retain a nuclear
weapons capacity.
The arguments against doing so run something like this:
It is said by some critics Britain would not really have an
independent nuclear deterrent because it would rely on the US for
operating and maintaining any new system, just as it has with
Trident.
TRIDENT TIMELINE
1980 Margaret Thatche commits Britain to having Trident 1993
Trident submarine-based nuclear missile programme comes into use
replacing Polaris Late 2006/early 2007 Cabinet decision on
replacing Trident expected Around 2010 work on new scheme to
replace Trident is expected to begin 2024 Britain's Trident
submarines due to be decommissioned
Trident factfile
And then there is the cost, estimated at anywhere between 12bn
and 25bn, which not surprisingly some would rather see spent on
things such as schools and healthcare.
The most pointed military argument against replacing Trident
however is that it is hard to see Britain ever using a nuclear
weapon independent from the US.
The point being that, while it is conceivable to imagine a
confrontation with a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran for
example, it is very hard to imagine Britain having to go it
alone without the US.
And what use would nuclear weapons be against the asymmetrical
threat posed by international or domestic terrorism?
NUCLEAR BRITAIN
October 1952: Britain test nuclear weapon May 1957: First UK
hydrogen bomb detonated 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement
signed allowing the sharing of nuclear technology 1968 British
submarine armed with US-built Polaris missiles goes on patrol for
the first time November 1968: UK ratifies nuclear
non-proliferation treaty 1982 Cruise missiles deployed in UK
But there are also powerful arguments for it.
What many military analysts believe, including Dr Lee Willett of
the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), is that ultimately
retaining an independent nuclear weapons system is an insurance
policy against the unknown, and a reasonably priced one at that.
With countries like North Korea and Iran presumed to either have
or be determined to acquire nuclear weapons and others such as
Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia nursing such ambitions, Dr Willett
argues this is not the time for Britain to be getting out of the
nuclear game.
Then there is the political and diplomatic argument - that it is
vital for Britain to maintain its big power role in the world,
including its permanent seat at the United Nations Security
Council and its status within the European Union and with the
US.
As to the independence of the deterrent from the US, supporters
say though it is true any system would likely be acquired from
America, its use, like the existing Trident, would be controlled
by Britain.
In many ways these are arguments that have been rehearsed over
and over again since nuclear weapons were first invented and
proliferated around the world.
Does the possession of a nuclear arsenal deter potential foes
from attacking you or is their use so inconceivable as to make
them in the end a poor deterrent?
*****************************************************************
32 Independent: MPs may be denied vote on Trident decision
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Published: 23 June 2006
The Government may replace Britain's Trident nuclear weapons
system without offering MPs a vote on the project.
Downing Street said there would be a "proper debate" on whether
to renew the independent nuclear deterrent but stopped short of
granting demands by 93 Labour MPs for a full-scale parliamentary
vote on the scheme.
Gordon Brown, who announced his personal support for replacing
Trident on Wednesday, wants to restore trust in politics by
boosting Parliament's powers - for example, by guaranteeing MPs
a vote before the nation goes to war.
The Chancellor believes MPs could be persuaded to support a new
nuclear weapons system but accepts that a final decision will
have to be taken by the Cabinet, with Tony Blair and the Commons
Leader, Jack Straw, in the lead. Some ministers fear that
allowing a vote would turn into a procedural nightmare with
attempts by opponents to wreck the project. They might also need
to rely on the support of Tory MPs to win the vote.
Mr Straw echoed No 10's line by declining to promise a vote. He
told the Commons there would be a White Paper on Trident
followed by a parliamentary debate "in a form which shows proper
respect for this House".
Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary and a likely
candidate for deputy Labour leader when John Prescott stands
down, backed the Chancellor. He said: "As Gordon Brown has said
it is absolutely right that we make the right long-term
decisions for our national security, including retaining our
independent nuclear deterrent. It is important that the detail
of how we implement this manifesto commitment should be the
subject of full debate in the party and in Parliament."
Whatever the decision on a vote, Labour MPs fear they will be
presented with a fait accompli by the time they discuss the
issue. The Commons debate is expected early next year - after
the Cabinet makes a decision in principle. Ministers insisted
they had to "give a lead", with the different options ranging
from 10bn to 25bn.
Mr Brown's surprise move provoked a furious reaction from Labour
opponents of updating Britain's nuclear deterrent. His friends
were relaxed about that, hoping that it would reassure voters
that he would not position himself to the left of Mr Blair if,
as expected, he succeeds him as Prime Minister.
Critics said that the Chancellor's intervention could reduce his
level of support in the Labour leadership contest, although he
is still likely to crush a left-wing rival running on an
anti-Trident ticket.
Clare Short, a former cabinet minister, said: "It means a lot of
people who were happy to see Brown take over as leader will now
think there's got to be a contest and we're not willing to
support him. I won't support him. I mean this is outrageous,
unless he changes his mind."
John McDonnell, who chairs the left-wing Campaign Group of MPs,
said: "The whole tenor of the Chancellor's speech is a slap in
the face for the Labour and trade union movement. Gordon has
laid down a clear marker for the approach he intends to take to
the leadership of the party. It is a worrying sign that he is
prepared to ignore the strong feelings of Labour Party members
and trade unionists on this and other key issues of concern."
2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
33 Guardian Unlimited: Brown under fire after he pledges to replace Trident
Will Woodward and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday June 23, 2006
The Guardian
The former cabinet minister Clare Short yesterday condemned
Gordon Brown's pledge to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent,
warning that she and other leftwingers were no longer prepared
to support his succession to the Labour leadership.
The former international development secretary - once a vocal
supporter of the chancellor - said she could "absolutely not"
support his bid to become prime minister when Tony Blair stands
down, after Mr Brown said in his annual Mansion House speech
that he supported replacing Trident, at a cost of 15bn to 25bn.
The move was interpreted as another signal that Mr Brown is
determined to try to retain Labour's hold over the political
centre ground. But Ms Short told Radio 4's The World at One: "To
just, in a Mansion House speech that's meant to be about the
economy, throw it away and say 'this is what we are going to do'
- I can't support that kind of leader, absolutely not. It means a
lot of people who were happy to see Brown take over as leader
will now think there's got to be a contest and we're not willing
to support him.
"I think it's part of his desperation, that is sort of so
humiliating him, to prove to the Blairites that he's as
rightwing as Blair and that therefore they will keep their
promise to hand over to him. It's 'please, please, let me take
over - I'll do anything you say"'.
In December 93 Labour backbenchers signed an early day motion
put down by the former environment minister Michael Meacher
calling for a Commons vote on whether to replace Trident,
although yesterday's protests - other than Ms Short's - were
relatively muted.
Military chiefs have always insisted that any decision to keep
nuclear weapons would be political. They could do without them,
but believe it would be difficult for any British government to
leave France as the only European nuclear power.
However, they are deeply concerned that the cost of replacing
the Trident missile system would come out of the existing
defence budget and would lead to cuts in projects, including a
long-delayed fleet of armoured cars for the army and equally
badly-needed helicopters for the army and navy. "My fear is that
defence would be asked to swallow it and have to lose
something," Lord Boyce, former chief of defence staff, said. He
described the armed forces as "deeply under-resourced". But he
said nuclear weapons could act as a deterrent against future
"rogue states".
Lord Garden, former assistant chief of defence staff and Liberal
Democrat defence spokesman, said: "If we did not have a nuclear
system, we would not be making a case for it today." However, he
said it would be "foolish" to give it up now. A relatively
low-cost option would be to continue to buy the missiles from
the US and build new submarines on existing designs, with the
first ready by 2025.
Mr Meacher said: "The fact is there is no public debate worth
mentioning. There is no parliamentary debate and it's not even
certain there's going to be a parliamentary vote. It is rather
like Tony Blair telling us he is going to go for nuclear energy
before the energy review has even reported.
"This is not an urgent decision. I think this is the wrong
decision for the wrong motives at the wrong time. It's not going
to increase our security because it only encourages nuclear
proliferation among other countries, including Iran. It's only
going to increase our dependency on American policy because the
weapons system is only operable with their agreement. And I
think it has very dubious utility, given the cost of 25bn."
Labour MP John McDonnell, chair of the Socialist Campaign Group,
said Mr Brown's speech was "a slap in the face for the Labour
and trade union movement" which "laid down a clear marker for
the approach he intends to take to the leadership of the party".
Downing Street said yesterday there would be a white paper but
stopped short of promising a full debate. Mr Blair's spokesman
insisted the chancellor's remarks were in line with Labour's
manifesto and previous pronouncements by the prime minister. But
he could not extinguish the impression that No 10 had been
caught on the hop by Mr Brown's intervention.
In the Commons, the defence minister, Adam Ingram, said: "At the
last election we stood on a manifesto commitment which clearly
stated that we intended to retain this country's current
independent nuclear deterrent. We have made it clear that
decisions on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent are
necessary in the current parliament."
Have your say
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
34 FW: FEMA asked to prove plan for TMI crisis is adequate
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:02:18 -0700
FEMA asked to prove plan for TMI crisis is adequate
Thursday, June 22, 2006
BY GARRY LENTON
Of The Patriot-News
The watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert is asking the Federal Emergency
Management Agency for proof that child-care centers and nursery schools will
be evacuated if another nuclear emergency hits Pennsylvania.
"We're saying, just present us with the factual evidence that they have
transportation
and an actual route," said Eric Epstein, chairman of TMI Alert.
In a letter to the agency, Epstein accused it of failing to verify that
emergency plans
for the 10-mile zone around the state's five nuclear power plants meet federal
licensing requirements.
For three years, Epstein and Larry Christian of New Cumberland have asked FEMA
and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to correct what they said are
gaps in
the emergency plans designed to protect the public from another nuclear
emergency,
such as the 1979 accident at TMI.
In April, the NRC said it lacked the authority to investigate the complaint
because
emergency planning around the nuclear plants was FEMA's responsibility.
TMI Alert is turning its attention to FEMA and the Department of Homeland
Security,
Epstein said.
The NRC, which licenses nuclear plants, relies on FEMA to say whether
federally
mandated emergency plans are adequate. TMI Alert said they are not and it
accused
FEMA of submitting false findings to the NRC for the last 20 years.
The letter demanded a response from FEMA in 15 days. After that, TMI Alert
plans to
file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice.
The move is a precursor to what could become a federal lawsuit. A suit
could stall
Exelon Nuclear's efforts to buy New Jersey-based PublicService Enterprise
Group,
which owns two nuclear plants in New Jersey. The company that would be
formed by
the merger would not be able to accept the transfer of TMI's license if
there is reason
to believe the license does not comply with NRC requirements.
If FEMA does not respond, Epstein will ask the Justice Department to
investigate whether
the NRC and FEMA failed to enforce their own rules. It will also ask the
Justice Department
to block the merger of the two companies.
FEMA and the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency said the nuclear
evacuation
plans meet NRC requirements.
John Comey, executive assistant to the director of PEMA, said the state has
worked with
day-care centers, providing packets showing how to develop a plan.
Ralph DeSantis, spokesman for TMI operator AmerGen Energy, said the plant
and Exelon
are meeting emergency management regulations.
FEMA tested the TMI emergency plan last May and found no problems, but no
day-care centers
were contacted in the drill.
Correspondent Phyllis Zimmerman contributed to this story.
2006 The Patriot-News
2006 PennLive.com All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
35 Guardian Unlimited: No.10 promises nuclear White Paper
From Press Association
[UP]
Press Association
Thursday June 22, 2006 1:03 PM
Downing Street has promised a White Paper and a "proper debate"
on replacing Britain's ageing Trident nuclear deterrent.
No 10 insisted Chancellor Gordon Brown was saying nothing new on
Wednesday night when he sparked controversy by confirming he
wanted to retain an independent nuclear deterrent "for the long
term".
Speaking at the Lord Mayor's annual banquet in the Mansion
House, the Chancellor said that the Government would show
"strength of national purpose" in "protecting our security in
this Parliament and the long-term - strong in defence in
fighting terrorism, upholding Nato, supporting our Armed Forces
at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear
deterrent."
Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said Mr Blair had
also voiced his support for the nuclear deterrent in interviews
during the last election campaign.
A commitment to retain the deterrent was also included in
Labour's 2005 election manifesto.
Mr Blair's official spokesman said on Thursday: "Decisions will
be taken in due course and there will be a proper debate. The
issue of the replacement of Trident is one that the Government
will address in this parliament.
"It is undoubtedly a difficult issue, it will undoubtedly lead
to proper debate and proper discussions. But the Prime Minister
believes we have to face up to these decisions in the interests
of the country."
The spokesman said a White Paper - a document setting out the
Government's intentions - would be published.
He added: "The key point is there will be a proper discussion
and a proper debate. the Government will set out its reasons for
a decision, whatever it is."
Meanwhile, leading Labour left-winger Alan Simpson denounced Mr
Brown's comments as "a pre-emptive strike on parliamentary
democracy", telling the BBC it was "bizarre" that the Chancellor
should effectively announce his intentions to the City before
MPs had a chance to discuss the matter in the Commons.
Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
36 BBC: Mapping out the UK's nuclear future
Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 June 2006
By Jorn Madslien
Business reporter, BBC News
Next month, Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to make public
Britain's intention to invite the private sector to build a
series of new nuclear power plants.
[Nexia scientist reviews a test tube]
Nexia wants to become a national nuclear laboratory
As part of a UK strategy aimed at ensuring energy security while
at the same time meeting international commitments to protect
the environment, Mr Blair is widely expected to argue that
nuclear power is not only cleaner than fossil fuels, but also a
commercially attractive alternative.
Private sector investment in new power stations would come on
top of plans, announced in March by the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA), to put out to tender 72bn worth of clean-up
and decommissioning and other contracts over the next 75 years.
In short, industrialists are queuing up to get in on the act as
the UK is about to create two parallel nuclear industries - one
getting ready to provide what proponents say would be a
cost-effective and clean energy for the future, the other
looking to sort out the mess from the past.
Straddling the two soon-to-become hugely lucrative nuclear
industries is Peter Bleasdale, managing director of Nexia
Solutions, an organisation at the heart of what could be
described as a nuclear intelligence community.
"Waste is at the forefront of people's minds, the risk and the
cost of it," Mr Bleasdale says.
"We underpin safety.
"And we're answering questions about cost, but strategic
questions."
National laboratory
Nexia remains a fully owned subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels
Limited (BNFL), alongside clean-up operator British Nuclear Group
(BNG) and US-based nuclear power station construction unit
Westinghouse.
[Peter Bleasdale, managing director, Nexi Solutions]
If you're looking to support th nuclear industry, you'll need to
protect the knowledge base for the UK Peter Bleasdale, Nexia
managing director Electricity calculator: how would you power
UK in 2020?
As such, Nexia operates as a limited liability company with an
80m turnover and 750 people, mostly scientists who hold PhDs or
other postgraduate qualifications.
However, as BNFL is gradually being sold off in bits, this is
about to change.
The sale of Westinghouse to Toshiba of Japan was agreed in
February this year, the following month saw the announcement of
plans to sell BNG during 2007, and there are plans to spin off
Nexia as early as next March, Mr Bleasdale explains.
"Our plan is to be established as a national nuclear
laboratory," he declares, hinting at how Nexia could become a
government-controlled research and development operation.
Strategic look
Since its formation last year, Nexia has morphed into the UK's
leading support and advisory organisation for the government, as
well as for companies operating nuclear power plants and for
those involved in decommissioning.
[Nexia scientist at work]
A fleet of identical plants enables scientists to be more
efficient
This means it is involved with the operations of several plants,
looking after the technology within existing reactors. Nexia is
also working closely with decommissioning and clean-up operators
across the UK, and it operates state-of-the-art laboratory
facilities.
But beyond such activities, Mr Bleasdale wants Nexia to take a
strategic role and look beyond short- and medium-term commercial
targets, and thus become central to the development and
implementation of a nuclear strategy for the UK.
Research and expertise
Part of such long-term thinking involves the preservation of the
UK community of nuclear scientists, and here Nexia has gone one
step further by investing in the world of academia.
Sellafield prepares for commercial future
"If you're looking to support the nuclear industry, you'll need
to protect the knowledge base for the UK," says Mr Bleasdale.
"Five or six years ago, the universities were not producing the
people we needed."
So Nexia, which at the time was BNFL's in-house research unit,
entered into research ventures in cooperation with four UK
universities - Leeds and Sheffield, as well as Manchester and
Umist, which have since merged - to create research projects in
the areas of radiochemistry, particle science, immobilisation
and nuclear materials.
"We've created four projects with 35 people in each," says Mr
Bleasdale.
"We've got to make those universities exciting places to work,
so we've given them a challenge and some money."
Waste decisions
But Nexia also wants to analyse the long-term implications of
decisions that might be imminent, such as the development of a
licensing and planning regime to attract private sector
investment.
[Poster at Sellafield]
Nexia is keen to promote science education
Key to this is the choice of what sort of new reactors should be
built, given that there are several systems available to choose
from, each produced by different private operators.
"Each reactor system will have different waste streams,"
explains Mr Bleasdale. "We can give information on what the cost
of each waste stream would be."
In the end, only one reactor system is expected to be built,
then replicated, in order to curb costs.
"A fleet of plants of the same design would allow for the
limited number of nuclear professionals in the UK to be more
efficiently used," observes the consultancy Deloitte in a
research document.
Moreover, "savings on subsequent plants can be between 10% and
40% of the cost of the first plant", Deloitte says, "creating a
significant incentive for an investor to commit to building more
than a single reactor".
And dealing with just one type of waste stream is cheaper than
reprocessing waste from several different types of reactors.
Such choices may soon have to be made, whether by the government
or by what is expected to be a consortium of private operators.
If and when that happens, Nexia will be there to provide a
long-term perspective.
*****************************************************************
37 Platts: Turkey to build three nuclear power plants by 2015
London (Platts)--22Jun2006
Turkey wants to build three nuclear power plants by 2015, Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told an energy meeting in Ankara
June 20, according to news reports. "As a country whose energy
consumption is increasing rapidly, we want to benefit from
nuclear energy as soon as possible," he was quoted by Associated
Press as saying.
Turkey is dependent on energy imports, mainly of natural gas from
Russia and Iran. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will
visit Turkey July 6-9.
This marks the third time Turkey has announced plans for a
nuclear power program.
Both previous attempts were abandoned after western vendors had
spent considerable resources bidding for the anticipated
contracts.
Terms & Conditions
Copyright 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
38 Platts: Georgia Power can track, ask for nuke costs to be in rates - PSC
Philadelphia (Platts)--22Jun2006
Georgia's Public Service Commission ruled Thursday that Georgia
Power may track the costs it incurs in planning and licensing
possible new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle nuclear station and
apply at a future date to recover those costs through its base
rates, a PSC spokesman said.
The spokesman added, however, that the PSC did not directly
authorize Georgia Power to incur those costs, which the utility
has estimated may total $50 million or more.
Instead, the commission said that the reasonableness of the
utility's expenditures will be considered in a future rate-hike
application Georgia Power makes to recover those costs.
Georgia Power has said that it is studying the possibility
of building one or more nuclear units at Vogtle, but like other
utilities undertaking studies of their own, it has not committed
to actually building the plants.
Georgia Power in February asked the PSC to rule on whether
the utility could recover its nuclear development and licensing
costs even if the new plants are never built.
For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
Copyright 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
39 toledoblade.com: U.S. report cites problems with NRC's 'safety culture'
Thursday, June 22, 2006
GAO investigators call reactor oversight ineffective
[Photo]
The Davis-Besse plant is the focus of a new government report.
( THE BLADE )
By ERIC LUND BLADE STAFF WRITER
The report predicts new steps will be implemented in July
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission still needs to change a
problematic "safety culture" at the nation's power plants,
highlighted by a near-disaster in 2002 at the Davis-Besse
nuclear reactor near Oak Harbor, according to the federal
Government Accountability Office's preliminary findings in a
recent report.
In March, 2002, a pineapple-sized hole and extensive corrosion
were found in the reactor head at Davis Besse, which the GAO's
report calls "a vital barrier preventing a radioactive release."
A steel lid on the reactor - corroded down to two-tenths of an
inch thickness in one spot and later determined to have a high
probability of rupturing - was all that prevented the release of
radioactive steam into the containment building.
Had that occurred, it would have been the second time it
happened at a U.S. power plant, the first being the partial
meltdown at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979.
The GAO report states the NRC's reactor oversight process is
not effective enough at "identifying and addressing early
indicators of deteriorating safety." In response, the NRC has
recently taken steps to remedy the problem.
"It has been more than four years since Davis-Besse, and it
appears that NRC is now taking concrete actions to begin
incorporating safety culture into the [reactor oversight
process]," the report states.
The report cites examples of safety culture like "attention to
detail, adherence to procedures, and effective corrective and
preventative action" as having "significant impact on a plant's
performance."
The new steps, which the report predicts will be fully
implemented in July, include providing more guidance on
identifying and correcting safety issues and creating a way to
determine when plants need safety culture evaluation. For
example, the report cites operating experience, independent
assessment, and corrective action programs as steps toward
problem identification and resolution.
In April, 2005, the NRC accused FirstEnergy Corp., which
operates the Davis-Besse plant and former Davis-Besse staff
members of misleading regulators and withholding information
about the status of the reactor head when it was refueled in
2000 - two years before the discovery of the corrosion.
Richard Wilkins, a spokesman for FirstEnergy, said the plant
has updated equipment and plant procedures, replaced the top
tier of employees, and begun using inspectors who operate
independently of plant management.
"I think that we have a lot of eyes on how we're doing business
here. In terms of operating safely and reliably, going into the
future we're in pretty good shape," Mr. Wilkins said.
Ohio Sen. George Voinovich today will chair a Senate
Environment and Public Works subcommittee that will examine the
nuclear plant regulatory process. "We must make sure NRC and the
industry keep safety at the center of all they do," the
Republican lawmaker said in a statement to The Blade. "An event
like what happened at Davis-Besse can never occur again."
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
40 Brattleboro Reformer: Marlboro asks NRC for inclusion into
disaster planning zone
By DARRY MADDEN, Reformer Staff
Thursday, June 22 MARLBORO -- The town is taking its request to
be included in the emergency planning zone around the Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant to the federal level.
The Selectboard has requested a hearing with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which is weighing a 20-year license renewal for the
reactor.
If the plant's relicensed, town officials would like Marlboro to
be included as a town in the emergency planning zone. The NRC is
the official keeper of which towns are in the zone.
Marlboro opted to not join the zone in the early 1980s, when
emergency planning became mandatory in the wake of the nuclear
disaster at Three Mile Island. But at town meeting in 2003,
residents voted to seek inclusion.
Negotiations with Vermont Yankee and with Vermont Emergency
Management this year have yielded some results to that end; the
town will be funded like a town in the zone without being
technically included.
The request for hearing was sent before the Legislature approved
the money.
The town is not the only entity that has filed for hearing with
the NRC regarding Vermont Yankee's relicensing. The New England
Coalition, a nuclear watchdog group, the Vermont Department of
Public Service and the attorney general's office in
Massachusetts have filed as well. But the states and the
coalition are hoping to provide a quasi-judicial review of the
license renewal process.
The request must first be OK'd by the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board (ASLB), an arm of the NRC. Once past that
threshold, the approval can be appealed by plant owners,
Mississippi-based Entergy. Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC,
told the Reformer in early June that the likelihood of such an
appeal was high.
The ASLB should have a determination about who will be granted a
hearing by mid-August.
A proposed new "western reception center" at the Twin Valley
High School was designed in part to meet Marlboro's needs, but
approximately 25 percent of the population in the 10-mile radius
around the reactor live to the west of it.
"This Western Evacuation Center lies to the west of Marlboro and
the only route of access to the Center travels though Marlboro.
Our volunteers will be a critical part of traffic control and
notification in the event of an evacuation, and yet we are not
included in the official (emergency planning zone). We feel that
it is unfair to use the town of Marlboro's resources without
being officially included in the (emergency planning zone)," the
town wrote its letter to the NRC.
So far federal regulators have approved 44 applications for
license renewal. In only a few of those cases were there
requests for this kind of review. And of those few requests,
none have been granted. One, regarding the Oyster Creek plant in
New Jersey, is under appeal.
Darry Madden can be reached at , or (802) 254-2311, ext. 273.
New England Newspapers, Inc.
(802) 254-2311
62 Black Mountain Road
Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242
*****************************************************************
41 TheStar.com: No time for nuclear assessment - Premier
Thu. Jun. 22, 2006. | Updated at 10:40 PM
CARLYE MALCHUK CANADIAN PRESS
The Liberal's plan to spend $40 billion on nuclear energy won't
be subject to an environmental assessment as a whole, Premier
Dalton McGuinty said Thursday.
While every individual project will go through an assessment as
required by law, the entire plan itself will not, the premier
said in question period.
"If we were to go that route we would never be able to move
forward on a plan that will meet our long-term energy needs,"
McGuinty said.
A group of environmental organizations called the Liberal's
move ``unacceptable."
They said they're extremely concerned with the government's
plan to spend over $40 billion on nuclear power while `ducking'
and `dodging' any opportunity for public debate on the
province's long-term energy plans.
"What we want is to have a full-scale environmental assessment
of the biggest and dirtiest plan in Ontario history," said Keith
Stewart from the World Wildlife Fund's Canadian chapter.
The group of 11 organizations, including Greenpeace and the
David Suzuki Foundation, delivered a letter to McGuinty Thursday
outlining their concerns and calling on the government to take
action on conservation and renewable energy.
Representatives from Greenpeace later met with McGuinty and
Environment Minister Laurel Broten for about a half-hour to
discuss their concerns with the government's nuclear energy plan.
Dave Martin, the energy co-ordinator for Greenpeace, said he's
glad to have finally met with the premier, "but it would have
been a lot better to have (had a meeting) before these decisions
were made."
