***************************************************************** 06/25/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.150 ***************************************************************** 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 [southnews] Warnings on Iraqi WMD 'Fabricator' were ignored 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Patience on Nuclear Incentives 3 IRNA: Turkey trying to settle Iran's nuclear case peacefully - Gul - 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Mum on Response to Incentives 5 New York Times: Wary of U.S., Syria and Iran Strengthen Ties - 6 IRNA: Steinmeier, Mottaki stress "constructive talks" over Iran's nu 7 IRNA: Nation's legal right to access nuclear technology non-negotiab 8 AFP: Japan will back US on Iran sanctions - FT 9 IRNA: US sending different messages to Iran - Asefi 10 AFP: IAEA studies enrichment compromise but US remains unimpressed - 11 AFP: Iran warns it may use oil as weapon if interests attacked - 12 AFP: Iran FM starts Berlin talks as West seeks answer on nuclear iss 13 IRNA: Asefi: Iran not willing to procure time 14 AFP: Iran stands firm on uranium enrichment 15 IRNA: Iran tries to remove West's concerns - Asefi 16 IRNA: Iran rejects reports on three-month enrichment suspension 17 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Considers Sanctions Against N.Korea 18 Guardian Unlimited: Japan: 'All Options' Open With N. Korea 19 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Gives No Hint on Missile Test 20 Guardian Unlimited: Sen. Calls for Direct Talks With N. Korea 21 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Calls to Keep Up Pressure on N. Korea 22 AFP: SKorea urges North to address nuclear, missile issues 23 AFP: Japan may sanction NKorea unilaterally in case of missile launc 24 AFP: Democrats seek to kick-start US approach to North Korea 25 AFP: Top US Republican urges direct US talks with North Korea - 26 Guardian Unlimited: Minister hints at nuclear vote 27 Guardian Unlimited: Why Gordon Brown decided it was the time to go n 28 London Times: MPs angry over nuclear secrecy - 29 London Times: The real cost of the nuclear option - Comment - 30 BBC ON THIS DAY | 24 | 1974: Labour rift over nuclear test 31 RIA Novosti: No need to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus - Lukashen 32 WorldNetDaily: Paris Accord – the sequel NUCLEAR REACTORS 33 RNZ: NZ to give $NZ500,000 to help close Russian nuclear reactor 34 US: APP.COM: New challenge to nuclear plant 35 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear industry is not clean 36 US: Rutland Herald: Yankee component questioned 37 US: BR: Testimony on Vermont Yankee's 'uprate' to be gathered at hea 38 TheStar.com: We can't afford nuclear 39 US: Dallas Morning News: The Nuclear Alternative: New plants could b 40 Pakistan News: Pak to again raise civil nuclear energy deal matter i 41 US: decatur daily: River order may hurt Farley Nuclear Plant 42 CanWest: Nuclear only way for Ontario, McGuinty says NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 43 MDN: Worker exposed to radiation at Aomori nuclear plant - 44 US: Hawk Eye: Democrats want health screening program expanded beyon NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 45 news.gov.hk: Low-level radioactive waste storage facility opens 46 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Dump Glance 47 US: Guardian Unlimited: Utah Tribe Divided Over Nuclear Waste 48 US: Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Grants License to N.M. Uranium Plant 49 London Times: US tycoon who got secret CBE in line for Sellafield co 50 AU ABC: Govt denies choosing nuclear waste site 51 US: Deseret News: N-waste bitterly divides Utah tribe 52 US: SF New Mexican: Feds grant rare license to N.M. uranium-enrichme 53 AFP: European consortium to build uranium enrichment plant in US PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 54 Santa Fe New Mexican: New director aims to take LANL forward 55 Tri-City Herald: Geologists take hard look at Columbia Basin formati 56 WWUB: Hanford Site tour mixes new with information from past 57 Albuquerque Tribune: Richardson is correct to question DOE's plan ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [southnews] Warnings on Iraqi WMD 'Fabricator' were ignored Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:55:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare. Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says By Joby Warrick Washington Post Sunday, June 25, 2006; A01 In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare. Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph. A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails." The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise. "We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I turn on the television and there it was, again." While the administration has repeatedly acknowledged intelligence failures over Iraqi weapons claims that led to war, new accounts by former insiders such as Drumheller shed light on one of the most spectacular failures of all: How U.S. intelligence agencies were eagerly drawn in by reports about a troubled defector's claims of secret germ factories in the Iraqi desert. The mobile labs were never found. Drumheller, who is writing a book about his experiences, described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in the days before the Powell speech. Other warnings came prior to President Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003. In the same speech that contained the now famous "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium, Bush spoke in far greater detail about mobile labs "designed to produce germ warfare agents." The warnings triggered debates within the CIA but ultimately made no visible impact at the top, current and former intelligence officials said. In briefing Powell before his U.N. speech, George Tenet, then the CIA director, personally vouched for the accuracy of the mobile-lab claim, according to participants in the briefing. Tenet now says he did not learn of the problems with Curveball until much later and that he received no warnings from Drumheller or anyone else. "No one mentioned Drumheller, or Curveball," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff at the time, said in an interview. "I didn't know the name Curveball until months afterward." Curveball's role in shaping U.S. declarations about Iraqi bioweapons capabilities was first described in a series of reports in the Los Angeles Times, and later in a March 2005 report by a presidential commission on U.S. intelligence failures regarding allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But Drumheller's first-hand accounts add new detail about the CIA's embrace of a source whose credibility was already unraveling. More than a year after Powell's speech, after an investigation that extended to three continents, the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels. But in the fall of 2002, Curveball was living the life of an important spy. A Baghdad native whose real name has never been released, he was residing in a safe house in Germany, where he had requested asylum three years earlier. In return for immigration permits for himself and his family, the Iraqi supplied Germany's foreign intelligence service with what appeared to be a rare insider's account of one of President Saddam Hussein's long-rumored WMD programs. Curveball described himself as a chemical engineer who had worked inside an unusual kind of laboratory, one that was built on a trailer bed and produced weapons for germ warfare. He furnished detailed, technically complex descriptions of mobile labs and even described an industrial accident that he said killed a dozen people. The German intelligence agency BND faithfully passed Curveball's stories to the Americans. Over time, the informant generated more than 100 intelligence reports on secret Iraqi weapons programs -- the only such reports from an informant claiming to have visited and worked in mobile labs. Other informants, also later discredited, had claimed indirect knowledge of mobile labs. In late 2002, the Bush administration began scouring intelligence files for reports of Iraqi weapons threats. Drumheller was asked to press a counterpart from a European intelligence agency for direct access to Curveball. Other officials confirmed that it was the German intelligence service. The German official declined but then offered a startlingly candid assessment, Drumheller recalled. "He said, 'I think the guy is a fabricator,' " Drumheller said, recounting the conversation with the official, whom he declined to name. "He said: 'We also think he has psychological problems. We could never validate his reports.' " When Drumheller relayed the warning to his superiors in October 2002, it sparked what he described as "a series of the most contentious meetings I've ever seen" in three decades of government work. Although no American had ever interviewed Curveball, analysts with the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control believed the informant's technical descriptions were too detailed to be fabrications. "People were cursing. These guys were absolutely, violently committed to it," Drumheller said. "They would say to us, 'You're not scientists, you don't understand.' " In January 2003, Drumheller received a new request from CIA headquarters to contact the German intelligence service about Curveball. This time, Drumheller recalled, the U.S. spy agency had three questions: Could a U.S. official refer to Curveball's mobile lab accounts in an upcoming political speech? Could the Germans guarantee that Curveball would stand by his account? Could German intelligence verify Curveball's claims? The reply from Berlin, as Drumheller recalls it, was less than encouraging: There are no guarantees. "They said, 'We have never been able to verify his claims,' " Drumheller recalled. "And that was all sent up to Tenet's office." When Drumheller listened to Bush's speech several days later, he was astonished to hear the mobile labs described in detail. "Boom, there it was," he said. A few days later, Drumheller was handed a draft of another key speech on Iraq: Powell's remarks to the U.N. Security Council accusing Hussein of reconstituting his WMD programs. This time, the speech included an obvious reference to Curveball -- an unnamed "chemical engineer" who worked in one of the labs -- as well as detailed drawings of mobile labs inspired by Curveball's descriptions. Drumheller said he called the office of John E. McLaughlin, then the CIA deputy director, and was told to come there immediately. Drumheller said he sat across from McLaughlin and an aide in a small conference room and spelled out his concerns. McLaughlin responded with alarm and said Curveball was "the only tangible source" for the mobile lab story, Drumheller recalled, adding that the deputy director promised to quickly investigate. Portions of Drumheller's account of his meetings with McLaughlin and Tenet appear in the final report of the Silberman-Robb commission, which was appointed by Bush to investigate prewar U.S. intelligence failures on Iraq's weapons programs. The report cites e-mails and interviews with other CIA officials who were aware of the meetings. In responding to questions about Drumheller, McLaughlin provided The Post with a copy of the statement he gave in response to the commission's report. The statement said he had no memories of the meeting with Drumheller and had no written documentation that the meeting took place. "If someone had made these doubts clear to me, I would not have permitted the reporting to be used in Secretary Powell's speech," McLaughlin said in the statement. In their briefings to Powell on Feb. 4, one day before the secretary's U.N. speech, Tenet and McLaughlin expressed nothing but confidence in the mobile-lab story, according to Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, who was present during the briefings. "Powell and I were both suspicious because there were no pictures of the mobile labs," Wilkerson said. The drawings were constructed from Curveball's accounts. But the CIA officials were persuasive. Wilkerson said the two men described the evidence on the mobile labs as exceptionally strong, based on multiple sources whose stories were independently corroborated. "They said: 'This is it, Mr. Secretary. You can't doubt this one,' " Wilkerson said. On the eve of the U.N. speech, Drumheller received a late-night phone call from Tenet, who said he was checking final details of the speech. Drumheller said he brought up the mobile labs. "I said: 'Hey, boss, you're not going to use that stuff in the speech . . . ? There are real problems with that,' " Drumheller said, recalling the conversation. Drumheller recalled that Tenet seemed distracted and tired and told him not to worry. The following day, Tenet was seated directly behind Powell at the U.N. Security Council as the secretary of state presented a detailed lecture and slide show about an Iraqi mobile biological weapons program. Tenet, responding to questions about Drumheller's accounts, provided to The Post a statement he had given in response to the Silberman-Robb Commission report in which he said he didn't learn of the problems with Curveball until much later. He did not recall talking to Drumheller about Curveball, and said it was "simply wrong" for anyone to imply that he knew about the problems with Curveball's credibility. "Nobody came forward to say there is a serious problem with Curveball or that we have been told by the foreign representative of the service handling him that there are worries that he is a 'fabricator,' " Tenet said in his statement. In late summer 2003, seven months after the U.N. speech, Tenet called Powell to say that the Curveball story had fallen apart, Wilkerson said. The call amounted to an admission that all of the CIA's claims Powell used in his speech about Iraqi weapons were wrong. "They had hung on for a long time, but finally Tenet called Powell to say, 'We don't have that one, either,' " Wilkerson recalled. "The mobile labs were the last thing to go." Staff researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report. ) 2006 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/ AR2006062401081_pf.html ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Patience on Nuclear Incentives From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 25, 2006 8:01 PM By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Sunday it was seriously considering incentives to halt its nuclear program and that the United States and other nations should be patient about getting a response. Meanwhile, the oil minister warned again that petroleum-rich Iran could disrupt the world's supply if the standoff led to open conflict. ``If the country's interests are attacked, we will use oil as a weapon,'' state television quoted Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh as saying. That would drive oil prices above $100 a barrel, he said. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters that specialized committees in key state agencies were studying the nuclear incentives offered June 6 by the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany. ``The package contains legal, political and economic dimensions. All its dimensions have to be studied,'' Asefi said. ``We recommend to Europeans that accuracy should not be sacrificed for the sake of speed.'' Asefi said the package required careful study before Tehran delivered its formal response. ``The reason that there can't be a speedy response is that we have to hold serious discussions on the contents,'' he told a press conference. ``We are taking it seriously.'' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran would take until mid-August to respond to the incentives package, prompting President Bush to accuse Tehran of dragging its feet. Although details have not been made public, diplomats familiar with its contents have said the offer includes economic incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal calls for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment - which can produce peaceful reactor fuel or fissile bomb material - during negotiations. It calls for a long-term moratorium on enrichment until the international community is convinced that Tehran's nuclear aims are peaceful. Iran says it only wants to generate nuclear energy. Iran has said it will not give up enrichment but indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions. Asefi said dialogue was the only way to deal with Iran's nuclear program, but he rejected the precondition that Iran halt enrichment before talks start. ``We think dialogue is the only way. Setting preconditions doesn't help at all ... It's not logical,'' Asefi said. Turkey's top diplomat arrived in Tehran late Saturday for meetings on the standoff. Germany and Iran's foreign ministers said Saturday that they agreed that Iran would meet again with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to go over the incentive offer. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he expected the first meeting ``in the next week.'' Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter and the second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The Islamic republic exports about 2.5 million barrels a day. This was the second time in a month that Iran threatened to disrupt the world's oil supply if Tehran is punished over its nuclear program. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also said the United States and its allies would be unable to secure oil shipments passing out of the Persian Gulf through the strategic Strait of Hormuz to the world markets. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: Turkey trying to settle Iran's nuclear case peacefully - Gul - Tehran, June 25, IRNA Turkey-Iran-Nuclear Visiting Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said here on Sunday that his country was trying to resolve Iran's nuclear case through peaceful channels. Gul made the remark at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki after their meeting here. Peaceful settlement of Iran's nuclear case would be in favor of the region and the whole world, Gul said. He added that a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case would be effective in easing tension in the world, saying Turkey feels itself duty-bound to materialize this. He put emphasis on precision in principles and ways to resolve Iran's nuclear case and added the Islamic Republic of Iran is currently studying a package of incentives offered to it by Group 5+1. A package of incentives was offered to Tehran early this month by the 5+1 Group composed of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain) plus Germany to convince it to give up all its uranium enrichment-related activities and resume talks to settle the dispute over its nuclear program. The Turkish minister expressed confidence Iran's case would be settled peacefully in an atmosphere of goodwill. Pointing to the two countries' common interests, he said the two sides would adopt strategies to further promote their cooperation. Mottaki, for his part, assessed as "good" talks with his Turkish counterpart, saying, "Gul carries message of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." The Turkish foreign minister is to hold talks with President Ahmadinejad within the next few hours. Mottaki said during his talks with Gul, the two sides discussed Tehran-Ankara cooperation, adding, "The volume of bilateral trade and economic cooperation at common borders hits more than 4.5 billion dollars excluding the figures related to tourism and transit of goods." He expressed hope Iran and Turkey would take new steps to promote economic cooperation, pave the way for Turkish firms' stronger presence and engage in joint cooperation in other states including the Central Asian countries. "Talks between the two foreign ministers were held based on meetings held among senior officials of Iran and Turkey in Baku and Bali who had stressed the importance of continuing exchange of views. Such consultations will continue in the future. "The meeting was an opportunity to exchange view on regional developments, Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and an upcoming meeting of foreign ministers of Iraq's neighboring states (to be held in Tehran). We invited Turkey to take part in the meeting," Mottaki added. He praised support of member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for Iran's legal and inalienable right to gain access to nuclear technology, in a final statement issued at the end of a recent meeting of the OIC foreign ministers in Baku. ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Mum on Response to Incentives From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 24, 2006 4:46 PM By DAVID RISING Associated Press Writer BERLIN (AP) - Iran's foreign minister said he had ``constructive talks'' with his German counterpart Saturday but gave no indication of when Tehran would respond to international incentives to halt its nuclear program. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after meeting with Manouchehr Mottaki that Iran and the international community ``are at a decisive phase: either the conflict goes on or we seize the chance and the way to comprehensive cooperation with Iran.'' He added that he expected Iran's answer on the international incentives ``as soon as possible.'' Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country would take until mid-August to respond to the proposal by the United States, Germany and four other nations. President Bush has accused Iran of dragging its feet. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said after meeting Mottaki this week that he believed Iran's answer could come after a meeting of the world's eight industrialized democracies ends July 17. Mottaki did not elaborate on the timeline at the press conference, where no questions were allowed, saying only that ``immediately after the review of this offer we will let our European partners know.'' Mottaki said Iran saw ``positive points'' but also had ``questions'' about incentives offered to Tehran in a bid to persuade it to give up enriching uranium, a process that can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. ``We had constructive talks,'' Mottaki said. ``The offer package is at the moment being reviewed by Iran. We see positive points in the package and parallel to that there are also things that are unclear and we will have questions about that.'' Mottaki and Steinmeier agreed that Iran would meet again with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to go over the offer. Steinmeier said he expected the first meeting ``in the next week.'' The offer by the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members and Germany seeks to persuade Iran to suspend uranium enrichment in return for incentives, including a U.S. offer to provide Iran with peaceful nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations with Tehran. The United States and its allies suspect that Iran's nuclear enrichment activities are a cover for a weapons program. Iran insists its nuclear program is meant to generate electricity. In response to Steinmeier's assertion that Iran risked isolation if it did not return to the negotiating table, Mottaki suggested Tehran had the support of Muslim nations and, therefore, there will be ``no isolation for the Islamic Republic of Iran.'' ``The opinions of other countries are of course important, but in the end it comes down to you,'' Steinmeier replied. Security for the meeting was extremely tight, with journalists made to meet hours in advance at the Foreign Ministry for checks, then bused to the villa in an upscale neighborhood in the capital. Police kept away some 30 Iranian dissidents from the National Council of Resistance of Iran who were protesting the visit, but their chants of ``No talks with the mullahs!'' and ``Mottaki must go!'' were heard in the back garden where the press conference was held. One of their banners read: ``No nukes for the mullahs.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 5 New York Times: Wary of U.S., Syria and Iran Strengthen Ties - By MICHAEL SLACKMANPublished: June 25, 2006 SAYEDA ZEINAB, Syria, June 24 — For a long time, the top-selling poster in Hassan al-Sheikh's gift shop here showed President Bashar al-Assadof Syria seated beside the leader of Hezbollahin Lebanon. A few weeks ago a slightly different poster overtook it, this one with the Syrian president, the Hezbollah leader and Iran'spresident, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times A poster in Syria, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, left, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah. Mr. Sheikh's shop is on a bustling street in Sayeda Zeinab beside the entrance to a Shiite shrine that shares a name with the town, and both have been packed with Iranian pilgrims, many more than in years past. Those changes illustrate what may well be a worrying phenomenon for Washington as it seeks to contain Iran and isolate Syria: the two governments, and their people, are tightening relations on several fronts as power in the region shifts away from the once dominant Sunni to Shiites, led by Iran. This is, in part, the result of the American installation of a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Husseinand his Sunni-led government. But it is also spurred by the growing belief in Arab capitals that the Bush administration may soon negotiate a deal with Tehran over Iraq and nuclear weapons. Arab governments once hostile to Iran have begun to soften their public posture after decades of animosity toward Tehran. President Hosni Mubarakof Egypt met Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, in Cairo recently, and Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, visited Tehran this month and declared the two nations to be good friends. In addition, Iranian officials recently sent messages of friendship to every Persian Gulf state. Amid all that activity, Syria has managed to inflate its power in the region by playing a subtle double game and setting itself up as a possible go-between. On one hand, it is offering Iran the chance to develop a strong and unified crescent of influence extending from Syria to the Palestinian territories, now led by Hamas, a Syrian and Iranian ally. On the other, Syria, which has a secular-oriented government but is made up of different religious sects and ethnic groups, has held itself out as an important player in the Sunni effort to limit the spread of Shiite influence. That has helped it with Arab countries and has attracted investment from the around the gulf, diplomats and political analysts in Syria said. "Syria will work to use its role as a pivotal point to get the most from both the Arabs and Iranians," said Ayman Abdel Nour, a political analyst and Baath Party member who works for more political freedoms. Syria's strategy has helped it win crucial support at a time when it is cut off from the United States and Europe. But political analysts and government officials say it is also a risky strategy, one that could weaken Syria if Iran cuts a deal with the West over its nuclear program — and abandons its ally in Damascus. "Syrian officials are worried about America making a deal with Iran," said Marwan Kabalan, a political science professor at Damascus University. "Syrians fear that Iranians will use them as a card to buy something from America." At the same time, Iran's efforts to bolster Shiism in parts of Syria come as the government here is confronted by the rise of radical Islamic ideas that many say are being exported from the gulf region. Though relations with Iran are widely perceived as a political alliance rather than a religious one, the confluence of the two forces could aggravate sectarian rivalries. Tensions among Syria's many religious and ethic groups burn so hot beneath the surface of the society that newspapers are forbidden from identifying sects even when reporting on Iraq. Syria and Iran began establishing closer ties decades ago, but the real strides have been recent. Syria has signed expanded military and economic agreements with Tehran covering everything from telecommunications projects to higher education. Syria will buy missiles from Iran. Iran will build cement and car plants in Syria. At the same time, Arab nations that have been cool to Syria are now reaching out to it. Syria received the king of Bahrain this month, he met Thursday with Mr. Mubarak, and this week President Assad held a telephone conference with King Abdullah IIof Jordan. Relations between Amman and Damascus became strained when Jordanian officials accused Syria of allowing Hamas to smuggle weapons across Syrian territory and into Jordan — charges Syria has denied. "Iran injected Syria with a lot of confidence: stand up, show defiance," said Sami Moubayed, a political analyst and writer in Damascus. "Iran is giving them advice. This is certain." European diplomats here said that Syria's turn away from the West — and toward Iran and other Eastern countries — had also been part of a domestic power struggle between two forces within the government. Those who favored at least trying to keep a foot in the door with Europe have been silenced, and those seeking to shift Syria toward the East have been empowered, said the diplomats who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid aggravating tensions between their governments and Damascus. When Hafez al-Assad, the former Syrian president, forged ties with Iran decades ago, his government had the upper hand. Iran had recently gone through a revolution that ousted the shah and installed a religious system that was only just finding its footing. Then Saddam Hussein's military invaded, and Iran was grateful that with Syria's support, Mr. Hussein was unable to define his war as a battle of Arabs versus Persians, Shiites versus Sunnis. While Syria offered Iran strategic support, Iran repaid Syria with economic aid like cheap oil. At the same time, the two shared an interest in building up Hezbollah, the militia group considered a terrorist organization by the United States and a resistance force by the Lebanese. Today the relationship is fundamentally different, with Iran holding the dominant position as its strength in the region, and the world, is elevated and Syria's is compromised. "Iran in the last few years became stronger and Syria became weaker," said Dr. Samir al-Taqi, a health adviser to the Syrian government and the director of a research institute focused on international affairs. "Now everyone is asking what Iran will do if it cuts a deal with America." Iran's ambassador to Syria, Muhammad Hassan Akhtari, who served as chief of staff for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, for seven years, said in an interview that Syrians had been assured that Iran would not accept any compromise with the West if it was "against the interest of Syria." He also said that over the past 27 years, since the earliest days of the revolution, Iran had the opportunity to make a deal and "did not sell out its friends." "Now that Iran is stronger," he added, "why would it sell out its friends, and sell out Syria?" The risks also involve domestic affairs as Syria struggles against an increase in religious identification, particularly among Sunnis, and signs that the most radical interpretations of Islam have begun to spread in Syria. That fight goes back to Hafez al-Assad's reign, when he sent the army to wipe out the city of Hama, where the Muslim Brotherhood had started an uprising. Recently, Bashar al-Assad's government reported killing a small group of Islamic terrorists planning to attack a government building in the center of Damascus. All of this could present a challenge for a government controlled by a religious minority - the Alawites - and a political party that identifies itself as secular, the Baath Party. "Our situation is so difficult now in the Islamic street," said Muhammad Habash, a Syrian lawmaker and the director of the liberal-leaning Islamic Studies Center in Damascus. "Foreign influences, by which I mean mainly Saudi influences, or Wahhabi influences, are creating dangerous discussions in this region." Those forces promote the idea that Shiites are not proper Muslims - and in some cases declare them to be apostates. For the moment, though, many people say that Iran's opposition to the West and its long ties to Syria generally have broad support here. "The three are practically the only ones challenging the United States," said the shopkeeper selling posters of Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Assad and the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. "That's why we put them in a picture together. They are the only ones who say no." But the influx of religious pilgrims in Syria - some estimates exceed a million a year - and the Iranian investment in Shiite shrines in the north, could increase tensions. Still, the prospect of inflaming sectarian tensions is, for now, a distant threat compared with the immediate benefits of Syria's Iran policy. "At the beginning of his term, the president tried to make contacts with the Western world," said Intisar Junis, a Syrian television anchor. "I can't imagine that he is a real friend to Iran, but now he has no choice. Europe and the U.S. forced his choice; they closed all the other doors to him." Katherine Zoepf contributed reporting from Damascus, Syria, for this article. Copyright 2006The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: Steinmeier, Mottaki stress "constructive talks" over Iran's nuclear program - Berlin, June 25, IRNA Germany-Iran-Mottaki German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki stressed "constructive talks" over Iran's nuclear program following their meeting in Berlin on Saturday. "We discussed the most important international foreign policy issue which is Iran's nuclear program. We had constructive talks," said Steinmeier during a joint press briefing with Mottaki at the government guest house in the upscale Berlin neighborhood of Dahlem. The Iranian minister echoed Steinmeier's statements by saying, "We discussed the most important regional issues and Iran's peaceful nuclear issue. I agree with the German foreign minister that these talks were constructive." "Today was also a good opportunity to exchange views on bilateral ties and ways of further promotion of German-Iranian relations and cooperation," he added. Mottaki assured the German side that the '3 plus 3' (5+1) package is being "evaluated seriously and thoroughly". "We see some positive aspects in the 3 plus 3 package. That, notwithstanding, we have questions and ambiguities. We will inform our European friends of our stance once the package has been reviewed by us," said the Iranian diplomat. Mottaki welcomed also Steinmeier's suggestion to continue talks between Iran and the other six countries until Tehran declares its position on the 3 plus 3 package. "This can help remove some of the ambiguities which are in the package. We both are of the opinion that a positive atmosphere has been created," he added. The Iranian official reiterated that any diplomatic solution should ensure the rights of all parties and promote also the strengthening of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Mottaki who is currently visiting Germany as part of a European tour, rejected once again any pre-conditions for talks with the six countries. Meanwhile Steinmeier expressed hope that a permanent solution can be achieved in Iran's nuclear case. He also urged Tehran to suspend enrichment activities in an effort to resume nuclear talks. ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: Nation's legal right to access nuclear technology non-negotiable Tehran, June 24, IRNA Iran-Press-Nuclear The morning daily, Jomhouri Eslami, in its editorial on Saturday, titled "Red Line", said that support for Iran's right to access nuclear technology assumes a new dimension every day. The editorial said that in addition to the 116 members states of the Non-Aligned Movement, which unanimously expressed support for Iran's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the foreign ministers of OIC member states in their statement issued in Baku last week declared their opposition to any preconditions for holding talks with Iran on its nuclear issue. "The OIC foreign ministers statement underlined that the nuclear talks should resume without any preconditions. "Meanwhile, it reiterated the need to make the Middle East region free from nuclear weapons and inspect the Zionist regime's nuclear installations by the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA)," it added. In its editorial, the daily said that the Iranian officials should not give in to the US threats and that they should keep calling for the nation's legal right to uranium enrichment and development of nuclear technology. "The US has no right to set any preconditions for us. Neither does it have the right to set a deadline and framework for us. Rather we are the one who should set conditions for talks with any country. "Our preconditions are that prior to any talk on the issue, the negotiators should accept that the complete nuclear technology including industrial enrichment and even development of nuclear technology is non-negotiable. Besides, the legal right of the Iranian nation can never be negotiated, because it is the red line," it added. The editorial urged that the Iranian officials should not violate the nation's legal right, given that crossing the red line means trampling upon the nation's interests. Another morning daily, Sedaye Edalat, wrote in its column of the day that while Europe had earlier said that it expected Iran to respond to its proposed package of incentives by mid-July, Iran has said that the response will be announced on August 22. "The Western states once more said that if Iran rejects Europe's proposal, the US will bring up the issue at the G8 heads of state summit before mid-July and will attempt to impose sanctions against Iran. "Earlier, President George W. Bush had said that Iran should respond within a few weeks, not a few months," said the article. The daily referred to remarks by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi, that Europe has set any deadline for responding to its proposal. It added, "Iran is not expected to offer a substitute proposal. The evidences show that Iranian officials believe that the US is not in a position to damage Iran. The daily said that the G8 heads of states summit scheduled to be held in the Russian city of Petersburg, had earlier been specified as the deadline for Iran's response to the proposal. "However, immediately after the remarks of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran will respond to the received proposal on August 22, Bush said that waiting for a response for such a long time is inconvenient. "The US president believes that the Iranian officials do not need such a long time to analyze the issue to decide what is rational," concluded the daily. 2326/2322/1412 ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Japan will back US on Iran sanctions - FT Sat Jun 24, 3:45 AM ET HONG KONG (AFP) - Japan has told the United States it is prepared to freeze Iranian bank accounts as part of a US-led plan to impose sanctions on Iran" /> Iranover its nuclear programme, a newspaper reports. The Financial Times said officials had told the paper that Japan would support the sanctions if Iran did not suspend uranium enrichment and accept a package of incentives from the international community. "Japanese officials were reluctant to be pinned down on the timing or trigger for any possible move," the report said. But it cited one unnamed official saying that Japan could use its foreign exchange powers to freeze foreign assets in an emergency. The paper said Japan expected Iran to respond by suspending loan repayments to Tokyo but was "betting" that the Islamic republic would not cut off supplies of oil. The five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany have offered Iran a package of incentives and multilateral talks if it agrees to halt uranium enrichment. That work is at the centre of fears the hardline regime could acquire nuclear weapons, though Tehran insists it is only to provide fuel for nuclear energy. US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushhas warned of UN Security Council action, which could mean sanctions, if Iran does not comply. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: US sending different messages to Iran - Asefi , June 25, IRNA -- Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday that the US was sending different messages to Iran which showed there was no unanimity of views among American officials Asefi made the remark while speaking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press conference in response to a question on US officials' allegations that Iran was sending confusing messages. "Our messages were transparent. The US should abandon measures which may lead to pessimism," he said. He added, "Iran's message has been transparent from the beginning. We are willing to settle the (nuclear) case through negotiations." The Foreign Ministry spokesman recommended Washington "to let negotiations go through its natural course." He stressed, "Iran will not back down from its stance under pressure. A review over previous talks proves this reality. "Resorting to such tools as the United Nations Security Council had no impact on Iran's decision-making in the past. Currently, embarking on violent literature will not be effective and useful." Asefi called on the US officials to pay attention to the issue. A reporter asked about Asefi's view on an interview of Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani with the `Guardian' newspaper which quoted him as saying there was nothing wrong with with holding telephone conversation with the US (officials). The spokesman quoted Larijani as saying, "Our problem with the US is not emotional rather it is rational and logical. "If the US changes its behavior and calls us, we will talk." Meanwhile, Asefi rejected a news report on killing of three Iranian citizens in Iraqi city of Diala, saying, "No Iranian has been killed in Diala." ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: IAEA studies enrichment compromise but US remains unimpressed - by Michael Adler Sun Jun 25, 4:37 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - The United States remains convinced Iran" /> Iranshould not be allowed to do any uranium enrichment work, after asking the UN nuclear agency for a technical assessment, diplomats said this weekend commenting on a confidential agency document obtained by AFP. The one-and-half page unofficial text supplied to Washington by International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencychief Mohamed ElBaradei gives the IAEA's assessment that even reduced enrichment work would help Iran move towards "successful long-term sustained centrifuge operation", which is needed to make enriched uranium that can be used for nuclear power reactor fuel or nuclear bomb material. The revelation of the document, which was drawn up in late May, comes as world powers await Iran's response to an offer of talks about its nuclear programme, which has raised fears Tehran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. The talks, which offer trade and other benefits in return for Iran guaranteeing its nuclear program is peaceful, can only start if Iran suspends uranium enrichment. On Sunday, Iran reiterated its stand against preconditions to launch talks, as Tehran says it has a right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make nuclear reactor fuel for what it insists is a peaceful program to generate electricity. "The suspension of enrichment is one step backward," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Instead of setting preconditions that are both unreasonable and baseless, we should negotiate." Diplomats say a compromise over enrichment will have to be found if the talks are to begin. One diplomat close to the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog said it makes no sense to torpedo talks because of small-scale enrichment work Iran is already doing and which is not yet a proliferation risk. "The United States will push very hard until the last minute in the hope of getting the Iranians to give in but at the end of the day they will accept some form of enrichment activity" in order to get talks started, said the diplomat, who requested anonymity. The oft-repeated US position, however, is that not one centrifuge should be spinning as this could give Iran "break-out" knowledge to make nuclear weapons. Among the compromises being considered are letting Iran use the centrifuge machines which enrich uranium, but empty of the uranium hexafluoride (UF6) feedstock gas that is refined into a more concentrated form of the isotope U-235. It was to analyze this possibility that the US National Security Council asked ElBaradei for an assessment when he visited Washington just ahead of a meeting of six world powers in Vienna on June 1, a Western diplomat told AFP. Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States defined their proposal at that meeting, which was then presented to Iran on June 6. ElBaradei was asked three questions, according to the document: -- "If centrifuges were left to spin in vacuum, i.e. without introduction of UF6, how much would be learnt." -- "What R and D (research and development) could be linked to the fuel cycle but not involve enrichment and reprocesssing?" -- What kind of inspection regime ("Protocol Plus") would we need to ensure effective verification in the country?" A Western diplomat said the answer was that Iran could still learn much from even activities short of actually enriching uranium and that this "helped the United States, Britain and France argue persuasively in favor of full suspension as a precondition." The IAEA said Iran could learn from spinning centrifuges empty such key information as the "life expectancy ... of key mechanical components" and data "needed for the development of more advanced centrifuge systems." A second Western diplomat stressed that "the question that was posed to Elbaradei in Washington was merely a technical question and in no way indicated any change in position or any intention to change position" by the United States. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: Iran warns it may use oil as weapon if interests attacked - Sun Jun 25, 7:03 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's oil minister has warned that the country would use oil as a weapon if its interests are attacked. "If the country's interests are attacked, we will use all our capabilities and oil is one of them," Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said on Saturday, the television reported Sunday. Iran is currently locked in a standoff with the international community over its nuclear program, facing the threat of sanctions if it does not accept a US-backed offer and halt sensitive nuclear work. Vaziri-Hamaneh warned about impact any sanctions on Iran would have in the oil market, saying the price of crude, currently around 70 dollars a barrel, risked going up to 100 dollars. "The world needs energy and understands the affect of oil sanctions against Iran on the market and no-one will make such an unreasonable decision," he added. The West fears Iran, which is OPEC" /> OPEC's number two oil exporter, is secretly trying to build nuclear weapons, a charge denied by Tehran which insists its atomic program is purely for electricity-generation. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Iran FM starts Berlin talks as West seeks answer on nuclear issue - June 24, 10:21 PM BERLIN (AFP) - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has begun talks with his German counterpart amid mounting suspense over Tehran's response to an incentive package offered if it stops enriching uranium. Mottaki met with Frank-Walter Steinmeier at about 1030 GMT in a government guest house in the posh southern suburb of Dahlem as planned and not at his ministry in central Berlin, a spokeswoman confirmed Saturday. They are to make short statements to the press after their encounter. The meeting comes as Iran weighs its reply to a package offered by the five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany to resolve the dispute over its disputed nuclear program peacefully. The proposal promises incentives and multilateral talks if Iran agrees to temporarily halt the uranium enrichment that is at the heart of fears the hardline regime could develop nuclear weapons. Tehran insists the work is only to provide fuel for nuclear energy. Diplomats say Tehran was asked to answer by June 29, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday the Islamic republic would take until August 22 to answer. Javad Vaidi, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Friday that suspending uranium enrichment will be neither a pre-condition for talks with the world powers on its nuclear activities nor an outcome of those discussions. "Iran considers that suspension is neither a pre-condition to nor the result of negotiations," Vaidi told AFP. The foreign policy spokesman from German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, Ruprecht Polenz, said that the West was not demanding a permanent suspension of uranium enrichment. "One could imagine a period of 10 to 15 years," he said Saturday, adding that Iran should use that time to demonstrate to the world that it is a constructive partner for peace in the region. The Berlin talks could help lay the groundwork for a meeting next week between Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who handed Tehran the world powers' proposal June 6. Germany is part of the so-called EU-3 along with Britain and France which has been working for more than two years to try to resolve the crisis with Iran and most recently, foster a consensus on the issue with the United States, China and Russia. Berlin has long-standing diplomatic relations and strong economic ties with Iran, which diplomats say has given it a key role in the negotiations. Germany's large Iranian exile community called a demonstration Saturday against Mottaki, who is on a European tour. Two football World Cup matches by the Iranian football team were met by protests by Jewish groups in Germany over Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel. The players left Germany Friday after taking last place in Group D. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 13 IRNA: Asefi: Iran not willing to procure time , June 25, IRNA -- Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday that Iran does not intend to procure time. Speaking to domestic and foreign media in this week's briefing session, he said that just two weeks have passed since Europe's proposal was submitted to Iran. "Besides, given that Europeans themselves have said that their offered package of incentives is comprehensive and attractive, it takes time to assess its various dimensions and respond to Europe. In response to a question whether Iran will ignore the deadline set for it to respond to the received proposal before the D8 summit, he said that no such offer has been received and dismissed associating the issue with the summit. "Procuring time is not on our agenda. Several committees are working on Europe's proposal and whenever we come up with a decision it will be declared," he added. Concerning the time Iran's response is expected to be declared, Asefi said that no exact date has been specified, rather it has been said that it will be declared within the second month of summer. "Iran does not wish to make a rush decision. This should be appreciated by Europe, given that Iran intends to pursue the matter accurately, examine it thoroughly and respond properly," he added. Asefi hoped that the paths selected to hold talks with other parties will not be overlooked. Replying to another question about Iran's response to the received proposal he said, "We will decide based on our national interests. "There are two sides to this equation. One is Europe's approach and the other is Iran's interests. We should attempt to bridge the two sides." Stressing that Iran will not sacrifice its national interests for anything, the Foreign Ministry spokesman said that at the same time, efforts will be made to eliminate the cause for Europe's anxieties over the issue through the response to be given to the West. "One thing is definite. All the future measures by Iran and and its response will center on its national interests and the public will," he added. About the way Iran can put an end to their concerns, Asefi said that given they are worried that Iran may develop nuclear weapons, we are prepared to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the country's nuclear installations 2,000 times. "Such anxiety has been brought up not by Europe, but only a few European countries have such concerns. After all, is Iran the only country having such a situation? There are 46 other states of similar status, which are not mentioned at all. "Even many European countries have a similar condition. Why should they lose their confidence in Iran, when 46 countries have a similar status? "If Iran's nuclear issue is not political, but a legal question, it will be possible to end the worries of the parties involved in the case and find a solution," said Asefi. ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: Iran stands firm on uranium enrichment June 25, 09:37 PM TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has repeated that it will not suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for talks on its disputed nuclear program. "The suspension of enrichment is one step backward. We think Europe should negotiate without preconditions... which only cloud the negotiating atmosphere," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. "Instead of setting preconditions that are both unreasonable and baseless, we should negotiate," he added Sunday. On June 6 Iran was presented with an international proposal promising incentives and multilateral talks if it agrees to temporarily halt uranium enrichment activities -- at the heart of fears the hardline regime could develop nuclear weapons. Iran's nuclear negotiators insist that the work is to provide fuel for nuclear energy only, and that Tehran will not call a halt to it. On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Berlin Tehran was "very seriously studying" the package offered by the five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany to resolve the crisis over its nuclear ambitions peacefully. Speaking after meeting his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Mottaki said he saw "very positive points" in the proposal but also "ambiguities". Germany is part of the so-called EU-3 along with Britain and France which has been working for more than two years to try to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis and, most recently, broker consensus on the issue with the US, China and Russia. Berlin has long-standing diplomatic relations and strong economic ties with Iran, which diplomats say has given it a key role in the negotiations. Javad Vaidi, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said on Friday that suspending uranium enrichment would be neither a precondition for talks with the world powers on its nuclear activities nor an outcome of those discussions. "Iran considers that suspension is neither a precondition to nor the result of negotiations," Vaidi told AFP. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 15 IRNA: Iran tries to remove West's concerns - Asefi Tehran, June 25, IRNA Iran-Asefi-Nuclear Iran will strive to remove West's concerns with the response it will give to the Group 5+1 package of incentives, said a senior Iranian official here Sunday. Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi made the remark while speaking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press conference. A package of incentives was offered to Tehran early this month by the 5+1 Group composed of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain) plus Germany to convince it to give up all its uranium enrichment-related activities and resume talks to settle the dispute over its nuclear program. "In a response we will give to the West with respect to their proposed package, we will try to remove concerns of the West," Asefi said. He recommended the opposite side not to lose patience with receiving Iran's response. ***************************************************************** 16 IRNA: Iran rejects reports on three-month enrichment suspension Tehran, June 25, IRNA Iran-Asefi-Nuclear Iran Sunday rejected reports on suspension of enrichment work for a period of three months. Speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said, "As far as I know, the suspension (of uranium enrichment) for three months is not correct." A morning daily has reported that Iran has accepted to suspend its enrichment activities for a period of three months. Asked about safety system of Iran's Bushehr power plant and concerns expressed by the Persian Gulf littoral states in this regard, he said Bushehr power plant is equipped with a highly advanced safety system, with high standards. "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), too, has confirmed this issue and there is no room for concerns in this regard." In response to a question on Germany's viewpoints on suspension of Iran's enrichment activities with respect to a meeting held in Berlin Saturday between the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Asefi said, "Raising the issue of suspension of enrichment is a step backward." He assessed as a "positive step and in the right path" the package of incentives proposed to Tehran by the six world powers. A package of incentives was offered to Tehran early this month by the 5+1 Group composed of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain) plus Germany to convince it to give up all its uranium enrichment-related activities and resume talks to settle the dispute over its nuclear program. On European's rush to receive Iran's response to the proposed package, Asefi advised them "not to sacrifice precision for speed". "Working groups and different committees are studying the package. Iran will announce its response when it has a summing-up of the case." ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Japan Considers Sanctions Against N.Korea From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 25, 2006 6:01 AM By BO-MI LIM Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Japan warned on Sunday that it would consider ``all options'' against North Korea, including sanctions on oil and food sales, if the reclusive communist country goes ahead with a test launch of a long-range missile. The U.S., Japan and other countries have been weighing options to try to head off any launch of a missile believed capable of hitting Japan and parts of the United States. Both the U.S. and Japan have made clear that sanctions are an option if North Korea refuses to cooperate. The North, meanwhile, renewed its commitment to what it called an ``anti-U.S. campaign for protection of peace'' in a newspaper commentary published Sunday, marking the anniversary of the 1950 start of the Korean War, which ended in a 1953 cease-fire. ``If the U.S. imperialists set another fire of war ... our army and people will finally settle our battle with the U.S. by mercilessly crushing and sweeping out the aggressors,'' the North's Rodong Sinmun newspaper said, according to the official Korean Central News Agency. The government in Pyongyang has given no hint whether it will fire a missile, said Jane Coombs, New Zealand's ambassador to the Koreas, who met with top North Korean officials. ``They did not confirm that such a test was imminent ... nor did they deny that such a test was'' imminent, Coombs said Saturday in Beijing after a four-day trip to Pyongyang. U.S., Japanese and South Korean officials have said there is cause for grave concern. Intelligence reports say fuel tanks have been seen around a missile at the North's launch site on its northeastern coast, but officials say it's difficult to determine if the rocket is actually being fueled by looking at satellite photos. ``All options are on the table,'' Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Sunday on public broadcaster NHK, referring to what Japan would do if there were a launch. ``I believe public opinion would condone sanctions, even on oil or food.'' The U.S. government has said it is relying on diplomacy to head off the suspected test, but there has been speculation it might use its fledgling missile defense system to shoot down an incoming missile if it is fired. In New York, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the U.S. had approached the North Koreans last weekend ``and told them that we thought the idea of a launch was a very bad idea.'' Pyongyang has said it is willing to talk to the United States about its missile concerns, repeating its long-held desire for direct meetings with the Americans. Washington, however, has refused, insisting it will only meet the North amid six-nation talks aimed at ridding Pyongyang of its nuclear weapons program. Aso said Sunday that the North's brinkmanship would not help it reach its goal of direct negotiations with Washington. ``How can you put up a rocket and then demand talks? That's intimidation, and makes it most difficult for America to engage in talks,'' he said. The six-country nuclear disarmament talks - which involve the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia - have been deadlocked since November. The North shocked the world in 1998 by firing a missile that flew over northern Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. It has been under a self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests since 1999, but has since test-fired many short-range missiles. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, who hopes to visit Beijing in the coming days for talks, said China has an important role to play in resolving the crisis. ``I will ask China to actively persuade North Korea,'' Ban said Saturday, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency. China, a key provider of aid to impoverished North Korea, is believed to be the only country that has considerable leverage with the North. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has built ties with Pyongyang while clashing with the U.S., said Friday that he will make an upcoming trip to North Korea to finalize bilateral agreements in science and technology. He did not say when he would travel or what the agreements would be. ``This is not a secret trip,'' Chavez told reporters in Panama. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: Japan: 'All Options' Open With N. Korea From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 25, 2006 9:46 PM AP Photo GFX237 By BO-MI LIM Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Japan said Sunday that ``all options'' would be considered against North Korea, including oil and food sanctions, if the communist country tested a long-range missile that could reach the United States. The United States, Japan and other countries have been trying to head off a potential missile launch. Intelligence reports say fuel tanks have been seen around a missile at a launch site on North Korea's northeastern coast, but officials say it is difficult to determine from satellite photos if the rocket is actually being fueled. In Washington, leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the Bush administration should talk directly with North Korea - something Pyongyang has been seeking for years. ``It would be advisable to bring about a much greater intensification of diplomacy, and this may involve direct talks between the United States and North Korea,'' said committee chairman Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. In Pyongyang, ``hundreds of thousands'' of North Koreans marked the anniversary of the 1950 start of the Korean War by ``denouncing the U.S. imperialists, the sworn enemy of the Korean people,'' according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency. The protesters ``reiterated the firm stand of the army and people of (the North) that should the U.S. imperialists ignite another war of aggression on this land, they will mobilize all the political and ideological might and military potentials built up generation after generation ... and mercilessly wipe out the enemies and victoriously conclude their standoff with the U.S.,'' KCNA reported. The Korean War ended in a 1953 cease-fire. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun told war veterans that the North's apparent moves to launch a missile show that security on the peninsula is ``still volatile,'' but he stressed that Seoul will continue reconciliation efforts. Those efforts started after a historic 2000 summit between the two nations. ``I think building trust between South and North (Korea) would provide a strong foundation for preserving peace,'' Roh said in comments released by his office. The government in Pyongyang gave no hint whether it would test-fire a missile, said Jane Coombs, New Zealand's ambassador to the Koreas, who met with top North Korean officials. She recently took a four-day trip to Pyongyang. The potential test is believed to be of a Taepodong-2 missile, which the U.S. government estimates has a range of between 5,000 and 7,500 miles. ``All options are on the table,'' Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Sunday on public broadcaster NHK, referring to what Japan would do if there was a launch. ``I believe public opinion would condone sanctions, even on oil or food.'' The Bush administration has said it is relying on diplomacy to head off the suspected test, but there has been speculation it might use its fledgling missile defense system to shoot down an incoming missile if it is fired. In New York, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the Americans had approached the North Koreans last weekend ``and told them that we thought the idea of a launch was a very bad idea.'' Pyongyang has said it is willing to talk to the United States about its missile concerns. Washington, however, has refused, insisting it will only meet the North amid six-nation talks aimed at ridding Pyongyang of its nuclear weapons program. Aso said Sunday that the North's brinkmanship would not help it achieve its goal of direct negotiations with Washington. ``How can you put up a rocket and then demand talks? That's intimidation, and makes it most difficult for America to engage in talks,'' he said. The six-country nuclear disarmament talks - involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia - have stalled since November. Lugar said he respected those talks, but ``nevertheless, with regard to a missile that might have a range of the United States, that becomes a very specific United States-North Korean issue.'' ``We're going to have to come to a point where we find at least an agenda to talk with North Korea about, and I think we are moving toward that,'' Lugar told CBS' ``Face the Nation.'' The North shocked the world in 1998 by firing a missile that flew over northern Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. It has been under a self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile tests since 1999, but has since test-fired many short-range missiles. --- Associated Press reporters Hiroko Tabuchi in Tokyo and Foster Klug in Washington contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Gives No Hint on Missile Test From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 24, 2006 10:46 AM AP Photo NY114 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea gave no hint of whether it will fire a long-range missile as widely feared, a New Zealand diplomat who visited Pyongyang said Saturday. A top U.S. defense official expressed confidence the United States could intercept a missile from the North. New Zealand's ambassador to both Koreas, Jane Coombs, said she conveyed her country's ``grave concern'' to North Korean officials during a four-day trip, but was given no clue about Pyongyang's plans for the launch. ``They did not confirm that such a test was imminent ... nor did they deny that such a test was imminent,'' Coombs said in Beijing. Coombs, who visited Pyongyang to present her credentials for her new post, met with North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam, and Vice Foreign Minister Kim Yong Il. North Korea has made recent moves that would enable it to launch a long-range missile, U.S. and Asian officials have said. Intelligence reports say fuel tanks have been seen around a missile at the North's launch site on its northeastern coast, but officials say it's difficult to determine if the rocket is actually being fueled by looking at satellite photos. In Washington, the Pentagon's missile defense chief said he has little doubt that U.S. interceptor rockets could hit and destroy a long-range North Korean missile if President Bush gave the order to attack it on a path to U.S. territory. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, refused to say whether the U.S. missile defense system is on alert for a possible intercept mission, but noted that it has been designed specifically to defend U.S. territory against known missile threats from North Korea. ``(From) what I have seen and what I know about the system and its capabilities, I am very confident,'' he said at a news conference. However, U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said earlier this week that the U.S. missile defense system had ``limited operational capability'' to intercept and destroy such a missile. The North's reported plans to fire the missile have stoked widespread international concern, with its main allies China and Russia warning against it. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said he was ``very encouraged'' by China and Russia's concern. He said the U.S. approached the North Koreans last weekend ``and told them that we thought the idea of a launch was a very bad idea.'' U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated his concern, saying a missile launch ``in a region like the Korean Peninsula, at a time when we have lots of difficult issues ... is not a wise thing to do and North Korea must listen to what the international community is telling it.'' The North has said it is willing to talk to Washington about its missile concerns, repeating its long-held desire for direct meetings with the Americans. Washington insists it will only meet the North amid six-nation talks aimed at ridding Pyongyang of its nuclear weapons program. On Friday, U.S. forces wrapped up massive Pacific war games in a show of military might. The five days of exercises - the largest in the Pacific since the Vietnam War - brought together three aircraft carriers along with 22,000 troops and 280 warplanes off the island of Guam in the western Pacific. The U.S. will launch similar war games with seven other countries off Hawaii next week. The monthlong exercises, known as RIMPAC, will bring together forces from Australia, Canada, Chile, Peru, Japan, South Korea, Britain and the U.S. North Korea called the biennial drills a rehearsal for invasion, saying Friday night that it would ``react against the reckless provocations of the aggressors with strong measures for self-defense.'' Japan and the United States, meanwhile, signed an agreement to expand cooperation on ballistic missile defense development. Japan's Defense Agency also said a high-resolution radar that can detect a ballistic missile had been deployed at a base in northern Japan. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Sen. Calls for Direct Talks With N. Korea From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 25, 2006 7:01 PM AP Photo WX103 By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday the Bush administration should talk directly with North Korea as concerns grow over a possible test launch of a missile that could reach the U.S. Senators also rejected the idea by a former defense secretary that the U.S. make a pre-emptive strike against a North Korean missile. ``We are not anywhere close to talking about attacking North Korea, and we should shut up and stop it,'' said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. ``We need to talk directly with North Korea. The sooner we do that, the sooner we're going to get this resolved,'' Hagel, the second-ranking Republican on the committee, told CNN's ``Late Edition.'' The committee's chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, also spoke out against attacking the missile while it was on the ground. ``It would be advisable to bring about a much greater intensification of diplomacy, and this may involve direct talks between the United States and North Korea,'' said Lugar, R-Ind. North Korea long has wanted direct meetings with the U.S. Washington, however, has refused, insisting it will only meet the North Koreans in the context of six-nation international talks aimed at ridding the communist country of its nuclear weapons program. Lugar said he respected those talks, which are stalled now, but ``nevertheless, with regard to a missile that might have a range of the United States, that becomes a very specific United States-North Korean issue.'' ``We're going to have to come to a point where we find at least an agenda to talk with North Korea about, and I think we are moving toward that,'' Lugar told CBS' ``Face the Nation.'' Intelligence reports say fuel tanks have been seen around a missile at North Korea's launch site on the northeastern coast. But officials say it is difficult to determine from satellite photos if the rocket is actually being fueled. The potential test is believed to be of a Taepodong-2 missile, which the U.S. government estimates has a range of between 5,000 miles and 7,500 miles. Sen. John Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that he had been speaking with the White House, ``and, frankly, we don't know exactly what the status is, whether it's been fully refueled or what the problem is. ``The weather is closing in now, which would not make it an optimal time to try and test it,'' Warner, R-Va., told ``Fox News Sunday.'' Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware urged close U.S. contact with South Korea and Japan as events unfold. ``If we were to strike a missile and that resulted in an artillery retaliation, killing thousands of people in South Korea, it would be a very big deal,'' said Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Direct talks with North Korea may not work, he said, but would be ``a better way of approaching this and finding what the bottom line is than this brinksmanship.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Calls to Keep Up Pressure on N. Korea From the Associated Press [UP] Friday June 23, 2006 11:31 PM By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton expressed concern Friday at North Korea's silence over a possible missile launch and called for sustained international pressure on Pyongyang, especially from China, to stop it. ``I think the level of diplomatic activity that's been engaged in is quite extensive,'' Bolton said, ``and we're continuing that activity.'' Bolton said Thursday he was ``very encouraged'' at China and Russia's strong concern over the possible firing of a long-range missile, which showed the international community is united against a launch. The United States approached the North Koreans last weekend ``and told them that we thought the idea of a launch was a very bad idea'' and other countries have delivered similar messages, he said. ``We hope that they continue that, particularly those countries that are especially in a position to influence North Korea like China, because it remains our priority to try and stop the launch,'' he told several reporters. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters Friday that testing a long-range missile ``in a region like the Korean Peninsula, at a time when we have lots of difficult issues ... is not a wise thing to do and North Korea must listen to what the international community is telling it.'' Intelligence reports say the North may have fueled a Taepodong-2 missile, which could be capable of reaching parts of the United States. Bolton has stressed that there are many unknowns about the missile. Asked Friday whether the North Koreans had attempted to reassure anyone about it, he said, ``I'm not aware that they have said anything one way or the other as to what's under the nose cone.'' ``I'm not aware that they've said anything at all, and that's a matter of concern,'' he added. That's ``not just the way you conduct business when you're contemplating a test like this.'' The North has said it is willing to talk to Washington about its missile concerns, repeating its long-held desire for direct meetings with the Americans. Washington, however, has refused, and insists it will meet the North only in the framework of six-nation talks aimed at ridding Pyongyang of its nuclear weapons program which have been stalled since September. Bolton, an arms control expert, said the possible North Korean missile launch demonstrates why President Bush was right to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 ``to develop a limited (missile) defense capability for the United States against attacks from rogue states.'' ``We're not as far along as we might have been because the program was essentially terminated after President Clinton took office, but we've made extensive progress now and precisely this threat shows why we need more,'' he said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: SKorea urges North to address nuclear, missile issues Sunday June 25, 12:28 PM - SEOUL (XFN-ASIA) - Prime Minister Han Myeong-Sook urged North Korea to quickly address international concerns about its nuclear ambitions and reported plans to test-fire a missile. 'The government strongly urges North Korea to return to six-way talks in order to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully,' Han said in a speech marking the 56th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War. The 1950-1953 conflict ended in an armistice which has yet to be replaced by a peace treaty, with the two Koreas still technically at war. 'North Korea must fully understand international concern about its missile issue and quickly address it,' Han told thousands of war veterans and others at the ceremony in Seoul. 'North Korea's nuclear issue is the biggest threat to our security and a major factor undermining peace and stability in Northeast Asia,' Han added. Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly ***************************************************************** 23 AFP: Japan may sanction NKorea unilaterally in case of missile launch - Japan FM Sunday June 25, 12:52 PM - TOKYO (XFN-ASIA) - Japan could impose economic sanctions unilaterally on North Korea if the country launches a ballistic missile, Foreign Minister Taro Aso said. 'As the laws have been passed, all those options would come to the table,' Aso said in a program by public broadcaster NHK, referring to sanctions including a freeze on cash transfers and a ban on port calls by North Korean ships. He said such measures could be introduced without reference to the UN Security Council. Tension is rising across the region after US officials said the North was preparing to fire a long-range missile, citing satellite photographs. 'We still don't have the confirmed information on whether North Korea completed fueling the missile, and we are not in a situation either to lift the emergency alert,' said Aso. Japanese ships and planes have been monitoring North Korea to gather information about a possible launch, Japan's defence chief has said. A study by Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party said last year that sanctions would badly hit the North's fragile economy by cutting off remittances from Koreans in Japan and banning Pyongyang's ships. But there is almost no trade between the two countries. North Korea in 1998 fired a long-range Taepodong-1 missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean and last year said it had nuclear weapons. A series of reports say it is preparing to launch a Taepodong-2, believed to have a range of up to 6,700 kilometers -- enough to hit Alaska and possibly Hawaii. Japan and the United States have warned the North they will refer it to the Security Council if it launches a missile. Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: Democrats seek to kick-start US approach to North Korea Fri Jun 23, 8:22 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Opposition Democratic lawmakers said they may have spurred the White House into more effective action over North Korea" /> North Koreaby requiring a new crisis pointman to give progress reports to Congress every six months. Approved Thursday as part of a broader National Defense Authorization Act, the measure requires the US administration to name a senior envoy to oversee policy on North Korea. Democratic Senators, frustrated by what they call a failed approach by the White House, said the envoy should help the administration articulate its policy as Pyongyang pursues a nuclear armaments program. "President (George W.) Bush declared he would not tolerate a growing North Korean nuclear threat, but that is exactly what has happened on his administration's watch," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. "The Bush adminsitration's policy of malign neglect of North Korea was based on the false assumption that the DPKR (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) would solve our problem by collapsing," said Senator Joseph Biden. "Once again, the administration has made a colossal misjudgment on a matter vital to our national security. Hopefully, the new coordinator will finally allow the administration to speak to North Korea with one voice," Biden said. The Senate opposition has criticized the White House for failing to address the dangers of a nuclear-armed Pyongyang while getting bogged down in Iraq" /> Iraq, where Americans have found no weapons of mass destruction. Six-nation international negotiations on North Korea have stalled without progress and Democrats said the appointment of a new US "North Korea Policy Coordinator" should open up a secret administration debate over what to do next. "Our legislation aims to force the administration to resolve its internal debate about how to deal with the North Korean nuclear threat," said Senator Carl Levin. The new coordinator would report to Congress within 90 days of appointment with new policy initiatives on North Korea as well as intelligence on how many nuclear warheads Pyongyang had. The coordinator would then submit both classified and unclassified reports on North Korea to Congress every six months. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: Top US Republican urges direct US talks with North Korea - Sun Jun 25, 6:20 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - A prominent Republican ally of President George W. Bush" /> , backed by other key lawmakers, called for direct talks between the United States and North Korea" /> amid growing tensions over an anticipated North Korean missile test. US Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" /> , distanced himself from the Bush administration when he suggested the escalating standoff and other issues could be best resolved through direct dialogue between North Korea and the United States. The administration has favored the stalled six-party talks as a venue for contacts with North Korea, which is seen by the United States as a top weapons proliferator and which Bush has said belongs to an "axis of evil." Some independent foreign policy experts have suggested conducting a preventive strike against a North Korean launch pad, where preparation for a test of a long-range Taepodong-2 missile are said to be under way. But Lugar said he believed "it would not be advisable" to use military force to take out the missile believed to be capable of reaching US soil. "It would be advisable to bring out about a much greater intensification of diplomacy, and this may involve direct talks between the United States and the North Koreans," he said, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation" television show. The talks were designed to address Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions as well as other issues stalled last November when the North refused to come back to the negotiating table until the US lifted financial sanctions. The negotiations involve the two Koreas, Japan, Russia, the United States and China. However, Lugar indicated a new and different setting might be necessary to address the threat stemming from the North Korean missile program. "I appreciate the value of the six-power talks," he said. "But nevertheless, with regard to a missile that might have range to the United States, that becomes a very specific United States-North Korean issue, and perhaps Japanese-North Korean issue." He said he believed the United States was moving toward formulating "at least an agenda to talk to North Korea about" it and should proceed in this direction. ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: Minister hints at nuclear vote [UP] Press Association Sunday June 25, 2006 10:33 AM Defence Secretary Des Browne held out the possibility of a vote in Parliament over whether Britain should renew its independent nuclear deterrent. Prime Minister Tony Blair has said there should be "the fullest possible debate" on the issue, but has steered clear of promising MPs a vote. Chancellor Gordon Brown's declaration last week that the Government would retain the deterrent in the long term led to accusations from anti-nuclear campaigners and MPs on the Labour left that ministers have already decided to press ahead with a replacement for the UK's ageing Trident missiles. Mr Browne made clear that he expected ministers to reach a firm view by the end of this year on whether or not Trident, and the Vanguard submarines which carry it, should be replaced or renewed. And he said it was possible that their decision would then be put to MPs in a vote in the House of Commons. "We will come to precisely how we deal with this when we see what the decisions are," he told BBC1's Sunday AM. "We need to marshal the facts, we need to marshal the issues, we need to marshal the arguments and the options. It is the responsibility of Government ministers to make decisions, then those decisions, of course, can be subject to parliamentary debate. "But we need to make recommendations to put forward to Parliament. "Whether we actually need votes in Parliament will be determined by the nature of the decisions we are making." The Trident system originally ordered by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s is due to become obsolete around 2024, but Mr Blair has said that decisions on whether it will be updated or replaced by a new system need to be made before the end of this Parliament, expected in 2009 or 2010. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Why Gordon Brown decided it was the time to go nuclear Comment | When the Chancellor launched his unexpected pre-emptive strike on the deterrent, he had multiple targets in his sights Andrew Rawnsley Sunday June 25, 2006 The Observer One of the stranger things that politics can do to people is to change them into the things that they most hate. The Labour party spent more than a decade loathing Margaret Thatcher until it finally concluded that it had to become a lot more like her in order to win power. Gordon Brown has spent more than a decade seething with resentment towards Tony Blair, only now to decide that the furtherance of his ambitions compels him to start imitating the man he would replace in Number 10. The most vivid manifestation of this so far is the bomb dropped by the Chancellor with his sudden declaration of support for the renewal of Britain's nuclear deterrent. Brown's pre-emptive nuclear strike used the launch codes of Blair. This missile came out of a clear blue sky before the formal review has even started. The Chancellor's annual Mansion House speech to City grandees was not the occasion to expect a statement on the nuclear deterrent from a man who is not yet Prime Minister. His first strike caught everyone by surprise, including a disconcerted Number 10 and an angry and aghast Labour left. He only used five words about the bomb - 'retaining our independent nuclear deterrent' - at the end of a thick paragraph in the middle of a long speech. In another very Blairish touch, it was the great web of interpretation that was spun from those few words that gave them their explosive effect. It has enraged the left of the Labour party. It was contrived to do just that. It was unashamedly designed - Mr Brown's acolytes make no pretence otherwise - to try to make the Chancellor a more appealing figure to Middle England. The Chancellor has never enjoyed parting with money for the armed forces when he would rather be spending the cash on tax credits or public services. His relationship with the top brass has been wary and prickly. But he assumes that the bulk of voters want to retain a bomb with a Union Jack painted on its nose, even if there is presently no one obvious to point it at. He evidently believes that Middle England won't willingly give up its weapons of mass destruction, not when the Iranians are developing one, and certainly not when the French have every intention of hanging on to their national virility symbol. Nye Bevan upset his left-wing admirers when he argued that Britain had to have nukes because she could not be sent 'naked into the conference chamber'. Gordon Brown thinks that he must say he will retain nukes if he is not to be sent naked into the next general election. Some on the left are stunned that their erstwhile hero should drop this bomb on them. He has immolated their naive assumptions that they only had to heave out Tory Blair and replace him with Red Gordon for a socialist utopia to follow. It must be said that the Chancellor has done a lot to foster that illusion. For most of the life of this government, Gordon Brown has calculated that his ambitions were best advanced by distancing himself from Tony Blair. Whenever the Prime Minister has been aggressively New Labour, the Chancellor has nudged and winked to the party that he is True Labour. By constantly talking about 'renewal', while being rather opaque about what he means by it, he has encouraged the notion that everything will change just as soon as he gets into Number 10. As one member of the cabinet puts it: 'Gordon's default position has been to put himself five degrees to the left of Tony.' This approach might have had its merits as a strategy for ensuring that he became the next Labour leader, a process that requires him to gather support only from trades unionists and party members. But it has sown anxieties among many of his senior colleagues, especially the Blairites, about his ability to win the next election. They have seen the research suggesting that most voters think of Brown not only as to the left of Blair, but to the left of themselves. The Prime Minister has been exasperated by his Chancellor and not just because his positioning to the left has been at Mr Blair's expense. The present occupant of Number 10 regards it as a terribly misconceived strategy for retaining power. In private conversation, Mr Blair has tried to persuade Mr Brown that to win the affections of Middle England a Scottish Prime Minister will have to be even more New Labour than Mr Blair himself. The Chancellor now shows signs of having reached the same conclusion. For years, the Brown camp has scorned Blair for pandering to Middle England and the right-wing newspapers which claim to speak for it. Suddenly, it is Mr Brown who wants us to know that he adores Middle England so much that he shares a bed with it every night. 