Martin said it was a "frank and open discussion, but from our
point of view not a very productive one."
Earlier, at a demonstration on the lawn in front of the
legislature, the groups displayed radioactive waste containers
for cabinet ministers to take home as the legislature broke for
the summer break.
During question period, Conservative Leader John Tory asked the
premier to consider public hearings on the province's energy
plan.
McGuinty defended his actions, stating the Liberals have
already held public discussions and received over 5,000 online
submissions. He added the public would be able to voice their
opinions again once the plan goes before the Ontario Energy
Board.
But Tory charged that no one but the premier has seen those
online submissions.
If the Liberal's plan was a good one "it would stand up to
public scrutiny and it would stand up to environmental tests,"
said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, with Greenpeace.
"We don't think they have a good plan and that's why they're
hiding it."
The government's nuclear plan will effectively cease the
development of renewable energy in the province for two
generations, Stensil argued.
"It's somewhat baffling to us," he said. Renewable energy
sources "are proven to be the cheapest and fastest ways to deal
with our energy crisis."
If true public debate occurred, Ontario would not be going down
the nuclear path, Stensil said.
"We shouldn't be rewriting our environmental laws to appease
the nuclear industry," said Stensil.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
42 TheStar.com: Panel supports nuclear future
Thu. Jun. 22, 2006. | Updated at 01:46 PM
National body calls on Ontario to
boost output Touted as key part of plan to address
climate changeJun. 22, 2006. 01:00 AM
PETER CALAMAI SCIENCE REPORTER
OTTAWAOntario should expand nuclear power by more than 50 per
cent over the next four decades as a key part of a
made-in-Canada climate change plan, a blue-ribbon national
advisory group urged yesterday.
The recommendation would add more than 9,000 megawatts of
electricity generation to Ontario's current installed capacity
of 14,000 megawatts.
By contrast, the energy blueprint unveiled last week by the
McGuinty government froze total nuclear generation in the
province at 14,000 megawatts until 2025, with one or two new
reactors added solely to replace old units that shut down.
Glen Murray, chairman of the National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy, said more nuclear was necessary to
meet a goal of slashing Canada's energy-related greenhouse gas
emissions to 40 per cent of current levels by 2050.
This could be done despite a doubling of both Canada's
population and economic activity, including massive increases in
energy exports, mainly from Alberta's oil sands.
"We see nuclear power as a bridge. Some of our members didn't
like the idea of more nuclear fuel waste but if we don't solve
the climate change problem, a lot of other issues like that
become inconsequential," he told the Toronto Star.
Murray said federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has
already welcomed the group's proposed approach to reducing
emissions of carbon dioxide and other man-made greenhouse gases,
the chief cause of global warming over the last half-century.
"We're singing to the choir when we talk with her," Murray told
a news conference here that released the group's report.
The key recommendations include:
+ Capturing all the carbon dioxide now spewed out from
coal-fired power stations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and
pumping it into underground storage by 2040.
+ Doing the same thing with the massive carbon dioxide
emissions from gas and oil production, including the tar sands.
But capturing only 30 per cent by 2030, rising to 60 per cent by
2050.
+ Making large gains in energy efficiency in industry,
transportation and both residential and commercial buildings.
+ Switching to so-called "clean coal" technology for
electricity, emphasizing co-generation plants (which can recycle
steam for power and heat) and quadrupling wind power
installations.
Set up in 1994, the independent Round Table includes 14 members
appointed by the federal cabinet from the top ranks of business,
labour, environmental groups, municipalities and aboriginal
communities. It produced several reports about climate change at
the request of the previous Liberal federal government.
In an interview, Murray said the extra nuclear power in Ontario
could be added in three ways new nuclear reactors, restarting
mothballed reactors and upgrading existing power stations as
they are replaced.
If the 9,000 megawatts of additional nuclear power came entirely
from new installations, it would require 17 more reactors like
those at the Pickering nuclear power plant near Toronto. The
largest Candu reactors on the drawing boards are 1,000
megawatts, so nine of those would be required to meet the target.
Asked about the difference between the Ontario government's plan
and the round table's proposal, Murray said his group was taking
a longer-term view of Canada's need to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. It did not look into meeting Kyoto targets by 2012.
"This is a huge issue. There isn't yet an understanding among
most people of the seriousness of the challenge we're facing on
this planet," he said.
Having sketched out what can be done to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the advisory group is now investigating how the
reductions can be accomplished.
Murray dodged questions about a carbon tax or legislated limits
on emissions.
"This is not a plan. It's a scenario on which a plan can be
built," he said.
Murray also said the round table had not looked at environmental
fallout from expanded oil sands operations beyond controlling
greenhouse gases.
At present, producing a barrel of synthetic oil from the tar
sands uses between three and five barrels of water. Yet Alberta
is facing major water shortages, partly caused by climate change.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
43 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-9850
[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices] [Page 35957-35960] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22jn06-121]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source
Materials License No. Sma-1018, Approving the Final Status Survey
Plan for Section 2 of the Whittaker Corporation's Facility in
Transfer, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[[Page 35958]] ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie McLaughlin, Health
Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania 19406-1415; telephone (610) 337-5240; fax number
(610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a
license amendment to Source Materials License No.
SMA- 1018. This license is held by Whittaker Corporation (the
Licensee), for its Whittaker facility (the Facility), located at
99 Crestview Drive in Transfer, Pennsylvania. Issuance of the
amendment would approve a Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) for
Section 2 of the Facility. The Licensee requested this action in
a letter dated October 5, 2005. The NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action
in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the
NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment
will be issued following the publication of this FONSI and EA in
the Federal Register.
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant the Licensee's October 5, 2005,
license amendment request, thereby approving the FSSP for Section
2 of the Facility. Specifically, the FSSP describes the
Licensee's methods and procedures for determining whether that
portion of the site currently meets the radiological criteria for
release for unrestricted use specified in Subpart E of 10 CFR
part 20, or if additional remediation is required. NRC approval
of the FSSP does not constitute termination of the license or
release of the site for unrestricted use. Instead, it would allow
the Licensee to obtain the information required by the NRC in
support of any later request to release the Facility (or a
portion of the Facility) for unrestricted use.
License No. SMA-1018 was issued on December 15, 1969, pursuant to
10 CFR part 40, and has been amended periodically since that
time. The license authorized the possession and use of unsealed
source material (natural thorium and natural uranium) contained
in ores used for minerals processing and as a contaminant that
was isolated by the processing of scrap metal. The Facility
originally consisted of a plant and a slag waste storage area. In
1974, the Licensee ceased licensed operations at the Facility,
and initiated decommissioning of plant equipment and buildings.
Waste slag, raw materials, feed-metal scrap, and contaminated
building materials that were generated from the decontamination
activities were placed in the slag storage area.
The portion of the property housing the plant was released for
unrestricted use in 1975, following the performance of a
confirmatory survey by the NRC. An additional plant building was
decommissioned in 1983 and released for unrestricted use in 1985.
The plant is an active facility under a new owner (Greenville
Metals), who is not associated with the Licensee. Greenville
Metals processes and refines scrap and other metals to produce
metal alloys and conversion products.
Greenville Metals does not utilize NRC-licensed radioactive
material, and is separated from the Whittaker property by metal
fencing.
The Facility that the Licensee plans to decommission consists of
the slag area, located on a 5.9 acre strip of land, that is
characterized by four sections according to topography and site
use. Section 2 is in the center, bordered by Section 3 to the
north, the boundary fence with the Greenville Metals plant to the
west, a ravine to the south, and floodplain and the Shenango
River to the east. Section 2 contained the highest-activity slag,
most of which has now been excavated and disposed in accordance
with the Licensee's procedures that were approved by NRC in the
license amendment dated June 10, 1999. The Facility is located
within an industrial park. There are no buildings remaining at
the Facility (with the exception of temporary trailers supplied
by the decommissioning contractor), and the surrounding area is
primarily rural.
In July 2004, the Licensee initiated excavation and survey of the
slag and waste materials in Section 2 of the Facility. On
September 12, 2005, the Licensee commenced shipping the material
to an authorized radioactive waste disposal site. The proposed
action is to approve the Licensee's plan for conducting a
radiological survey of Section 2 of the Facility. The Licensee
will perform the survey to determine if Section 2 meets the
site-specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs),
approved by the NRC on September 20, 2005 (70 FR 54779). These
DCGLs describe the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on
building surfaces, equipment, materials, and soils that will
satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for
unrestricted release of the Facility.
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee is no longer using
licensed materials at the Facility. In accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 40.42(h), the Licensee must complete
decommissioning of the site no later than 24 months following the
initiation of decommissioning. The Licensee will use the proposed
FSSP to determine if Section 2 of the Facility meets the NRC
criteria for release for unrestricted use, or if additional
decommissioning activities are required.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The survey described
in the proposed Section 2 FSSP follows the guidance contained in
NUREG-1575, Rev 1, ``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual'' (MARSSIM). The proposed FSSP divides
Section 2 into Class 1 and Class 2 survey units, based on the
expected remaining radioactive contamination. Under the proposed
action, each survey unit will receive a walkover radiation survey
of the soil surface (one-hundred percent of the area for the
Class 1 units and a minimum of ten percent of the area for the
Class 2 units).
The walkover surveys will be performed using a two-inch by
two-inch (2 x 2) Sodium-Iodide (NAI) radiation detector. The
proposed FSSP also provides for obtaining 11 discrete soil
samples from each survey unit. The sample locations would be
determined using a random-start grid pattern, in accordance with
the MARSSIM guidance. The samples would consist of filling
one-gallon bags with soil from the remediated area, and having
the soil analyzed by gamma spectroscopy to determine the
radiological composition. In addition, the proposed FSSP includes
the performance of exposure rate measurements at each soil sample
location at a height of one meter (m).
The proposed action would have minimal effect on environmental
resources because it involves passive surveys and the removal of
only a small amount of soil from an area that was
previously-impacted by licensed operations. The proposed action
would not result in the release of radioactivity to the air or
water. The proposed action
[[Page 35959]] also would not authorize release of Section 2 of
the Facility for unrestricted use. Based on its review, the NRC
staff has determined that the proposed FSSP is in compliance with
approved NRC standards, as described in NUREG-1575, Rev.1. Area
groundwater is chemically contaminated with trichloroethylene
(TCE). The origin of this contamination is being investigated by
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).
PADEP has indicated that it believes the contamination is being
leached onto the Facility property from surrounding industrial
sites. The Licensee is working with PADEP and the surrounding
industries to identify and remediate the TCE source and the
contamination. The proposed action will not result in the release
of TCE to the environment. The NRC staff has found no other
radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that
could result in cumulative environmental impacts.
Based on its review, the staff concluded that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The only alternative to the proposed action is the no-action
alternative, under which the staff would deny the amendment
request for the proposed FSSP. This alternative would result in
no environmental impacts, but would prohibit the performance of a
FSS for Section 2 of the Facility. This no-action alternative is
not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 20.1402, requiring
licensees to verify that residual radioactivity meets the
radiological unrestricted release criteria. The Licensee cannot
demonstrate that the site meets the decommissioning criteria
without performing the FSS. The licensee must verify that the
decommissioning criteria are met before it can request release of
Section 2 of the Facility for unrestricted use. Additionally,
denying the amendment request would prevent the Licensee from
completing decommissioning in the timeframe required by 10 CFR
40.42(h). The environmental impacts of the proposed action are
minimal, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further
considered.
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action
is consistent with NRC guidance and regulations. Because the
proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the
human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed
action is the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of the EA to
PADEP on January 24, 2006.
On February 15, 2006, PADEP responded by e-mail. The State agreed
with the conclusions of the EA, and provided some typographical
comments on the EA document, and two specific comments on the
FSSP: Comment 1: PADEP asked whether the contractor, NRC, will
use to perform a confirmatory survey of Section 2 of the Facility
will review and comment on the FSSP.
Resolution: NRC provided the proposed FSSP to the NRC contractor
for review and comment on February 21, 2006. Comments were
received on March 2, 2006. NRC provided the comments to the
Licensee in a Request for Additional Information on March 29,
2006. The Licensee revised the proposed FSSP in response to the
comments, and provided the revised FSSP in a letter dated May 15,
2006. The staff reviewed the revised FSSP for the preparation of
this EA.
Comment 2: PADEP asked how the Licensee has verified the belief
stated in the proposed FSSP that Section 2 of the Facility has
been excavated to native soil, and that there is not additional
contamination at a greater depth.
Resolution: NRC discussed the comment with the Licensee and
PADEP. The bottom of the excavation is characterized by foundry
sand in most locations, and by river rock and coarse soil in
others. The Licensee believes, and NRC concurs that the river
rock and coarse soil is native soil. In areas exposing foundry
sand, the Licensee will perform surveys to verify that
contamination is not present at greater depths.
PADEP indicated that they are satisfied with this response.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action has minimal
environmental impacts, and will not affect listed species or
critical habitat. Therefore, no consultation is required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties.
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106
of the National Historic reservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for license amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at .
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and
image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to
this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession
numbers.
1. Initial Amendment Request with Final Status Survey Plan, dated
October 5, 2005 (ML052900082); 2. Request for Additional
Information (RAI), dated October 18, 2005 (ML052910472); 3.
Section 2 FSSP, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2005
(ML053190091); 4. Additional RAI, dated January 9, 2006
(ML060090311); 5. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 2, dated January 31,
2006 (ML060300532); 6. Comments on the Section 2 FSSP from the
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, dated March 2,
2006 (ML060690388); 7. Telephone Log, dated March 22, 2006
(ML060810706); 8. Additional RAI, dated March 29, 2006
(ML060880199); 9. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 3, dated May 15, 2006
(ML061420467); 10. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20,
Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' 11.
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40. 42, ``Expiration
and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and
Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas;'' 12. Title 10 Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;'' 13. NUREG-1575, Rev 1, ``Multi-Agency Radiation
Survey and Site Investigation Manual'' If you do not have access
to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers
[[Page 35960]] located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 15th day of June,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-9850 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
44 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-9851
[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices] [Page 35956-35957] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22jn06-120]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Homestake
Mining Company, Grants, NM AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Linton, Project Manager,
Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and
Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415-7777; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail:
rcl1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) proposes to issue a license amendment for
License Condition 35 (background water quality concentrations for
ground water compliance monitoring), to Materials License
SUA-1471, for the Homestake Mining Company (HMC), Grants, New
[[Page 35957]] Mexico uranium mill site. The purpose of this
amendment is to revise several current ground water protection
standards based on a more extensive data set (temporal and
spacial) of background water quality in the upper most (alluvial)
aquifer. In addition, this amendment will include establishing
new ground water protection standards for several constituents in
the alluvial aquifer; the Upper, Middle, and Lower Chinle
non-mixing zones; and the Chinle mixing zone. Presently, three
alluvial aquifer monitor wells have been designated as point of
compliance wells for existing ground water protection standards.
Designation of additional point of compliance wells for the
alluvial aquifer and the Chinle non-mixing and mixing zones will
be addressed in a revised Corrective Action Plan, to be submitted
by HMC no later than December 31, 2006. NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the
EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following
the publication of this Notice.
II. EA Summary The staff has prepared the EA in support of the
proposed license amendment. Since this action relates to ground
water, the primary focus of the evaluation of potential
environmental impacts relates to ground water. For several of the
constituents of interest, including uranium and selenium, the
proposed ground water quality standards are higher than the
existing standards. With respect to uranium and selenium, both
the current and proposed ground water protection standards exceed
their respective Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant
levels; therefore, post-restoration treatment to meet Federal
potable water quality limits will be necessary. Since the
proposed standards are higher, the cost of post-restoration
treatment to meet Federal water quality limits under the proposed
amendment may be higher.
However, it is recognized that the proposed ground water quality
standards represent the ambient (background) chemical quality of
the ground water flowing into (and eventually downgradient) of
the mill site from upgradient areas and these higher background
levels are not related to milling activities. In addition, staff
has concluded that there would be no effect to the following
resources: visual resources, vegetation and soils, ambient air
quality, and transportation. Staff has also determined that the
proposed action is not the type of activity that has the
potential to cause effects on cultural or historic resources.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, NRC
has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts
from the proposed amendment and has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related
to this notice are as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- ADAMS Accession Document No.
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- Environmental Restoration Group
ML020080071..... 12/31/01 Statistical Evaluation of Alluvial
ML020080076..... Ground Water Quality Upgradient of the
ML020080104..... Homestake Site Near Grants, New Mexico.
ML020350348..... Environmental Restoration Group
ML033140226..... 10/31/03 Statistical Evaluation of the Chinle
Aquifer Quality at Homestake Site Near Grants, New Mexico.
Homestake Mining Company and Hydro- ML033140212.....
10/31/03 Engineering Background Water Quality
ML033140215..... Evaluation of Chinle Aquifers.
ML033140218..... ML033140223..... ML033160201.....
ML033160203..... ML033160207..... ML033160213..... Homestake
Mining Company--HMC's response ML060790062..... 6/9/05 to New
Mexico Environment Department Comments.
Homestake Mining Company--Revised Ground ML060250273.....
1/19/06 Water Protection Standards.
NRC's EA for Homestake's Proposed ML061450327.....
6/06/06 Revisions to Ground Water Protection Standards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These
documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of June, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ron Linton, Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch,
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6-9851 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
45 The Mercury: Court ruling could affect local nuke project
Friday 23 June, 2006
LIMERICK -- A federal court decision regarding the possibility of
a terrorist attack on radioactive fuel stored at a California
nuclear power plant could have an impact on a similar proposal
here.
When Exelon Nuclear announced plans to store spent nuclear fuel
rods in casks on the grounds of its Limerick Nuclear Generating
Station, the Alliance for a Clean Environment raised some
concerns.
High on its list was the possibility of a terrorist attack.
Among its suggestions for dealing with those concerns was
fortifying the casks in bunkers, or scattering the casks around
the site so they would not present one single target.
Apparently they were not alone.
For when Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced its plans to
store spent nuclear fuel rods in casks on the grounds of its
Diablo Canyon nuclear generating station, a similar California
group raised the same concerns.
The difference is that the California Group, Mothers for Peace,
went to federal court. And, joined by the California Attorney
General, they won.
In a 3-0 decision earlier this month, the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco set aside the permit granted
Diablo Canyon by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The court said the NRCs argument that the threat of a terrorist
attack was too remote to include in environmental planning, was
undermined by the Bush administrations post-Sept. 11 statements
and actions about the terrorist threat against those self-same
plants, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the appeals court concluded
it was unreasonable for the NRC to declare that "the possibility
of a terrorist attack ..is speculative .. at the same time the
government is spending time, effort and taxpayer money to combat
the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants.
"The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have removed any shred
of credibility from the NRCs stance that terrorist attacks on
nuclear facilities are speculative events that cannot be
predicted," Diane Curran, the Washington, D.C., attorney
representing Mothers for Peace, said in her oral argument in
October, according to the Los Angeles Times.
"The ruling could have a very important impact on other
licensing decisions around the country, Edwin Lyman, a physicist
and senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists
in Washington told the paper.
But whether that will prove true in Limerick remains unknown.
Beth Rapczynski, a spokesperson for Exelon, said her companys
lawyers are "aware of the case and have read through the ruling."
She said the company "works hard to ensure all our projects meet
NRC regulations and if the NRC chooses to change its regulations
regarding this issue, we will, of course, comply."
Whether the NRC will change its regulations is, currently,
another unknown.
Diane Screnci, a spokesperson for the NRCs King of Prussia
office, said Wednesday the agency is reviewing the decision and
has no comment at this time.
And should the NRC decide to alter its regulations as they apply
to the Diablo Canyon site, its possible that would still have
no impact on the Limerick project.
Thats because the NRC licenses spent nuclear fuel storage in
two ways.
One license is specific to the site, as was the case in
California.
The other method licenses the provider of casks. Called a
"general license," this is the case in Limerick, which has hired
Transnuclear Inc. to install its casks.
Even if the NRC decides not to appeal this most recent court
decision, dont be surprised if it argues the decision does not
apply to the Limerick storage site because of the difference
between the types of permit, said Rochelle Becker.
One of the original "Mothers for Peace" and now with the
California-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, Becker
said, "You should expect the NRC to try and wriggle out of
anything they are supposed to do. That is their pattern."
In fact, Becker said she became so disgusted after dealing with
the NRC that she changed her tactics and joined a group that
argues the storage of nuclear fuel is a "states rights" issue
and helped to craft a state law regulating radioactive waste now
making its way through the California legislature.
Referring to the possibility of splitting the hair between a
site-specific license and a general license, Becker said, "The
most ridiculous thing about their argument is that a terrorist
doesnt care about what kind of permit you have when choosing
where to attack. The NRC has just refused to deal with this
issue everywhere in the country and until they do, everyones at
risk."
And thats why, said ACE Vice President Donna Cuthbert, Exelon
must be prevailed upon to install the most protective possible
measures for the storage of its Limerick fuel.
"This is not just about Limerick and this is not just about our
future," Cuthbert said.
"The decisions were making today could have an impact on our
grandchildrens grandchildren. Everyone who has these casks in
their backyard should be asking the NRC these same questions,"
Cuthbert said.
She said she has already sent a letter to the NRC about her
concerns and recently sent letters to the members of the
Limerick Planning Commission and the Limerick Board of
Supervisors, urging them to do the same.
Because its contractor has a general license, the only
government permissions the power plant needs to begin
construction on its storage project is local land development
approval.
But that isnt going as smoothly as it might.
Last week, the Limerick planners had some questions of their own
for Exelon officials, but they went unanswered. Citing security
concerns, Exelon officials declined to provide information on
their drawings for issues ranging from where current facilities
are located to calculations for stormwater management.
So, according to Township Solicitor Joseph McGrory, the planning
commission had little choice but to unanimously reject Exelons
application.
However, the planning commission is strictly a recommending body
under Pennsylvania state law, and the final decision rests with
the township supervisors.
According to the township Web site, the supervisors meeting is
tonight at 7 p.m.
The Mercury 2006
Copyright 1995 - 2006 Townnews.comAll Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 Public Citizen: New Nuclear Plants Too Risky to Build and Too
Costly to Operate
June 21, 2006
AUSTIN Environmental groups today decried NRG Energy Inc.s
plans to build two new reactors at its South Texas nuclear plant
site. The costs for the reactors are expected to reach $5
billion and will expose Texans to the risks and radioactive
wastes of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is extremely costly and relies on taxpayer
subsidies, creates radioactive waste with no long-term disposal
solution, and poses security and public health risks.
Thirty years ago, we were promised that nuclear energy would
produce energy too cheap to meter, but the costs are still
mounting, said Tom Smitty Smith, director of Public
CitizensTexas office. Nuclear plants are too costly to build,
too risky to operate and the wastes are still too hot to
handle.
The existingTexas reactors built at the site more than twenty
years ago cost more than six times the projected estimates and
had so many critical flaws that construction was halted and
parts of the plant were rebuilt to address serious safety
concerns.
Nuclear power continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts for
survival. From 1947 to 1999, the nuclear industry was given more
than $115 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies. The management
of nuclear waste and the requirements for reactor
decommissioning require billions more in additional funds. In
comparison, federal government subsidies for wind and solar
power totaled only $5.7 billion over the same period 25 times
less than nuclear subsides.
Pollution from uranium mining, the dangers of reactor accidents
and the legacy of radioactive waste are all serious concerns,
said Donna Hoffman of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Nuclear madness has arisen again, risking our health and
safety, said Karen Hadden, executive director of the
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.
Radioactive waste can be converted to materials to make nuclear
weapons. We should lead by example and not fuel the
international weapons race by creating more of it.
The predicted increase in energy demand can be met more safely
and effectively by renewable sources and efficiency measures
than through building new nuclear plants.
Renewable energy and energy efficiency are a viable alternative
to nuclear power and conventional fuels, and can meet the
countrys energy needs without the burdens of carbon emissions
or radioactive waste, said Luke Metzger of Environment Texas.
The flaws of nuclear power include cost, waste, security,
safety, and proliferation. To learn more,click here.
###
PC
*****************************************************************
47 Scotsman.com: Blair turns up pressure on Scottish Executive to accept nuclear power
[Scotsman.com News]
>Thu 22 Jun 2006
JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL EDITOR
TONY Blair yesterday stepped up pressure on the Scottish
Executive to accept new nuclear power stations, claiming that
the UK "depends" on the energy generated by Scotland's existing
reactors.
The Prime Minister has signalled that his energy review next
month will endorse the replacement of Britain's ageing
generation of nuclear reactors.
Despite Mr Blair's enthusiasm for nuclear energy, the Executive
has the legal power to block any new power stations north of the
Border. Ministers are committed to that veto until questions
over waste are resolved, though many expect Scottish Labour to
drop its objections under Downing Street pressure.
The Liberal Democrats' Scottish spokeswoman, Jo Swinson,
yesterday challenged Mr Blair about the effective Scottish veto.
While Mr Blair said he respected the Executive's legal powers,
he gave a clear signal that he expected Jack McConnell, the
First Minister, to remember Scotland's role in the UK
electricity grid.
"Scotland has nuclear power stations and a large part of the
electricity of the whole country depends on that," the Prime
minister said.
With Tony & Cherie Blairs record of "looking after their own
interests" I would not trust his motives for pushing Nuclear on
to us. He claims the UK depends upon the power generated by
Scotland ..........lets give him as much renewable energy as he
needs. We do not want to have the legacy of additional nuclear
waste to hand on to our children and their children. Report as
unsuitable
2. John Busby, Bury St Edmunds / 3:55pm 22 Jun 2006 +
The diesel used to dig up the ore and the milling energy
required to extract the uranium results in carbon emissions. The
energy to clean-up the nuclear waste is needed after the fission
is over and will most likely have to come from what is left of
the coal at the end of the century. It does not take an Energy
Review to realise that nuclear power is by no means clean.