'My wife comes from Middle England,' he recently told a right-wing tabloid whom the Chancellor had invited to watch him watching England play Trinidad &Tobago. This sort of stuff is evidently designed to address the 'Scottish problem'. It is hard to be sure to what extent his profound Scottishness really is a problem with English voters. What is obvious is that the Chancellor thinks it could be a very big handicap indeed. That is the only plausible explanation for his more excruciating attempts to ingratiate himself with the English. The most hilarious of these was his recent claim to have enjoyed Gazza's goal against Scotland in Euro '96. That assertion was as risible as his suggestion that the first thing he does when he jumps out of bed of a morning is to switch on his iPod for a blast of Arctic Monkeys. He makes a monkey of himself when he tries to compete with David Cameron on that level. Gordon Brown is much better advised to play to his strengths as a large and serious figure who has had a long and intensive preparation for being Prime Minister. He hopes to depict David Cameron as a hollow chancer with 'namby-pamby policies on chocolate oranges'. His Mansion House speech followed several others which invite us to contrast the inexperience of the Tory leader with the statesmanlike, nuclear-tipped Brown who offers stability and security in a threatening world. The next target of his strike were some of his own most devoted supporters. 'This is the end,' choked Clare Short, speaking in the bitter language of someone who has been two-timed by a man she thought she loved. She predicts that it is now much more likely that he will face a challenge for the leadership from the left. I suspect that is correct. The Chancellor will fervently hope that she is right. Perhaps it will be Michael Meacher who challenges him. Perhaps someone else will be persuaded to pilot that kamikaze mission on behalf of the hard left. Whichever poor sucker from the Campaign Group takes on the Chancellor, a contest from that direction is exactly what he wants. It will perfectly suit him to be offered a left-wing challenger to crush. The leadership challenge that Gordon Brown fears much more would be from the unapologetically New Labour wing of the government. The risk of that to Gordon Brown is not so much that he would lose to a Blairite rival for the succession. As things stand, he looks unbeatable. The risk would be that he won the leadership, but after a contest that added sting to the Tory charge that he is a backward-looking Old Labourite. That's why the Chancellor is trying to address the Blairite doubts about him. Look, he was saying to New Labourites with this speech, I am brave enough to make tough decisions even if they are unpopular with sections of the Labour party. I can bash the left just as energetically as Tony. I'm even ready to nuke them. For the Prime Minister, there must be some satisfaction to be derived from Gordon Brown finally taking his advice to come over as more Blair than Blair. But that pleasure is surely also mingled with apprehension. The longer this parliament goes on, the more Tony Blair will be dogged by the question: why haven't you gone yet? His explicit answer is that he needs to stay at Number 10 to be sure that the right decisions are made for the long term. His implicit argument is that New Labour and its prospects of winning the next election will be hurt if his Chancellor takes over too soon. His case for staying is undermined when his successor aligns himself with the Prime Minister - or at least appears to. Over pensions, nuclear energy, terrorism and now the deterrent, Gordon Brown is calculating that the best way to beat Tony Blair is to join him. When the Chancellor launched his nuke, it had multiple warheads. One target was the left, who have reacted with satisfying fury. A further target was David Cameron, who has been warned that Gordon Brown will fiercely resist the Tory attempt to caricature him as a throwback to Old Labour. And another warhead had Tony Blair's name on it. #comments { font-size:70%; What do you think? Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 28 London Times: MPs angry over nuclear secrecy - The Sunday Times - Britain June 25, 2006 Michael Smith THE government will be criticised this week by an influential Commons committee over its refusal to discuss details of a secret programme to build a new nuclear weapons system. Members of the defence select committee are angry that ministers would not allow officials to give evidence to their inquiry into the replacement of Britain’s Trident missiles. They have been particularly annoyed by the contrast between the government’s reluctance to co-operate and the willingness of Gordon Brown, the chancellor, to back a replacement nuclear deterrent publicly. “For Brown to come out in favour of it when the government is refusing to co-operate with a parliamentary select committee examining the issue is disgraceful,” said one MP last week. “Tony Blair says he wants a full and open debate about it but not a single official was allowed to give evidence.” The committee’s report to be published on Friday will make their annoyance clear, the MP said. With Labour opinion divided on the nuclear deterrent, the party’s members on the committee refused to allow its report to give any indication as to whether they were for or against replacing Trident, the MP added. An announcement that Britain is to replace the current system with a new warhead and an upgraded version of the Trident missile at an expected cost of £25 billion is expected this year. Blair has promised a white paper and a parliamentary debate on the issue but has refused to commit to allowing MPs a vote on the matter. However, while promising more openness, the prime minister secretly gave the go-ahead for the design of a new warhead immediately after Labour was re-elected in May last year. The government continued to claim publicly that no decision had been made on whether to replace Trident while at the same time ordering the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire, to design a new warhead. Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 29 London Times: The real cost of the nuclear option - Comment - Times Online June 26, 2006 Sir, As one of those who gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee against the replacement of Trident, I find it regrettable that Gordon Brown has signalled his intention to replace Britain’s dependent deterrent without taking time either to reflect on the committee hearings or to debate the issue within the Labour Party (Comment, June 23). The political arguments in favour of renewal, in particular not to leave an open goal for the Conservatives on the issue, should not obscure the irrelevance of the deterrent in the face of the threats. One cannot deter global warming, Islamic terrorism, small-arms trafficking or collapsed states with nuclear weapons. Nor can one dissuade others from acquiring nuclear weapons by articulating the virtues of keeping our own in perpetuity. The estimated £15-25 billion cost of Trident’s replacement could go a very long way towards meeting Britain’s pressing security needs at home and in strengthening our armed forces fighting for Britain’s interests abroad. PROFESSOR SHAUN GREGORY Department of Peace Studies University of Bradford Sir, Brown should certainly challenge the Left over the nuclear deterrent but not by even allowing it to be thought that the Government might decide the matter without taking a vote in Parliament. If there is one lesson the British public has learnt from the Iraq war, it is that governments can be mistaken. Insisting that a small country such as Britain must have a fully functional independent nuclear deterrent can only send one message to the rest of the world, namely that they must have one too. DR RICHARD TURNER Harrogate Sir, Neil Kinnock may have “infuriated the Left by declaring ‘there is now no need for something-for-nothing unilateralism’ ” (report, June 22), but it was not until July 1991 that Labour really abandoned one-sided nuclear disarmament. What the 1988 manoeuvre did was merely to insist on some Russian missiles being scrapped in return for the scrapping of Polaris. For the next three years, Conservative politicians like Kenneth Baker, Douglas Hurd, Chris Patten and myself (letters, June 8, 1988 and Oct 6, 1989) pointed out that this would mean abandoning “the entire British deterrent in return for a two or three per cent diminution in Soviet strategic nuclear firepower”. What really mattered was a commitment to keep some nuclear weapons as long as other countries possess them — and when this was finally conceded by Shadow Foreign Secretary Gerald Kaufman, it was described by Tribune as a “breathtaking capitulation to the Conservatives”. It remains to be seen whether our pressure on the Labour Government now to state that they agree with us, not only to “retain” Trident, but actually to replace it, will similarly bear fruit. DR JULIAN LEWIS MP Shadow Defence Minister Sir, If British Energy claims nuclear power to be “economically viable, independently” (Business, June 21), perhaps it can return the estimated government subsidy of £600 million for 2004 and 2005 and save the taxpayers £60 billion for the safe disposal of existing nuclear waste? DR DAVID MacDONALD Leigh, Lancs Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 30 BBC ON THIS DAY | 24 | 1974: Labour rift over nuclear test 1974: Labour rift over nuclear test The Labour Government has admitted Britain exploded a nuclear device in the United States a few weeks ago. It is thought the underground trial at America's desert test range in Nevada was carried out on one of the new warheads for the Polaris submarine missiles. The announcement has sparked a row between senior ministers and the left-wing Tribune group, which opposes Britain's - and Labour's - involvement in the arms race. The trial had been arranged by the previous Conservative Government, but the Ministry of Defence said it was not ashamed of its nuclear arsenal and intended to continue with the programme. 'Grave danger' Tribune member Frank Allaun said it was Labour policy to get rid of what he termed "suicide weapons". And the MP suggested scrapping missiles would set a good example to aspiring nuclear powers. "The danger at the moment is of the bomb spreading to more and more countries - that's a grave danger," he said. Defence Secretary Roy Mason said he could understand why people in the Labour Party were opposed to the tests. But he emphasized there was no party commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons and said the government had not broken a manifesto pledge or international agreement by exploding the device. "If we had purposefully taken the decision to abandon the test we would have been prematurely taking the decision to abandon our strategic deterrent - that's not on," he said. In Context The world's first nuclear test was carried out by the US on 16 July 1945 at Alamagordo Air Base reservation, New Mexico. Various treaties since the 1958 Geneva Conference have attempted to reduce or abolish nuclear weapons testing, but the Cold War ensured trials continued. The five declared nuclear powers - Britain, France, US, Russia and China - signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in September 1996 - but it has yet to be ratified. The two newest countries to obtain nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan, have both exploded devices since the agreement was signed. ***************************************************************** 31 RIA Novosti: No need to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus - Lukashenko 24/ 06/ 2006 BARANOVICHI (Belarus), June 24 (RIA Novosti) - Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said there would be no need to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. "There is no need to deploy nuclear weapons in the 'first strike area'," he told journalists after an active phase of Russian-Belarusian military exercises, which consisted of simulated fights on the ground and in the air after a hypothetical aggressor's attack. "There are enough weapons in the Russian Federation, which could if necessary be used in Belarus. I do not think such a situation will arise to bring such weapons here," Lukashenko said. "Nuclear weapons presently are weapons of deterrence and not attack and defense," the Belarusian leader said. However, he added that "if there was a threat to security, nothing could be ruled out." "We have to ensure security of the union state [of Russia and Belarus] by all means and forces," he concluded. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 32 WorldNetDaily: Paris Accord – the sequel Founded 1997 Sunday, June 25, 2006 Today's Edition [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: June 24, 2006 © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com President Bush – while at a meeting of the European Union this week – gave the mullahs an ultimatum: "If Iran's leaders want peace and prosperity and a more hopeful future for their people, they should 1) accept our offer, 2) abandon any ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons and 3) come into compliance with their international obligations." Now, the mullahs have sworn their religion precludes any "ambitions" to obtain nuclear weapons, and Director-General ElBaradei continues to report to the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is in compliance with its "'international obligations." So, what's this "offer" Bush is talking about? And who is "our"? Virtually everyone reporting Bush's ultimatum went on to note that "the suspension of uranium enrichment is a non-negotiable precondition set out in the proposal made to Iran by the five permanent U.N. Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – plus Germany." Now, you're supposed to get the impression that the Security Council has made a proposal – "our offer" – to Iran containing a "non-negotiable precondition." But it hasn't. The proposal was transmitted to the mullahs earlier this month by Javier Solana, an EU official who has no connection whatsoever to the Security Council. In fact, Solana is the EU high representative who was a party in "support" of the Brit-French-German-Iranian Paris Accordof Nov.15, 2004. The Paris Accord negotiations were undertaken by the Iranians in the hope they could obtain "objective guarantees" that the EU would defy the United States, would re-establish normal diplomatic and trade relations and would, inter allia, respect both Iran's "inalienable" rights and European obligations under the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Iran reaffirmed that "it does not and will not seek to acquire nuclear weapons." And, to "build further confidence," Iran "decided – on a voluntary basis – to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment and reprocessing activities." Since all these activities were already subject to IAEA Safeguards, the IAEA Board of Governors was notified of this voluntary suspension and the IAEA Secretariat asked to "verify and monitor" it. Monitoring the Iranian voluntary suspension of IAEA Safeguarded activities is the sum total of IAEA involvement in the Paris Accord negotiations! Whether those negotiations succeeded or failed was literally none of the IAEA Board's beeswax. On March 23, 2005, the Iranians made a confidential proposal to the EU to voluntarily "confine" their nuclear programs. In particular, the Iranians offered to forego indefinitely the chemical processing of spent fuel to recover unspent uranium and plutonium, and to limit their uranium-enrichment activities to meeting contingency refueling requirements for Iranian nuclear power plants, planned and under construction. The Iranians also offered to submit to "continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities to provide unprecedented added guarantees." When the Iranians got no response to their offer, the Iranians went public,announcing on Aug. 1, 2005, the "phased" implementation of the "confined" – that is, contingency only – uranium-enrichment program set out in their March proposal. Bush promptly went ballistic and strong-armed the IAEA Board into demanding that Iran return to the Paris Accord negotiating table. Or else. When that didn't work, Bush strong-armed the IAEA Board into "reporting" the Iranian "dossier" to the U.N. Security Council, hoping the Security Council would demand that Iran return to the Paris Accord negotiating table. Or else. That didn't work, either. So now Bush has got the Russians and Chinese to join him and the Brits-French-Germans-EU in demanding that Iran return to the "negotiating table." The Iranians were asked to keep the terms of the "offer" Solana brought to them confidential, and apparently have, so far. But according to leaks by "Western diplomats on condition of anonymity," this time the mullahs will be required to negotiate with the U.S.