Although the WNA and IAEA et al argue that there is plenty of
uranium in the earth's crust, because it is of a low
concentration will take more energy than gained in the
subsequent nuclear fuel cycle to get it out, so there is no real
sustainability. The world is running out of uranium faster than
it is of oil and gas and no new mine is likely to fill the
demand deficit once the US and Russian ex-weapons highly
enriched uranium is exhausted in the next few years.
The costs of the clean-up far exceed the value of the
electricity generated, so it cannot be economically viable. So
the "back-end" elements of the nuclear fuel cycle use up more
energy than ever generated in the "front-end".
So nuclear power is not clean, not sustainable and is
uneconomic. Do we await another "dodgy dossier"? Report as
unsuitable
2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
48 Houston Chronicle:
June 21, 2006, 11:54PM
Nuclear reactor plans signal renewed interest
High natural gas prices one factor behind expansion of Matagorda
plant
By TOM FOWLER
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Plans for two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas power plant
in Matagorda County are the latest sign of a resurgence of
interest in nuclear power in the U.S., a movement fueled in part
by high natural gas prices and a favorable regulatory
environment.
NRG Energy, which owns most of the plants in the Houston area and
has a 44 percent stake in the South Texas Project, said Wednesday
that it plans to spend up to $5.2 billion to more than double the
plant's capacity by 2,700 megawatts. The reactors wouldn't be on
line until 2014 at the earliest, as they face a lengthy approval
process.
Supporters of the proposal say it could create up to 3,000
construction jobs and 1,000 permanent positions, a boon for rural
Matagorda County. County Judge Greg Westmoreland said about 40
percent of the county's $15 million annual budget comes from the
power plant's tax payments.
But opponents of nuclear power say the new reactors will have the
same problem all nuclear plants have, namely the danger of using
and storing highly radioactive fuel.
The new reactors are part of a 10-year, $16 billion nationwide
expansion plan for Princeton, N.J.-based NRG.
On Wednesday NRG also announced plans to add a new 800-megawatt
coal-burning unit to the existing Limestone plant north of
Houston, add about 100megawatts of capacity to the W.A. Parish
plant near Richmond and upgrade a number of natural gas-fired
plants throughout the Houston area.
Preparing for a comeback
New nuclear power plant development in the U.S. came to a halt
shortly after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in
Pennsylvania. The last new plant to start up was the Watts Bar
facility in Tennessee, which began operating in May 1996 though
it had received its construction permit in 1973.
While countries such as Japan and France have a higher percentage
of their power coming from nuclear plants, the U.S. has the
largest number of plants, 103, generating about 20 percent of all
U.S. power.
The nuclear power industry in the U.S. has been preparing for a
comeback for years but a confluence of factors has led to recent
plans for more than 20 new reactors, said Jone-Lin Wang, head of
North American electric power research for Cambridge Energy
Research Associates.
High natural gas prices, particularly after last year's hurricane
season, turned the power industry on its head, turning some of
the lowest cost power plants into some of the most expensive.
With gas prices of more than $6 per million British thermal
units, nuclear and coal plants become more economically
competitive, Wang said.
Interest rates for financing projects are also lower than they
were in the 1980s and 1990s, while streamlined licensing
procedures, combined with financial incentives provided by the
Bush administration, make new projects more attractive.
"The new permitting procedures put more of the risk at the front
end, so they can resolve issues like if a site is appropriate for
a plant before construction has started," Wang said.
Changes over time
Construction and startup of the existing reactors in the South
Texas Project was far from smooth.
The cost ballooned from less than $1 billion when it was proposed
in 1973 to $6 billion by the time is was completed in 1988. Some
of the original construction was redone to resolve disputes about
quality and safety issues.
Officials say the plant has operated dependably, noting it has
received a number of industry awards.
Steven Winn, president of NRG's Texas operations, said the
company has powerful incentives to stay on schedule and budget
this time around.
The first units were built by what were then municipally owned
utilities, while NRG is a publicly traded company that has to
answer to shareholders for its financial performance.
"So if we screw up the project, the rate payer doesn't own it
this time, it's the responsibility of the shareholders," Winn
said.
The regulatory process has also been changed significantly, Winn
said. In the past, plants were often well into construction
before many environmental and engineering issues were resolved.
This led to stops and starts and cost overruns.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pre-approved a number of
reactor designs, including the one NRG plans to use, meaning that
officials can focus more on site-specific issues. Four plants
using the same technology are operating in Japan, Winn said, so
there's an established track record of construction and
operations.
The new NRC review process also allows for the beginning of
nonsafety-related construction prior to final approval, meaning
NRG could begin some construction as early as 2009.
'Costs are still mounting'
Opponents of nuclear power point to some of the recent changes in
the approval process and the economic incentives that come with
them as further evidence that nuclear power is not all it's
cracked up to be.
In addition to generation tax credits, the Department of Energy
has pledged to pay developers of new plants up to $500 million if
projects are delayed due to regulatory issues. The department has
also said it will split development costs during some portions of
the permitting process, as well as provide loan guarantees.
Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office, said it's
estimated the nuclear industry has been given more than $115
billion in direct taxpayer subsidies between 1947 and 1999.
So while nuclear power plants say the power they produce is among
the cheapest in the country, Smith says their estimates don't
include the subsidies or cost overruns.
"Thirty years ago, we were promised that nuclear energy would
produce energy 'too cheap to meter,' but the costs are still
mounting," Smith said.
Despite the likely backlash, the NRC is preparing for an
onslaught on new projects, said spokesman David McIntyre. The
commission is in the middle of hiring about 350 new employees, a
10 percent increase in staff.
tom.fowler@chron.com
*****************************************************************
49 Platts: Barton asks Bodman to sack embattled nuclear security chief
Washington (Platts)--21Jun2006
Representative Joe Barton on Wednesday ramped up his demand that
Linton Brooks, chief of the Energy Department's National Nuclear
Security Administration, resign or be fired.
Barton, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Energy and
Commence Committee, asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to
demand Brooks' immediate resignation. Barton also gave Bodman the
option of asking President Bush to fire Brooks.
"I urge that you ask for [Brooks'] resignation forthwith or
request his removal from office by the President," Barton said in
a letter to Bodman Wednesday.
"His conduct has substantially undermined both your
constitutional obligations and those of the US Congress, and the
American people expect their public servants to be held fully
accountable for their actions," he wrote.
Representative Ed Whitfield, Republican-Kentucky, also
signed the letter to Bodman. Whitfield chairs the Energy panel's
subcommittee on oversight and investigations.
Barton and Whitfield first called for Brooks' removal on
June 9, when Brooks revealed at an energy panel subcommittee
hearing that a computer hacker stole the Social Security numbers,
security clearances and other information of 1,500 NNSA
employees.
Brooks said the security breach occurred more than eight
months ago, and that he learned about it shortly after it was
discovered. Brooks, though, said he didn't tell Bodman about the
incident until just before the June 9 hearing.
Barton, Whitfield and other lawmakers, likewise, were not
told about the eight-month-old security breach until only shortly
before hearing.
Barton and Whitfield, in their letter to Bodman, said
Brooks' failure to immediately inform top DOE officials and
Congress of the breech constitutes a "dereliction of duty."
"It strikes us as likely that...Brooks' decision not to
inform you fully of the situation was, at least in part, his
maneuvering to allow NNSA staff to deliberately conceal this
information from the [energy] committee," Barton and Whitfield
said.
DOE did not immediately return messages asking if Bodman
would urge Brooks to step down. NNSA, likewise, did not respond
to messages inquiring about Brooks' plans. --Brian Hansen,
brian_hansen@platts.com For similar news, take a trial to Platts
Inside Energy at http://insideenergy.platts.com.
Copyright 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
50 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Panel OKs $160M for Vet Monitoring
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday June 22, 2006 9:31 PM
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate panel on Thursday approved $160
million to pay for credit monitoring for veterans, one of many
expected payments as the government struggles with fallout from
data breaches crossing several agencies.
Meanwhile, a House panel was cautioned that credit monitoring
alone may not be enough to protect millions of veterans and
nearly all active-duty military, Guard and Reserve members whose
names, birth dates and Social Security numbers were taken May 3
from a Veterans Affairs employee's home.
``The worst-case scenario is that the veteran's file finds its
way to a public distribution source, such as the Internet,''
Mike Cook, a co-founder of a company specializing in data
breaches, told the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
``If this happens, the stolen identities will lose their
connection to the VA data breach and groups of fraudsters might
actively trade that data among the fraud community,'' Cook said.
``More people might have access and could misuse those
identities on a grander scale.''
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the $160 million in
emergency funds on a 15-13 vote; some Republicans objected
because the VA has said it can use existing funds to pay for
credit checks.
``I don't think it's acceptable to tell our veterans we lost
your personal information, and by the way, we're going to cut
your health care to pay for it,'' said Sen. Patty Murray,
D-Wash., who sponsored the amendment to an agriculture spending
bill.
On Wednesday, the VA announced it would provide free monitoring
for a year, taking responsibility after the data was stolen in
suburban Maryland. The VA said it would also hire a contractor
to do data analysis to help pinpoint identity theft; the agency,
however, did not offer specifics, saying it wanted to see what
bids they receive.
Noting ``it's not going to be cheap,'' VA Secretary Jim
Nicholson pledged not to take the money from current VA
programs. So far, the department has already spent $14 million
to set up a call center and notify veterans by letter, and it's
spending an additional $200,000 a day to maintain the call
center.
The government moves come as several agencies in recent weeks
have acknowledged similar data breaches. Late Wednesday, the
Agriculture Department said a hacker broke into its computer
system and may have obtained names, Social Security numbers and
photos of 26,000 Washington-area employees and contractors.
Like the VA, the Agriculture Department said it would offer free
credit monitoring for a year to anyone who might have been
affected.
During the House hearing Thursday, Cook said identity theft
victims typically don't become aware they've been hurt until six
months after their data was stolen, when creditors come calling
for money owed. At that point, it's likely the thieves will have
moved on - having made just a few purchases so they don't
attract notice - and started using another victim's information.
As a result, a credit monitoring service would raise a red flag
after it was too late, Cook said. He said data analysis
technology was available to help identity theft as it occurs,
particularly in the typical cases in which thieves use stolen
identities to fraudulently obtain credit cards and then make
purchases.
Rep. Steve Buyer, chairman of the House panel, said he believed
the VA and Congress should consider additional safeguard
measures - even if it means costing taxpayers more.
``The concern is, are we creating a false expectancy - that if
the VA does credit monitoring, I am safe?'' said Buyer, R-Ind.
``I still have great fears.''
There have been no reports of identity theft so far from the VA
data breach, one of the nation's largest. But Nicholson
acknowledged this week that authorities - who believe the
burglars were not specifically targeting the sensitive data- are
nowhere close to apprehending those responsible. The FBI also
has noted that ``unless the equipment is recovered, veterans
will never be certain their personal information is safe.''
Earlier this month, the Health and Human Services Department
discovered that personal information for nearly 17,000 Medicare
beneficiaries may have been compromised when an insurance
company employee called up the data through a hotel computer and
then failed to delete the file.
And the Energy Department also reported that social Security
numbers and other information for nearly 1,500 people working
for the National Nuclear Security Administration may have been
compromised when a hacker gained entry to the department's
computer system last fall. Officials said June 12 they had
learned only recently of the breach.
---
Associated Press writer Libby Quaid contributed to this report.
---
On the Net:
For veterans or Agriculture Department employees suspecting
identity theft: http://www.firstgov.gov or 1-800-FED-INFO
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
51 [NukeNet] Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:02:00 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club Were the Only Parties
to Address the Impacts of High-Level Radioactive Waste on Our Seismically
Active Coast
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club�s time for
questioning PG&E�s witnesses on whether San Luis Obispo, state agencies
or
the California legislature would have any oversight over a license renewal
for PG&E�s Diablo Canyon Nuclear was severely limited this week. The
organizations had 29 exhibits highlighting aging issues, community and
state support for an independent analysis of costs, benefits and risks of
continued operation of nuclear plants beyond current licenses, experiences
of license renewals at other operating reactors, and other vital issues.
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Clubs lone non-attorney
representative was prepared to demonstrate the need to deny PG&E�s
request
for an in house feasibility study for a license renewal study. Amazingly,
the judge in the case had allowed a mere 75 minutes to cross examine all
PG&E�s witnesses. The Administrative Law Judge, after listening to
Rochelle Becker assert that she was the only person in the proceeding that
lived 13 miles downwind of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, granted and
additional 30 minutes of cross time.
What the CPUC would have learned if it did not have an artificially set
time to question the PG&E witnesses that are intimate with the license
renewal study for Diablo�s reactor follows:
First. Four reactors in Illinois completed their full license renewal
application for $14 million dollars vs. PG&E�s request for $19 million
for
an in house �feasibility study�. PG&E�s requested study, if
allowed,
would be the 3rd study the utility has charged to ratepayers relating to
license renewal.
Second. The County of San Luis Obispo, City of Morro Bay, the
Environmental Caucus of the California Democratic Party, state legislators
and the California Energy Commission have all recommended the state
analyze the costs, benefits and risks of California�s continued reliance
on aging nuclear plants beyond current licenses.
Third. It has taken less than 2 years for the 30 nuclear plants to receive
approval from the NRC once license renewal applications were submitted.
The NRC intends to relicense all nuclear plants without addressing
terrorism or the increasing stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste
left onsite and currently stored in overcrowded pools and casks at the
nation�s nuclear facilities.
Fourth. This week a train carrying radioactive water from a nuclear power
site was derailed and the cause was sabotage. This is very important as
the country already has 77, 000 tons of highly radioactive waste to
transport from sites that are now adjacent to our waterways and oceans
under current licenses.
Fifth. Aging nuclear plants need to replace steam generators, reactor
vessel heads, cooling pumps, turbines and other costly components. Every
dollar spent to prop up nuclear reactors designed in the 1960�s leads
our
county and our state down a path far away from a future that PG&E touts in
its commercials � �Wind, Sun and Water� renewable resources for our
future.
Though the list could go on and on, PG&E did admit that its feasibility
study will cost approximately $19 million and the full application will be
�only� $5 million. The utility has earmarked exactly $5 million to
fight
any intervention that will likely occur to oppose license renewal. What
this means is that if the CPUC irresponsibly forces PG&E ratepayers to
foot this bill, our county and our state will have no further opportunity
to halt license renewal that will likely be granted at least 10 years
before Diablo�s current licenses expire.
We live in a beautiful, but seismically active (county/state). It is time
phase out the production of high-level radioactive waste on our precious
coast. We can provide new jobs, technology, tax base, and benefits in an
exciting new renewable industry. This is what PG&E tells us is the future
in their expensive ads. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and
Sierra Club want to support that vision.
Or we can continue down a path where each time there is an earthquake or
the threat of terrorism, acts of malice and insanity, even emergency
shutdowns at nuclear plants we will continue to wonder what risks we are
leaving to our children.
The choice is ours, but we must support all state actions to wrestle the
need for generation out of the hands of the nuclear utilities and support
a clean, independent energy future. This is a legacy worth fighting for
and this is a legacy we can be proud to leave to our children and
grandchildren.
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club invite you to join
us in leading the state down a new energy path. www.a4nr.org
Rochelle Becker
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"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
*****************************************************************
52 Nuke Train Derails in Michigan; Will Continue to Utah
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:58:57 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
Nuke Train Derails in MI; Will Continue to UT
From: shundahai@shundahai.org
Hello Everyone,
We learned yesterday from Kevin Kamps from NIRS that a train carrying
radioactive waste derailed in Michigan. While the derailment is
disturbing enough, no one seems to know what the contents actually
are. One says water, another says soil, and still another says
crushed concrete. Why can no one say for sure. We have posted the
NIRS press release giving the details on our web site
http://www.shundahai.org and our Action Alerts page
http://www.shundahai.org/action_alerts.htm The tracks must be
repaired, and then the train wil make its way to... Utah, to an
EnergySolutions facility. We will post more information when we
learn the estimated arrival date and time.
We learned today from Tri-Valley CARES, that Senator John Kyl (R-AZ)
has introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that
would "encourage the President to 'unsign' the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty." The treaty was last signed by President Clinton, but was
never ratified by the Senate. This amendment would wipe away any
pretense at a freeze on testing at the Nevada Test Site. Please go
to our Action Alerts page http://www.shundahai.org/action_alerts.htm
for more information.
We will be following both of these issues closely.
Shundahai Network
www.shundahai.org
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone- 801.533.0128
Fax- 801.533.0129
shundahai@shundahai.org
Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet
If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and
Harmony with all Creation"
*****************************************************************
53 [NYTr] Nuke Train Derails in MI; Will Continue to Utah
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:04:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by anon @mouse.com - Jun 22, 2006
Nuke Train Derails in MI; Will Continue to UT
by shundahai @shundahai.org
Hello Everyone,
We learned yesterday from Kevin Kamps from NIRS that a train carrying
radioactive waste derailed in Michigan. While the derailment is
disturbing enough, no one seems to know what the contents actually
are. One says water, another says soil, and still another says
crushed concrete. Why can no one say for sure. We have posted the
NIRS press release giving the details on our web site
http://www.shundahai.org and our Action Alerts page
http://www.shundahai.org/action_alerts.htm The tracks must be
repaired, and then the train wil make its way to... Utah, to an
EnergySolutions facility. We will post more information when we
learn the estimated arrival date and time.
We learned today from Tri-Valley CARES, that Senator John Kyl (R-AZ)
has introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that
would "encourage the President to 'unsign' the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty." The treaty was last signed by President Clinton, but was
never ratified by the Senate. This amendment would wipe away any
pretense at a freeze on testing at the Nevada Test Site. Please go
to our Action Alerts page http://www.shundahai.org/action_alerts.htm
for more information.
We will be following both of these issues closely.
Shundahai Network
http://www.shundahai.org
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone- 801.533.0128
Fax- 801.533.0129
shundahai @shundahai.org
Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet
If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and
Harmony with all Creation"
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
54 AP Wire: Nebraska village takes back nuke-waste dump land
06/22/2006 |
Associated Press
BUTTE, Neb. - The village of Butte has taken back the land once
set aside for a nuclear-waste dump that was never built but
became the focus of an expensive political battle.
"The transfer is complete at this point," Rita Houskie,
administrator of the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Commission, said Thursday.
Its remaining member states - Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana and
Oklahoma - agreed to return the 360 acres if Butte promised not
to hold the compact, the commissioners, their individual states,
U.S. Ecology and all their various lawyers or agents liable.
Nebraska had been a member.
At the commission's Feb. 24 meeting, commissioners gave the
village 60 days to accept the conditions or the commission would
have contractor U.S. Ecology sell the land and turn the money
over to the commission.
The land was valued at $330,000. On it, U.S. Ecology was
supposed to build a repository for low-level nuclear waste such
as tools from nuclear plants, needles from hospitals and
clothing from research labs. But the state of Nebraska never
approved a license for the dump.
On April 11, the village board signed a release, accepting the
conditions to regain title to the land.
"Butte hereby represents and states that it has not and will not
make any other claim or file any action or lawsuit arising from
or concerning the actions or failure to act of the released
parties related in any way to their attempt to license and
develop a disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste in
the state of Nebraska," the release said in part.
Last year, the village had asked commissioners for between $4
million and $5 million in compensation, though Mayor Cindy
Schroetlin said there was no way to know how much money the
village had lost during the 15-year fight.
Many businesses that supported the facility went under because
of boycotts prompted by the commission's decision to build in
the northern Nebraska village, she said. One belonged to her
husband, a longtime mayor of the town.
She also said Butte put $500,000 into expanding its water system
to prepare for the site.
The commissioners expressed sympathy but didn't act on Butte's
request.
A call to Schroetlin on Thursday was not immediately returned.
In 2002, a U.S. district judge ruled that then-Gov. Ben Nelson
engaged in a politically motivated and orchestrated plot to keep
the dump from being built in Nebraska.
The dump was an issue during Nelson's first campaign for
governor in 1990 and through his eight years in office ending in
1998, the same year the license was denied.
Last year, the state of Nebraska paid $145.8 million to the
commission to end the fight. Most the money was refunded to the
utilities that paid to build the dump. News | Business | Sports
*****************************************************************
55 AU ABC: Nuclear dump protesters take their case to Canberra
ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story
A delegation of protesters from Central Australia has met with
Parliamentarians in Canberra to discuss plans for a nuclear
waste dump in the Northern Territory.
The group includes activists and a traditional land owner of a
proposed nuclear dump site.
Beyond Nuclear Initiative campaigner, Nat Wasley, says the group
has met with the Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, the
Northern Territory Senator Nigel Scullion, and a delegation of
Labor Party MPs.
But Ms Wasley says the group still has not been able to meet
with the Minister for Science, Julie Bishop.
"Since the waste dump's been proposed the Minister for
Education, Science and Training Julie Bishop has been invited to
come out and sit with the communities living near the proposed
waste dump site, as have other Ministers, and they haven't yet
made the effort to come and sit down properly," Ms Wasley said.
"So we decided that we'd come across to Canberra and talk to
them here."
*****************************************************************
56 reviewjournal.com: Official: States should withhold money for Yucca
Jun. 22, 2006
Adviser to Maine governor says DOE has already broken nuclear
waste contracts
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- States that are growing frustrated over delays at
Yucca Mountain should consider withholding millions of dollars
that utility ratepayers contribute each year into the project's
construction fund, the safety adviser to the governor of Maine
said in a speech Wednesday to a nuclear waste conference.
The nuclear waste fund has now raised $28 billion but only about
$8 billion has been approved by Congress to be spent on the
repository project managed by the Department of Energy.
A bill that would change the accounting so that Congress might
find it easier to appropriate larger sums has been stalled.
In the meantime, states that draw electricity from nuclear power
plants are conveying consumer fees -- about $750 million a year
-- to the federal government for nuclear waste disposal.
Illinois has contributed $3.4 billion since the fund was
established in the early 1980s, and 11 other states have
contributed $1 billion or more, according to conference
participants.
"The states should withhold the money," said Charles Pray,
nuclear safety adviser to Maine Gov. John Baldacci.
Officials in Maine are seeking the removal of nuclear waste in
the form of 1,434 spent fuel assemblies stored at the
decommissioned Maine Yankee Atomic Power plant in Wicasset.
"There may be some legal stallers who say that can't be done,"
Pray said.
"Some utilities will say that would violate their contracts. But
the DOE has already broken contracts" by failing to have a waste
repository opened by an agreed upon 1998 date.
No new date has been set for repository operations.
Pray's speech opened a two-day meeting of the U.S. Transport
Council, a coalition of companies focused on nuclear waste
shipping issues.
Pray urged participants to step up lobbying Congress.
"It is a question of political will," Pray said.
"Congress has been insulated but if we can get them to focus on
this issue it would be surprising what could get done."
In a luncheon speech, Brew Barron, chief nuclear officer of Duke
Energy, which operates nuclear plants in North Carolina and South
Carolina, urged "patience and a sense of realism."
"There is understandable frustration amongst ratepayers and
regulators and utilities that have put a lot of money into the
waste fund, and there can be a tendency to say let's just get
(nuclear waste) off our sites," Barron said.
"But just moving it off the sites without creating certainty of
where the waste is going to go and how it is going to get there
is not success. We have to keep our eye on the ball."
"We are talking about isolating waste for thousands and
thousands of years," Barron said.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
57 NWTRB Calendar
[U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board]
NWTRB Calendar
Updated June 12, 2006
Agendas will be posted approximately 1 week prior to each
meeting.
Workshop on Localized Corrosion
September 25-26, 2006
Contact: Carl Di Bella
Topic: Localized Corrosion of Alloy 22 Location: Marriott
Suites
325 Convention Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV
Tel: 702-650-2000
Fall Board Meeting
September 27, 2006
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Longstreet Inn
HCR 70, Box 559
Amargosa Valley, NV
Tel: 775-372-1777
Winter Board Meeting
January 24, 2007
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Las Vegas, NV
Spring Board Meeting
May 15, 2007
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Washington, DC
Fall Board Meeting
September 19, 2007
Contact: TBD
Topic: TBD Location: Las Vegas, NV
*****************************************************************
58 LA Daily News: Water board overturns Boeing ruling
Article Launched: 06/22/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT
State votes 3-1 against pollution exemption
BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
In a move hailed by environmentalists and west San Fernando
Valley activists, state water officials Wednesday overturned a
controversial decision that had given the Santa Susana Field Lab
a break from complying with tough water-pollution rules.
The ruling was a blow to the lab owner, Boeing Co., which has
racked up water violations in recent years and hoped for a break
from more citations that could hurt the company's reputation and
its defense in citizen lawsuits and an ongoing grand jury
investigation.
The company had asked the state to temporarily freeze the
pollution limits until another hearing later this year or early
next year to determine whether the lab's water permit is too
strict.
But the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento was
not swayed and voted 3-1 to deny the temporary protection for
Boeing. The vote overrules an April decision by member Jerry
Secundy, who also supported the Boeing request Wednesday.
"This was a great victory for the public and a complete defeat
for Boeing," said lab watchdog Dan Hirsch with the Committee to
Bridge the Gap. "It overturned what could have been a horrendous
precedent asserting that pollution laws hurt the polluter ...
and therefore there should be no pollution limits."
Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company was disappointed with
the board's decision and now wants it to consider whether the
water permit is too tough before the fall.
"We don't want to be out of compliance as the next rainy season
comes through," he said.
At issue is Boeing's permit regulating storm and industrial
water running off the hilltop lab into neighboring creeks that
eventually drain into the Los Angeles River and Arroyo Simi.
Used for rocket engine testing and nuclear research since the
1940s, the lab has extensive contamination in the soil and
groundwater, prompting concern that heavy metal and chemicals
could move off site in surface water.
In 2004, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
adopted a tough new regulation that set strict limits on
pollutants flowing downhill.
Between July 2004 and November 2005, the lab received 71
violations for higher-than-allowed levels of mercury, dioxins
and other contaminants.
Boeing asked the L.A. board to relax the permit for four years
while the company developed a plan to prevent pollution from
moving off site.
The company has said the violations are random, sporadic and
likely the result of wildfires and naturally occurring levels of
metals.
"Surface water discharge from the site is really no different
from other undeveloped, open-space areas," Boeing attorney
Sharon Rubalcava told state water officials Wednesday.
However, local water regulators have said the tainted water
flows through backyards and play areas of the rapidly developing
west San Fernando Valley and Simi Valley.
In response, a Los Angeles grand jury began investigating the
lab's water pollution violations. The Ventura County District
Attorney's Office has also looked at possible prosecution for
water violations, although that investigation is on hold until
the state water board decides whether to uphold or change the
Boeing permit, said Gregory Brose, with the district attorney's
Consumer and Environmental Protection Unit.
kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com
(213) 978-0390
Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
59 BLET Convention Update: Delegates Warned of Radioactive Rail
Shipments
LAS VEGAS, June 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Delegates attending the BLET's
First Quadrennial Convention were warned of the dangers of
transporting spent nuclear waste and discussed ways of ensuring
their safety as well as the safety of the general public.
Scott Palmer, the BLET's Oregon State Legislative Board Chairman,
alerted the delegates about the serious threat of transporting
spent nuclear fuel by rail and the possible threat of radiation
poisoning.
Palmer, who has studied the issue in depth, advised the delegates
that rail workers do not receive proper training to handle spent
nuclear fuel and do not receive the same protections that are
afforded other nuclear industry workers. In addition, there are
no plans to record, monitor or track rail worker exposure levels.
"It's our goal to not only track but to lower exposure levels and
to keep them as low as possible," Palmer said. "Right now, no
carrier even has a program that will protect pregnant workers
from radiation. If you show up to work, you cannot turn down a
shipment of radioactive material. Rail is the way they're going
to move it."
The general public should be concerned as well, Palmer said.
"Right now, there are no requirements for safe parking areas,"
Palmer said. "Right now, these trains could be parked across from
elementary schools or hospitals."
The Department of Energy is embarking upon a 50 year shipment
plan to transport spent nuclear fuel, which will begin in the
next few years.
Palmer represents the BLET on a Department of Energy working
group to determine policies for shipping nuclear waste to Yucca
Mountain. The BLET is the only labor organization participating
in the group. Other participants include the DOE, Department of
Transportation, and the Association of American Railroads.
The BLET is a division of the Teamsters Rail Conference.
SOURCE Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)
Related links:
+ http://www.ble.org
Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely
responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and
conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.
Copyright 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved. A United Business Mediacompany.
*****************************************************************
60 Mos News: Russia, Kazakhstan Sign $1Bln Uranium Supply Contract
MOSNEWS.COM
Vladimir Putin (right) and Kazakh President Nursultan
Nazarbayev / Photo: AP
Created: 22.06.2006 11:18 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:18 MSK
Russian uranium export monopoly Tekhsnabexport and the
Russian-Kazakh-Kyrgyz uranium mining venture Zarechnoye signed a
contract on Thursday, June 22, which presupposes supplies of $1
billion worth of uranium between now and 2022. This information
was reported by the Interfax agency, which quoted a source in
the Russian company.
Zarechnoye, which mines the Zarechnoye uranium field in
Kazakhstan, is planning to produce the first batch of uranium in
the third quarter of 2006. Under the contract, the first
shipment of uranium will be dispatched to Russia in January 2007.
This is Russias first contract for the import of uranium and
Zarechnoye is Russias first joint uranium mining venture on the
territory of a foreign state.
The contract has been signed under the Russian and Kazakhstan
joint program on peaceful use of nuclear power, which provides
for the development of the Zarechnoye JV and for setting up a
number of uranium production ventures with Russian interests in
Kazakhstan.
It is expected that uranium production and Kazakhstans uranium
supply to Russia will increase by up to 6,000 tons a year.
Zarechnoye JV design capacity totals 1,000 tons of uranium a
year, which will be hit in 2009. Estimated deposited resources
at the field operator Zarechnoye JV totals 19,000 tons of
uranium.
The key owners are Tekhsnabexport and Kazatomprom, which hold
49.3 percent each. In addition, the Russian-based
Atompredemtzoloto and Kyrgyz Kara-Baltin each hold 0.7 percent.
The total investment of all participants into the joint venture
development totals $60 million.
The wholly state-owned Tekhsnabexport is Russias main exporter
of nuclear industry products and services and controls an
estimated 40 percent share of the global market for these
products and services.
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
61 UPI: Russia to import Kazakh uranium
United Press International - NewsTrack -
6/22/2006 7:57:00 AM -0400
MOSCOW, June 22 (UPI) -- Russia signed a $1 billion deal
Thursday with Kazakhstan to import uranium through a
joint-venture mining project.
Russia's Tekhsnabexport and the Russian-Kazakh-Kyrgyz uranium
mining venture Zarechnoye agreed to work together through 2022
on uranium mining, Interfax reported.
This is Russia's first contract for the import of uranium and is
expected to result in as much as 6,000 tons per year of Kazakh
uranium being exported to Russia.
Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
advertisement
*****************************************************************
62 Whitehaven News: Sellafield unions lobby Tony Blair
Published on 22/06/2006
SELLAFIELD union leaders were lobbying Prime Minister Tony Blair
this week.
GMB members working in the energy industry met the prime minister
after he addressed their union congress in Blackpool.The GMB
members who work at Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant used
the meeting to press their case for expanding and developing the
site to include new reactors the waste from which could be
reprocessed by the existing facilities. This would ensure the
continuation of the local economic prosperity and use and keep
the highly skilled workforce in employment.
Peter Kane, GMB Convenor at Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant
said, “GMB members working at Sellafield welcome the prime
minister opening up the debate for nuclear power to be part of a
balanced energy policy for the UK. We have unique skills at
Sellafield and a local community and economy which relies on the
employment provided by the site. It seems hugely sensible that if
new reactors are needed that they be built at Sellafield where
the reprocessing facility is already in place.”
Adrian Cirket, GMB senior shop steward, at British Energy in
Kent, said, “The energy workers that I represent support
nuclear power as part of a balanced energy policy which must
include renewables and clean coal technology. We also support our
British nuclear engineering skills base.
*****************************************************************
63 Whitehaven News: Manx oppose Thorp restart
Published on 22/06/2006
THE Isle of Man is opposing plans to reopen the Thorp nuclear
reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
British Nuclear Group (BNG) hopes to restart production this
summer.
The £1.8bn facility has been out of action since April 2005
when a leak was discovered. Over a thousand jobs depend on the
Thorp plant having a future.
The Isle of Man government has told the UK’s Department of
Constitutional Affairs that Thorp should not be allowed to
reopen. It says BNG’s report into the leak confirms its view
that operational safety is vulnerable to mechanical faults and
human error.
Manx environment minister, John Rimington, said: “Some of the
statements in this report really do undermine confidence in the
operational safety of Thorp. Metal fatigue and equipment
breakdown must occur to some extent in every industrial
activity. However, with Thorp, it seems too great a reliance has
been placed on rigorous checks on instruments and monitoring
equipment to keep the plant safe – there is always the
potential for human error.
“The risk of an accident is too great to justify the claimed
economic benefits of reprocessing at Sellafield.”
BNG says it is “very close” to finishing modifications to
the cell into which the radioactive liquid spilled.
These include an expensive and sophisticated camera surveillance
system to help prevent any recurrence but the state-owned
company will be allowed to re-start production only when the
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the board of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority – Sellafield’s approval.
*****************************************************************
64 Vets disarm American nuke
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:16:01 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0621-15.htm
-----------------------------
WMD found, disarmament begins
-----------------------------
LUCK, Wisconsin--June 21--A Roman Catholic priest and
two veterans went to a Minuteman III silo this morning
and began to disarm the nuclear weapon using hammers.
Reverend Carl Kabat, OMI, Gregory Boertje-Obed, and
Michael Walli entered the E-9 missile silo on the
Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation in North Dakota about
75 miles southwest of Minot. Using a sledgehammer and
household hammers, they disabled the lock on the
personnel entry hatch that provides access to the
warhead and they hammered on the silo lid that covers
the 300 kiloton nuclear warhead that is targeted and
ready to launch. The activists painted "It's a sin to
build a nuclear weapon" on the face of the 110-ton
hardened silo cover and the peace activists poured
their blood on the missile lid.
They were detained and arrested by McLean County
sheriffs and are being held in the McLean County jail.
The three have been charged with County Criminal
Trespass and Criminal Mischief.
Speaking from jail, Greg Boertje-Obed, from Duluth,
Minnesota, explained, "I believe Jesus led us to do
this witness based on his teachings of intervening for
the sake of the poor. These weapons are killing us and
the poor today. I believe this plowshares action is a
natural extension of our Catholic Worker mission which
is hospitality, providing for the needs of the poor,
and defending the poor."
Carl Kabat, OMI from St. Louis, Missouri, added, "We
now prepare for the nuclear bombing of Iran with the
reasoning that only weapons of mass destruction can
stop weapons of mass destruction. We bombed and
strafed in Iraq based on lies that the Iraqis
possessed nuclear weapons. We have the weapons here."
The Minuteman III missile is targeted and on alert for
launch. The missile is armed with a warhead that
carries 27 times the heat, blast, and radiation of the
bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945.
The activists say that they are following the
nonviolent Jesus, that they are taught by their faith
to love their enemies, and that the money used for
these weapons of mass destruction is a theft from the
poor and should be used for food, housing, medical
care, and rebuilding the infrastructure of our
country.
For press updates, more information, and images, go to
http://www.jonahhouse.org
*****************************************************************
65 [NYTr] US WMD - Activists Disarm US Nuke Warheads
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:03:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Common Dreams - Jun 21, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0621-15.htm
WMD Found - Disarmament Begins
LUCK, Wisconsin - June 21 - A Roman Catholic Priest and two Veterans
went to a Minuteman III silo this morning and began to disarm the
nuclear weapon using hammers.
Reverend Carl Kabat, OMI, Gregory Boertje-Obed, and Michael Walli
entered the E-9 missile silo on the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation
in North Dakota about 75 miles southwest of Minot. Using a
sledgehammer and household hammers, they disabled the lock on the
personnel entry hatch that provides access to the warhead and they
hammered on the silo lid that covers the 300 kiloton nuclear warhead
that is targeted and ready to launch. The activists painted "It's a
sin to build a nuclear weapon" on the face of the 110-ton hardened
silo cover and the peace activists poured their blood on the missile lid.
They were detained and arrested by McLean County Sheriffs and are
being held in the McLean County jail. The three have been charged
with County Criminal Trespass and Criminal Mischief.
Speaking from jail, Greg Boertje-Obed, from Duluth, Minnesota,
explained, "I believe Jesus led us to do this witness based on his
teachings of intervening for the sake of the poor. These weapons are
killing us and the poor today. I believe this plowshares action is a
natural extension of our Catholic Worker mission which is
hospitality, providing for the needs of the poor, and defending the
poor."
Carl Kabat, OMI from St. Louis , Missouri added, "We now prepare for
the nuclear bombing of Iran with the reasoning that only weapons of
mass destruction can stop weapons of mass destruction. We bombed and
strafed in Iraq based on lies that the Iraqi's possessed nuclear
weapons. We have the weapons here."
The Minuteman III missile is targeted and on alert for launch. The
missile is armed with a warhead that carries 27 times the heat, blast
and radiation of the bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima , Japan in
1945.
The activists say that they are following the nonviolent Jesus, that
they are taught by their faith to love their enemies, and that the
money used for these weapons of mass destruction is a theft from the
poor and should be used for food, housing, medical care and
rebuilding the infrastructure of our country.
For press updates, more information and images, go to
http://www.jonahhouse.org
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
66 Guardian Unlimited: Labour MPs demand vote on Trident
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Thursday June 22, 2006
Facing demands from nearly 100 Labour MPs for a full Commons
vote on whether to spend 25bn replacing Trident, Downing Street
today promised a white paper and a "proper debate" in due course.
The call for a vote came before Gordon Brown surprised MPs last
night by announcing in his Mansion House speech that he was
prepared to replace Britain's ageing nuclear deterrent.
His announcement caused an immediate backlash, with former
cabinet minister Clare Short saying it had cost Mr Brown her
support for his leadership bid. Other "old" Labour MPs may
follow suit.
Today the prime minister's official spokesman hinted that MPs
would get a vote on the issue, without committing the government
to anything specific.
"Decisions will be taken in due course and there will be a
proper debate," he said, adding: "The issue of the replacement
of Trident is one that the government will address in this
parliament.
"It is undoubtedly a difficult issue; it will undoubtedly lead
to proper debate and proper discussions. But the prime minister
believes we have to face up to these decisions in the interests
of the country."
With the Conservatives united in backing a replacement for the
submarine-based nuclear missile system, the government could win
any vote in parliament, but the position of the Liberal
Democrats remains unclear.
Last November, when still foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies
Campbell hedged his bets, saying any decision on a successor to
Trident "will depend on cost, treaty obligations, the strategic
environment and threat assessment".
A Yougov poll in February of this year found 55% of Lib Dem
members favoured replacing Trident, while 34% wanted Britain to
give up its nuclear deterrent.
The chancellor was warned by one of the party's largest donors
that his pledge to replace Trident would lose Labour the next
general election. Delegates at Unison's annual conference in
Bournemouth lined up to attack the idea of spending billions of
pounds on a new nuclear weapons.
The 1,700 delegates voted unanimously to oppose the replacement
of Trident and to call for the decommissioning of the existing
weapons system, and urged the government not to conclude any
agreements without a vote in Parliament.
Dave Prentis, general secretary of the second largest union
affiliated to the Labour party, warned Mr Brown earlier this
week not to "take for granted" the union's backing when Mr Blair
steps down.
This week at PMQs Mr Blair merely pledged a full public debate
on the issue, while stressing a decision needed to be taken on
whether to replace Trident by then end of this parliament, as
the submarine-based system becomes obsolete in 2024.
Today the Lib Dems called for the government to put out a white
paper putting forward all the possible alternatives and
scenarios to Trident.
A source said: "We see little evidence that a decision needs to
be made in this parliament."
This morning the leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, told MPs
that proposals on Trident would be put to parliament in the form
of a white paper, and "proper respect" would be shown to the
House of Commons, although he did not say whether there would be
a vote.
Former cabinet minister Michael Meacher tabled the motion
calling for a full parliamentary vote on Trident, which has been
signed by 122 MPs, including 93 from Labour.
As well as the "usual suspects" of the leftwing Campaign Group,
it includes new intake Labour MPs such as Emily Thornberry and
Mary Creagh, and Liberal Democrats such as Chris Huhne.
Speaking at lunchtime to the BBC, Ms Short - who resigned as
international development secretary in the aftermath of the Iraq
invasion - said it was "desperation" on Mr Brown's part to win
the backing of Blairites as the next leader.
"I think it's part of his desperation, that is sort of so
humiliating him, to prove to the Blairites that he's as
rightwing as Blair and that therefore they will keep their
promise to hand over to him.
"It's 'please, please, let me take over - I'll do anything you
say"'.
"And to just, in a Mansion House speech that's meant to be about
the economy, throw it away and say 'this is what we are going to
do' - I can't support that kind of leader, absolutely not."
"To do it in a speech without consultation is both the wrong
decision and it is disrespectful of any kind of democratic
process."
She added: "It means a lot people who were happy to see Brown
take over as leader will now think there's got to be a contest
and we're not willing to support him."
Speaking to the Lord Mayor's annual banquet in the Mansion
House, Mr Brown said the government would show "strength of
national purpose" in "protecting our security in this parliament
and the long term - strong in defence in fighting terrorism,
upholding Nato, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad,
and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent."
Although those words appear innocuous, journalists were briefed
that it meant commissioning a replacement to Trident rather than
Labour's manifesto pledge of merely keeping a nuclear deterrent
during the lifetime of this parliament.
Despite the chancellor's reference to "the long term",
Conservatives said the remark went no further than Labour's
manifesto for last year's general election, which committed the
party to retaining the deterrent for the length of this
parliament.
They dismissed Mr Brown's remark as "spin" and challenged him to
join them in pledging publicly to replace the Trident missiles
and the four submarines that carry them.
The shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, said: "This is just more
spin designed to cast Gordon Brown as a statesman.
"The chancellor is reheating an old pledge to retain the current
nuclear deterrent, but he is not committing to replacing the
independent nuclear deterrent when it reaches the end of its
current life."
He accused Mr Brown of trying to stifle a debate within the
Labour party and said: "It is not the responsibility of the
chancellor in an after-dinner speech to announce nuclear policy."
The Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Nick Harvey, was more
circumspect, attacking Mr Brown merely for pre-empting a debate.
He said: "Gordon Brown's posturing on Trident is smothering the
national debate that this government promised to the British
people.
"The British people deserve a comprehensive white paper and full
parliamentary scrutiny of a scheme that may cost up to 25bn to
replace."
Leading Labour left winger Alan Simpson denounced Mr Brown's
speech as "a pre-emptive strike on parliamentary democracy",
telling the BBC it was "bizarre" that the chancellor should
effectively announce his intentions to the City before MPs had a
chance to discuss the matter in the Commons.
At prime minister's questions yesterday, Mr Blair was challenged
by Labour backbencher Gordon Prentice to give MPs a vote on
Trident.
Mr Blair responded: "There should be the fullest possible debate
on this issue. I am sure there will be."
The full text of the motion signed up to by 122 MPs - but no
Conservatives - reads:
"That this house believes there should be the fullest possible
public debate on a decision to replace the Trident nuclear
weapons system; notes that a successor to Trident could cost as
much as 25bn, therefore affecting significantly other public
spending options; calls on the government to produce a green
paper on Trident replacement that considers all possible
options, including non-replacement; and further calls on the
government not to conclude any agreements, or to engage in
preparations to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, until
after this debate and a deciding vote held in parliament."
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament last night released details
of a poll suggesting that 81% of the public think the decision
on replacing Trident should be made in a vote by MPs, against
10% who thought it was a matter for the PM alone.
The CND chair, Kate Hudson, said: "We have been promised a full
public and parliamentary debate by Tony Blair, and Brown's
stance may pre-empt this debate. This issue is too serious to be
taken behind closed doors; the people's elected representatives
must decide.
"Nuclear weapons do not provide security and stability - on the
contrary, any replacement of Trident will lead to a new nuclear
arms race and increased global nuclear proliferation." The Green
party accused Mr Brown of breaking international law by signing
up for a replacement for Trident.
MEP Caroline Lucas, who is also a member of CND's national
council, said: "Replacing Trident will, according to lawyers,
put the UK in breach of our international legal commitment under
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"How on earth can we expect to persuade Iran - and other states
- to give up their nuclear ambitions and respect the NPT when we
refuse to do so ourselves?"
Have your say
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
67 Guardian Unlimited: What are the weapons for?
Comment
The decision to keep nuclear arms has already been taken but the
MoD won't own up
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday June 23, 2006 The Guardian
Downing Street yesterday promised to publish a white paper on the
future of Britain's nuclear weapons, to be followed by a "proper
debate" on the matter. Des Browne, the defence secretary, said
the government promised full transparency and the fullest
possible parliamentary debate on this hugely important issue
"when the time is right". However, he added, it was too early to
decide whether MPs would be allowed a vote. Thatwould "in part
depend on what decisions we actually take in the future".
Just how open the government is prepared to be is demonstrated in
the response by the Ministry of Defence to a series of requests
for help under the Freedom of Information Act from Dominick
Jenkins, a Greenpeace disarmament campaigner, last year. It has
refused to say what studies have been done on the costs involved
or even to say what nuclear weapons are for, arguing that it is
not in the public interest to publish its assessments about what
threats they could deter. Neither will it disclose the nature of
discussions with the US on nuclear-weapons policy.
Mr Jenkins challenged the refusal. The ministry promised to
announce the results of its internal review before April. It now
says it will do so next month.
In March the MoD refused to give evidence to the Commons defence
committee's inquiry into the future of Britain's nuclear
weapons. The ministry explained the refusal by saying that
"ministers are not engaged". It recently refused to tell MPs how
much money was being spent on new facilities at the Aldermaston
atomic weapons establishment on the grounds that it had yet to
come up with "mature costings".
Tony Blair, John Reid and now Gordon Brown have made it
abundantly clear that they are in favour of replacing the ageing
Trident system. Some people, including senior military officers,
would go along with it so long as it did not make a large hole
in their budget, which is already under serious pressure,
threatening existing conventional equipment programmes. But the
cost - up to 25bn over a decade - is not the main issue.
Much more important is the question of why we need a weapons
system that is not independent and which the government itself
admits will not deter what it says is by far the greatest threat
to the nation's security - namely, militant Islamist terrorism.
Britain relies on the US not only for the Trident missiles, but
also for the technology needed to make new nuclear warheads. A
case could be made that Britain would be more independent if it
abandoned nuclear weapons altogether.
Military chiefs see no practical, or credible, reason now for
Britain to possess nuclear weapons. The most they say is that
one day, perhaps in a decade's time, they could act as a
deterrent against some, as yet unknown, "rogue state".
But a decision has, in effect, already been made to keep nuclear
weapons. Scientists at Aldermaston are already working on a
project known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead. There are
plans to design single-warhead missiles with a lower radioactive
yield and greater accuracy. Would the government be prepared to
use small nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike against a
non-nuclear state?
A debate should address these questions. What are such weapons
for, and what is the message they give to nonnuclear countries?
The government seems intent on managing and politicising the
debate to suit its partisan interests. But it should not be
about being on the left or the right, or whether a minister and
Middle England still want "the bloody union jack on top of it",
as Ernest Bevin, the Labour foreign secretary, said in 1946. It
is much more serious than that.
Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor
richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk
Have your say
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
68 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant cost rises to $11.55 billion
Published Thursday, June 22nd, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
A new cost and schedule estimate for Hanford's vitrification
plant pushes back the start of operations until August 2019 and
puts the cost at $11.55 billion without the contractor's fee.
That's an additional 27 months and a little more than $1 billion
more than the previous estimate made in December 2005. The cost
also is more than double the March 2003 estimate of $5.5 billion
without the contractor's fee.
Although the new figure prepared by Bechtel National was
released Wednesday, the amount was known since information
leaked last week. Much of the latest increase is to build more
contingency into the budget at the recommendation of a team of
independent experts.
The previous estimate put the start of operations in 2017, long
after the legally mandated start date of 2011.
An 8-year delay until 2019 is unacceptable to Jay Manning, the
director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, said
department spokeswoman Joye Redfield-Wilder.
The state considers a lawsuit to enforce cleanup deadlines under
the legally binding Tri-Party Agreement a last resort. But it
has not ruled out legal action, she said.
The report prepared by Bechtel National looked at the cost and
schedule for building the plant based on spending caps of $690
million a year and took into account this year's reduced budget
of $490 million.
But it also included a rough estimate of cost and schedule if
funding for the plant increased to the range of $800 million to
$850 million from 2008 through 2010.
The increased annual funding would drop the total cost of the
project by $165 million to $210 million, the report said. It
also would allow it to be finished 16 to 19 months sooner.
"Each year funding slips, the project schedule slips even more
and it gets more expensive," Redfield-Wilder said.
Bechtel National was told to update its December 2005 estimate
to reflect the reduced budget of $490 million for the current
year. Although the new estimate is based on a return to $690
million annually during peak construction years, the budget
passed by the U.S. House for fiscal year 2007 puts spending for
the plant at $600 million. The Senate has yet to consider the
budget.
"We just don't know if there is going to be consistent funding,"
Redfield-Wilder said. But "without the treatment plant, we don't
get cleanup at Hanford."
The plant is planned to turn some of the worst radioactive waste
at Hanford, now held in underground tanks, into a stable glass
form for disposal. The waste is left from the past production of
plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program.
The schedule increased 27 months in part because six months of
contingency time were added.
It also takes into account a new policy to allow more time
between engineering and construction on the project. Building
has been done as parts of the design are completed to allow
waste to be removed from leak-prone underground tanks as soon as
possible.
The reduced budget also added to the delay, along with the
confirmation of other problems, according to the report.
It's the first nuclear treatment facility of its size and
complexity, and technical problems have come up during the
design. Bechtel described the plant as being "at the frontier of
science and engineering."
Project plans also underestimated the effects of the halt of
most nuclear construction in the United States in the last 30
years.
The plant "is a massive undertaking, comparable in scope to
simultaneous construction of two nuclear power plants," the
report said. "No nuclear facility of similar size has been built
in the United States in nearly three decades -- DOE and Bechtel
have had to rebuild a significantly atrophied nuclear industry
supply chain and train a new generation of employees to work to
nuclear standards."
Most of the cost increase from the last estimate in December is
to add contingency to the plant for "unknown unknowns," or
problems that cannot be predicted. For instance, in the past
Bechtel or DOE could not have predicted that Congress would
decrease funding because of hurricanes in the Gulf.
But it also includes increases because of the reduced budget for
the current year, new DOE orders on oversight of worker safety
and health and more money spent on training to prepare workers
to operate the plant.
Work that's deferred for several years can double or triple in
cost because of inflation, disruption and inefficiency, and
extending overhead costs of the project for several months, the
report said.
The new Bechtel estimate is based on an 80 percent confidence
level, said Erik Olds, spokesman for DOE at Hanford.
The next step will be to have the Army Corps of Engineers
validate the plan, he said. That could be completed by the end
of July, according to the report.
2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************