-Brits-French-Germans-Russians-Chinese the extent to which the Iranians will be allowed to exercise their inalienable rights, guaranteed under the NPT. And this time there is a pre-condition. The "confidence building" suspensions by Iran that were made voluntarily under the Paris Accord are now required. Under the Paris Accord, there were no "pre-conditions." In fact, under the Paris Accord, the Brits-French-Germans-EU recognize up-front "Iran's rights under the NPT, exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination." On March 23, 2005, the Iranians offered to voluntarily "confine" their program while reserving all their NPT rights – and hence, reserving the rights of all NPT signatories. It was a good offer and Bush should have allowed the EU to accept it. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. He also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 1997-2006 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 RNZ: NZ to give $NZ500,000 to help close Russian nuclear reactor Radio New Zealand - Time:2:22 pm on 26 Jun [Keith listens to National Radio] New Zealand is giving $NZ500,000 to a United States project to close a Russian nuclear reactor which produces weapons-grade plutonium. Minister for Disarmament, Phil Goff, says the reactor at Zheleznegorsk is one of three such reactors Russia has not yet shut down. Mr Goff says there is a danger the plutonium it produces could end up in the hands of a rogue state. The $NZ500,000 for the project follows the commitment of $NZ700,000 this financial year to an initiative destroying Russian chemical weapons. Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand Section Navigation -Find your way around There are multiple ways to listen to our programmes: + AM/FM Frequencies + Shortwave + The Internet + Sky Digital & FTA Satellite + Replay Radio popular features: ***************************************************************** 34 APP.COM: New challenge to nuclear plant Asbury Park Press Online Saturday, June 24, 2006 A coalition of activists on Friday filed a new challenge against the 20-year license renewal being sought by the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey. For a second time,the coalition asked a federal nuclear safety board to hold a hearing on a radiation barrier, called the drywell liner, citing recently released data showing that parts of it are thinner than required. The board on June 6 had rendered moot a prior coalition challenge after the plant promised to measure the liner, but the board also invited the activists to try again. Nicholas Clunn Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Rutland Herald: Nuclear industry is not clean Rutland Vermont News & Information June 24, 2006 Not only is the nuclear energy business covertly bound up with the military-industrial complex in the business of making weapons, (depleted uranium a byproduct of the enrichment process and nuclear bombs a possible byproduct of reprocessing nuclear waste), but contrary to what is now being told to us by so-called experts in the field, (that Vermont Yankee and all nuclear reactors are needed in order to "maintain a clean, safe, emission-free environment by reducing the greenhouse gases that are causing catastrophic global warming"), the uranium enrichment process, by means of which reactor fuel is produced, uses enormous amounts of electricity which is, ironically, produced through the use of nonrenewable, greenhouse gas-producing low-grade coal. To get an idea of how much coal is needed, you must understand that each of the six facilities for enrichment in our country uses the equivalent of 1 percent of the electricity produced in the entire United States. Therefore, reactor fuel, contrary to what we are told, sends clouds of pollution before it. As if that were not enough evidence to prove that their claim to be "emission-free" and "safe" were propaganda (and here I am not including the possibility of a melt-down or a terrorist attack, coupled with evacuation plans that can't work), there is the well-known deadly problem of radioactive waste by the ton that will be with the world for thousands of years to come, as well as the less well known "normal" daily emissions from the reactors of radioactive materials into the air, and, often, into the water through leaks that send radioactive material into the ground. Please, for our children's sake, look beneath the easy answers and the lies that are being put forth by a corporation and a government that is, as secretly as possible, taking our very lives into their slick, money-grubbing hands. The same lies that produce war and allow us to kill each other for other people's profit are busily at work in Entergy Corp.'s plan to make an old reactor work far beyond its capacity. Thank you. JANE NEWTON South Londonderry ***************************************************************** 36 Rutland Herald: Yankee component questioned Rutland Vermont News & Information June 24, 2006 By DAVID GRAM The Associated Press MONTPELIER — The state Department of Public Service is worried about possible problems with a key component at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant tied to the plant's recent increase in power. The Department of Public Service this week asked the Public Service Board to open an investigation into whether electric ratepayers should be given new financial protections in the event problems with Vermont Yankee's steam dryer force the plant to reduce power or shut down. William Sherman, the department's nuclear engineer, said in written testimony filed this week with the board that information he had gathered led him to the conclusion that Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear "does not fully understand the uncertainties regarding steam dryer performance at uprate conditions." Sherman said Vermont Yankee is one of five plants in the country to have the same design for their steam dryers. The other reactors — Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 and Dresden Units 2 and 3, all in Illinois, had experienced cracking in their steam dryers after going through a power boost, or uprate, he said. The Illinois plants either experienced temporary shutdowns or reductions in power to pre-uprate levels, Sherman testified. Under the complex terms of previous agreements with the state, if Vermont Yankee were forced to revert to its former power level, Vermont's power companies would end up getting less power from the plant than they got before the power increase, which was completed this spring. Sherman said that would force the power companies to buy replacement power on the wholesale New England electricity market at prices higher than those they're getting from Vermont Yankee. The upshot would be more than $19 million a year in additional costs to ratepayers, he said. Sherman emphasized in an interview he did not believe the safety of Vermont Yankee would be affected by steam dryer problems. In his testimony, he said, "While I agree that catastrophic failure of the steam dryer is unlikely, Entergy has not conclusively demonstrated that steam dryer cracks resulting in power (reductions) will not occur." Sherman said the Public Service Board should consider ordering Vermont Yankee to set up a fund or buy an insurance policy that would be on hand to cover the utilities' increased power purchase costs should the steam dryer develop problems tied to the power boost. He said in an interview that it would be up to the board to work out the details of such a program. Under a previous agreement with the state, Vermont Yankee already had set up a $4 million "ratepayer protection plan" to cover extra power costs incurred when uprate-related outages forced utilities to buy power on the wholesale market. He said about $2 million remains in that fund. "This amount would accommodate less than 6 weeks of (a power reduction) back to the current full power level," Sherman said. A Vermont Yankee spokesman on Friday took a dim view of expanding ratepayer protections in light of potential steam dryer problems. "We had a deal with the Department (of Public Service) on ratepayer protection," said plant spokesman Larry Smith. "We feel that nothing has changed. A deal is a deal." Referring to the several pauses plant officials made as they gradually boosted power by 20 percent, Smith said. "We had a thorough power ascension process that was conservative and focused. We have confidence in that whole power ascension process." Sherman said as the plant increased power, it had three instances in which acoustic monitors on steam lines picked up noises indicating strain on the steam dryer. The frequency of the sounds was supposed to remain below limits the plant had set before beginning the uprate process. Complex mathematical calculations were used to translate the sounds into estimates of strain on the steam dryer. But plant staff "needed to adjust their calculations three separate times in order to have a limit that they were within." ***************************************************************** 37 BR: Testimony on Vermont Yankee's 'uprate' to be gathered at hearings Brattleboro Reformer By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff Saturday, June 24 BRATTLEBORO --The public will have a chance to air its views on Vermont Yankee's recent power boost at a federal hearing next week. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a quasi-judicial arm of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will be in town to take testimony on the uprate. The hearings will take place in three sessions at the Latchis Theatre. There's one on Monday, from 6:30 to 10:30 p.m., and two on Tuesday, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. The board will consider the testimony as part of a challenge to the 20 percent power boost, and NRC officials are asking speakers to stick to issues that are related to the uprate. Specifically, spokeswoman Diane Screnci said, members of the public should plan on only talking about the two contentions that are before the board. The contentions, both filed by the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, have to do with the way the plant evaluated its safety under uprated condition. One contention questions the integrity of Vermont Yankee's emergency cooling towers, which would provide service water to the plant in case something went wrong with the supply system, connected to the Connecticut River. Ray Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition, said Vermont Yankee didn't take the steps necessary to ensure the tower would be reliable in case of a catastrophic event, like an earthquake or terrorist attack. The other contention holds that Vermont Yankee should conduct "full transient testing," to make sure the plant could safely shut down from full power in an emergency. The State of Vermont had two contentions before the board, which questioned whether the plant could rely on vapor pressure to push water through pumps that would cool its core in an emergency. The Department of Public Service dropped those contentions last month. Shadis said he hopes the board allows people the freedom to discuss other issues related to the uprate. "The drift that we're getting is that people want to talk about the uprate and uprate issues in general," he said. "The board wants to restrict the conversation to two contentions that are presently before the board." The coalition has put a total of 11 contentions before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Two have been accepted, and one is still under consideration. The outstanding contention takes issue with the testing and analysis that the plant conducted as it raised its power output. Shadis said he's concerned there won't be a chance for the public to speak about that contention, should it be accepted. For its part, Entergy Nuclear, owners of Vermont Yankee, maintain the "uprate is consistent with the NRC regulations in every respect," said plant spokesman Rob Williams. Screnci, of the NRC, said speakers won't be on too short of a leash, and will be allowed some freedom to speak about the uprate in general. Still, she pointed out that the board can only consider evidence related to the contentions that are before it. There's a process for filing new contentions, she said. If the NEC's third contention is accepted, Screnci said people will certainly have a chance to submit written testimony on the subject. She said she didn't know whether there would be a public session about it. Andy Rosen can be reached at arosen@reformer.comor (802) 254-2311, ext. 275. » (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 ***************************************************************** 38 TheStar.com: We can't afford nuclear Jun. 24, 2006. 12:12 PM CAMERON SMITH In a devastating analysis of nuclear power, Amory Lovins, head of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Denver, Colo., has concluded that it is the least cost-effective way to meet electricity needs, and the worst possible solution for moderating climate change. I wish I had found his study earlier — it was published last September and updated in January — because, just maybe, a focus on it might have persuaded Queen's Park to alter its decision to spend $46 billion (at today's prices) on refurbishing and adding to Ontario's existing array of nuclear reactors. Spending this amount of money on nuclear means there'll be precious little left to promote alternatives. The study is available at http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php— from the library of publications choose Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential. Lovins' argument is that, first, you get more bang for the buck installing alternatives. And, second, there's a long lead time for building nuclear reactors — 10 to 15 years — yet what's needed are fast and big cuts in carbon dioxide (CO{-2}) emissions. Nuclear offers too little, too late, he says. To simplify his first point, he says that an outlay of 10 cents could deliver: + 1 kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity from a nuclear reactor (assuming that all government subsidies remained in place). + 1.2 to 1.7 kWh from wind turbines (with no subsidies). + 2.4 to 8.9 kWh from cogeneration (production of heat and electricity). + Up to 10 kWh of electricity by improving electricity end-use efficiency — using less electricity, often by replacing equipment, appliances, lighting and heating with more efficient alternatives, plus the reduction in demand that comes with shifting of the economy from high-demand manufacturing to lower demand businesses. In short, he says, building nuclear reactors is uneconomic. Alternatives are leading in the global marketplace and are growing 10 times faster, he says. Nuclear power, is "a dying industry, fading from the marketplace, overtaken and humbled by swifter rivals." In fact, it's so uncompetitive that "the trickle of orders observed worldwide all come from centrally planned electricity systems," he says. What it comes down to is this: a dollar spent on nuclear power does less to reduce CO{-2} emissions than a dollar spent on alternatives. Or, as Lovins puts it: "Every $100 invested in nuclear would effectively release an additional tonne of CO{-2} into the atmosphere." However, as far as climate change in concerned, that barely matters, because climate change is not going to put itself on hold while Ontario spends 10 to 15 years building nuclear plants. Lovins says the main emphasis should be on improving electricity efficiency. Ralph Torrie of ICF International in Toronto, one of Canada's top experts in energy and conservation, calculates that between 1990 and 2004, end-use efficiency in Ontario freed up the equivalent of 5,000 megawatts of generating capacity. That's four times the amount of new generating capacity actually added during the same period. So, the potential of this alternative is enormous. It's obvious, then, that instead of pouring money into nuclear plants, Queen's Park could meet its goals far quicker, with less risk and fewer potential problems by helping people and businesses move to greater efficiency in electricity use. As Lovins says: "If you worry about climate change, it is essential to buy the fastest and most effective climate solutions. Nuclear power is just the opposite." Cameron Smith can be reached at camsmith@kingston.net. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 39 Dallas Morning News: The Nuclear Alternative: New plants could be part of energy solution News for Dallas, Texas | Opinion: Editorials 02:58 PM CDT on Sunday, June 25, 2006 Not so long ago, the mention of nuclear energy still drew reminders of Three Mile Island, memories that muted a dispassionate discussion of the power source's pros and cons. But it's time for long-standing opposition to nuclear power to give way to reality. NRG Energy's just-announced plans to build two nuclear power units at its South Texas Project near Bay City could be what it takes for this state to come to grips with its air quality problems and growing power needs. For environmental and geopolitical reasons, the U.S. must reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Traditional coal-fired plants are dirty and contribute to foul air problems in North Texas and elsewhere. Coal gasification, a cleaner technology, is relatively untested on a large scale. Wind and solar power are clean but insufficient. Natural gas is becoming more expensive. NRG's announcement reopens the nuclear power option. TXU, which plans to build 11 traditional coal-fired plants, also says it will "continue to investigate ... the expansion of its Comanche Peak nuclear power facility." There was a time when neither company would have broached the nuclear debate. But now the "pros" are growing, and many of the "cons," including around safety concerns, have diminished. Opponents say building a nuclear plant is too expensive and finding a suitable site and disposing of nuclear waste are too difficult. These are legitimate questions, but not insurmountable. Even after Three Mile Island tainted the industry, companies built nuclear power plants. The building, however, came to a virtual halt a decade ago, in part because on-again, off-again federal and state policies and contentious regulatory reviews discouraged new investment. The last new nuclear plant in the U.S. began generating power 10 years ago in Tennessee. But with new federal incentives in place and better energy understanding, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a wave of nuclear plant proposals. Even under the best of conditions, lengthy regulatory reviews make it likely that additional nuclear power is several years away. That's all the more reason for Texas and the nation to seriously consider this power alternative now. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. © 2006 The Dallas Morning News Co. ***************************************************************** 40 Pakistan News: Pak to again raise civil nuclear energy deal matter in energy talks with US: FO PakTribune.Com Jumaada al-awal 27, 1427 Hijri June 26, 2006 Sunday June 25, 2006 (0250 PST) ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said that it is in the need of having civil nuclear energy agreement with US and the said matter would be raised in Pak-US energy dialogue scheduled to be held in Washington tomorrow (Monday). In her weekly press briefing on Saturday, Foreign Office spokesperson Tasneem Aslam said that Prime Minister’s advisor on Energy Mukhtar Ahmed will lead Pakistan’s delegation in Pak-US energy dialogue while US team to be led by Assistant Secretary of State for Energy. She said that in the meeting, Pakistan would hold talks with US on energy need as its position is clear regarding civil nuclear energy deal with US. To a question, Ms Aslam said that energy need was also increasing for rapid growing economy therefore Pakistan was holding talks on different sources for acquiring energy under energy security plan. We are hopeful that Pak-US energy talks will bring positive results, she added. To another query, spokesperson said Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri’s statement regarding slackness in Pak-India parleys were wrongly perceived adding, there are some positive things in talks process also but some aspects are disappointing. She said that Foreign Secretaries of two countries would review the results of third phase of Pak-India talks process in July therefore it would be premature to say about it. Commenting on Indian army chief’s leveling allegations of infiltration and training camps, Ms Aslam said when NATO and US forces were deployed in quake-hit areas of Kashmir then they did not see any training camp there and if Indian army chief saw training camp with third-eye then we can not say anything about it. About the release of Indian fishermen, she said that Pakistan would try to release Indian fishermen by June 30 in light of interior secretary level talks between the two countries. However, to arrest fishermen is not illegal because they are held when they violate territorial waters, she said. Ms Aslam said that Jammu and Kashmir is an disputed territory and it is neither the part of India nor its their ’attot ang’ (integral part). Entire world wants the solution of Kashmir issue and OIC secretary general efforts will prove fruitful for the solution of this all important regional affair, she said. To a question about Pakistan candidate for the office of UN secretary general, foreign office spokesperson said that no possibility can be rejected regarding the candidate for the office of UN secretary general. End. Pakistan News Service © PakTribune.com Pvt Ltd ***************************************************************** 41 decatur daily: River order may hurt Farley Nuclear Plant www.decaturdaily.com SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 2006 BIRMINGHAM (AP)  Alabama Power Co. asked a federal judge Friday to amend her order temporarily increasing the amount of water flowing from Georgia into Florida by 60 percent, claiming the change could hurt operations of a nuclear power plant. Sending additional water to Florida would lower levels on the Chattahoochee River and could affect the Farley Nuclear Plant, located in extreme Southeast Alabama, the utility claimed in court papers. U.S. District Judge Karon Bowdre, meanwhile, convened a hearing on the three-state dispute. Rather than hearing arguments, she sent attorneys behind closed doors and told them to try to reach an agreement on sharing water. Talks continued through the afternoon. On Thursday, Bowdre ruled that 8,000 cubic feet of water be released per second from the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam at Georgia's Lake Seminole for 10 days unless future court orders rule otherwise. The dam is in extreme Southwest Georgia on the Florida line. Bowdre's order said the extra water was necessary to save certain protected mussel species in the Apalachicola River in Florida that are in danger of extinction. The Apalachicola is formed by the confluence of the Chattahoochee River along the Georgia-Alabama line and the Flint River at Lake Seminole, located along the Florida border. Prior to the order, the Army Corps of Engineers has been releasing 5,000 cubic feet per second of water from Georgia reservoirs along the Chattahoochee River to protect Florida mussels and Gulf sturgeon. In its request, Alabama Power argued that no more than 5,140 cubic feet of water should be released per second to protect the water flow past the nuclear plant, which is upstream of the dam. It did not say what harm might come to the plant should Bowdre's order stand. Georgia has already protested that too much water had been taken from reservoirs along the Chattahoochee River system and filed a request Wednesday to limit the amount of water the Corps could take from its lakes. The corps is required to release the water from the reservoirs to maintain stream levels in the Apalachicola to provide an adequate habitat for both species, which are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. Corps spokesman Pat Robbins said his agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believed that the 5,000 cubic feet per second level was sufficient to protect the mussels but that level of water did "have some exposed mussels." The judge's order makes sure the mussels are submerged in the river, he said. Georgia's water supply will not be affected by the court order, Robbins said. "The 8,000 cubic feet per second will not come from any particular lake," he said. "We take a little bit from (Lake) Lanier, West Point Lake, Walter F. George (Reservoir) and we look at what flows come in from the Flint River. As long as the total flow is 8,000 cubic feet per second, then we meet the intent" of the order. But he said recreation along the reservoirs could be affected if the judge extends the order into the summer. "Several marinas will not be able to operate. There will be a lot of closed boat ramps and a lot of boat docks will not be able to be used," he said, adding that Georgia's Lake Lanier could drop by as much as six feet in September if the flows are continued. Copyright 2005 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 CanWest: Nuclear only way for Ontario, McGuinty says canada.com April Lindgren, CanWest News Service Published: Sunday, June 25, 2006 LONDON, Ont. -- Premier Dalton McGuinty says he's no fan of nuclear power but that building more nuclear plants is still the most environmentally sound way to ensure the lights stay on in Ontario. "I don't like nuclear energy," McGuinty bluntly told Liberal party riding executives Saturday at their annual council meeting. "There's the radioactive waste we saddle future generations with. "(But) the alternative is to build more coal and spew stuff into the air and have it contribute to climate change. At least with respect to radioactive waste I know how to contain it, I know how to manage it and it doesn't cause irreparable harm to our planet." In a speech that provided a taste of what's to come as Ontario's political parties position themselves for an election 16 months from now, McGuinty defended his government's recent decision to construct two more nuclear power plants to meet the province's future electricity needs. "The best advice we got was that even if we do as much as we can with respect to renewables and even if we are as aggressive as we can be when it comes to conservation, we're still going to come up short" without additional nuclear capacity, the premier said. McGuinty said his government has reduced wait times for key medical procedures and brought peace to the education sector and then went on the offensive, singling out John Tory, whose opposition Conservatives are now virtually tied with the Grits in the polls. "The Tories," McGuinty said, "have wrapped themselves in some convenient plain paper packaging in the hope that they will seem less threatening to the Ontarians who remember what they were like just three years ago. Most of the time their real intentions are tightly wrapped up inside that packaging but every now and then we get a little glimpse of what they are hiding." The Conservative agenda, he noted, includes a plan to provide tax breaks for parents who send their children to private schools. McGuinty, who broke a campaign pledge not to raise taxes by introducing a new health-care levy, also said Tory's plan to cancel the $2.5-billion tax will undermine the quality of the health-care system. His third line of attack was to suggest the Tories still have a taste for divisive politics: "Every time their leaders visit a rural community they attack what we've done for cities," he charged. A key Conservative strategy has been to attack McGuinty's leadership and to remind Ontarians of his broken promises, including the pledge not to raise taxes and a recent decision to back off completely from a promise to shut all the province's coal-fired power stations. In a statement Saturday, Tory said McGuinty prefers to fight old battles rather than dealing with current challenges. "Mr. McGuinty chalks up his promise breaking to `making tough decisions'. I say it shows that the McGuinty Liberals will say anything to get elected and then turn around and break their promises without a second thought. They do it so often it's become second nature," Tory said. CanWest News Service © CanWest News Service 2006 © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of . All rights ***************************************************************** 43 MDN: Worker exposed to radiation at Aomori nuclear plant - MSN-Mainichi Daily News A worker has been exposed to small amount of radiation at a nuclear waste processing plant in Aomori Prefecture, but no immediate health problems were found, and no radiation leaked outside the plant, officials said Saturday. The 19-year-old male worker took in a small amount of radioactive material at a spent fuel recycling plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, operated by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., while inspecting solid fuel -- a mixture of uranium and plutonium, said company spokesman Shigehiro Ito. A preliminary test found a small amount of radiation inside his nose but no radioactivity was found in his lungs or other parts of his body, although results of more detailed test are expected to take up to 10 days, Ito said. The incident was the second in just over several weeks. In late May, a 36-year-old male worker also was exposed to radiation at the plant. The Rokkasho reprocessing plant started test operations on March 31 after a delay caused by a leak of radioactive water in 2002 and strident public opposition. The plant eventually is to produce MOX fuel, a uranium-plutonium mixture. The fuel is a central element of Japan's plans to reduce its dependence on energy imports by building so-called fast-breeder reactors, which produce plutonium that can then be reused as fuel. Japan, which now relies on nuclear plants for a third of its energy needs, aims to raise that to nearly 40 percent by 2010. But the Japanese public has grown increasingly wary of the nuclear power industry following a spate of safety problems, shutdowns and cover-ups. In a separate incident, a small amount of steam was found to have leaked from a nuclear power plant in central Japan on Saturday, but no radiation was released into the environment, the plant's operator said. A worker found the steam leak near a valve on pressurized water supply equipment during a routine daily inspection at the No. 2 unit at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant, the operator, Kansai Electric Power Co., said in a statement. The reactor had resumed operation on Thursday, after being shut down for several weeks for a regular inspection. Plant workers have reduced the reactor's output to curb the steam leak, inspect the equipment and repair defects, the company said. The plant is making final preparations to resume operating another reactor that has been shut down since it was involved in Japan's worst-ever nuclear plant accident, in August 2004. In that case, a corroded pipe ruptured and sprayed plant workers with boiling water and steam, killing five of them and injuring six, though no radiation was released in the accident. (AP) June 24, 2006 Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Hawk Eye: Democrats want health screening program expanded beyond IAAP Wednesday, June 21, 2006 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST By KILEY MILLER kmiller@thehawkeye.com MIDDLETOWN — Iowa Democrats want a health screening program for Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers expanded to cover people who lived in and around the plant but didn't punch the clock there. Delegates included the idea in the party platform passed Saturday at the state convention in Des Moines. Erin Seidler, press secretary for the Iowa Democratic Party, said the plank was added late in the day. It reads: "We support community members who lived on, or adjacent to, the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant from 1947 and on to be included in health screenings being done by the University of Iowa Hospital." A platform, in simplest terms, is the list of principles a party supports. The planks agreed to Saturday will guide the Iowa Democratic Party until the next election cycle in 2008. The U of I School of Public Health has been testing former workers in the plant's mothballed nuclear weapons program for cancer and toxic exposure since 2000. The program expanded to include conventional weapons workers two years later. Wapello County delegate Jody Bresch brought a petition backing civilian health screenings to the Democratic convention. Two other delegates ran with the idea, proposing the 11th–hour addition to the platform. Bresch lived in a Middletown mobile home park from 1969 to 1973 and worked at the plant for three years. She has suffered chronic respiratory problems and endured at least one miscarriage since then, none of which has been tied to her time at the plant. Bresch's 3–year–old grandson now has an inoperable brain tumor. "... I can promise you it isn't about compensation," Bresch said by e–mail Monday. "Five trillion dollars would not make up (for) the fact that Hunter has a brain tumor." A federal program provides $150,000 and free health coverage to men and women who developed beryllium disease or certain types of cancer after working in the nation's nuclear energy program. Survivors also are eligible. There is not an equivalent program for conventional weapons builders. Laurence Fuortes, the U of I professor guiding the screening program, said Tuesday that it would be inappropriate for him to advocate for or against expanding the effort. While Bresch, who now lives in Ottumwa, fears her time at the plant led to her health problems, her chief concern is with the families of former workers and those people who just happened to live around the perimeter of the 19,300–acre facility. Did they encounter toxins in the air and water, she wonders. And if so, did some become sick because of it? Her questions are not without motivation. Bresch's father–in–law, who taught radiation monitoring at the plant, died of cancer. His daughter and grandson also developed cancer at a young age. "I want to know if there is anything being done to find out if these families are passing cancer down three, four, five generations," Bresch said. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 ***************************************************************** 45 news.gov.hk: Low-level radioactive waste storage facility opens In service: Secretary for the Environment, Transport & Works Dr Sarah Liao opens the low-level radioactive waste storage facility. [*] Hong Kong's first low-level radioactive waste facility has opened on Siu A Chau, providing long-term, safe and sustainable storage. Officiating at the opening ceremony today, Secretary for the Environment, Transport & Works Dr Sarah Liao said the facility, at a capital cost of $78 million, meets stringent international standards for the safe storage of low-level radioactive waste. It has enough capacity for the next 100 years. Developed under a "design, build and operate" contract, the facility comprises a main storage vault, an automatic control room, a laboratory and waste reception and processing areas. All the operational data is continuously monitored and controlled by real-time, around-the-clock surveillance systems from a remote control centre. Low-level radioactive waste generated in Hong Kong mainly consists of smoke detector parts, luminous watch dials and hands, lightning protection conductor heads and weakened sources from hospitals and education institutions. Annual generation of such waste in Hong Kong is low. The waste was previously stored in disused tunnels on Queen's Road East, Wan Chai, and has been transferred to the new facility. Environment, Transport & Works Bureau--> [*] Environment, Transport & Works Bureau [*] Environmental Protection Department ***************************************************************** 46 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Dump Glance From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 24, 2006 5:16 PM By The Associated Press Information about a proposed nuclear waste storage facility on an American Indian reservation in Utah: WHAT: The facility would keep 44,000 tons of used commercial reactor fuel for up to 40 years in steel and cement canisters on the Goshute reservation in Skull Valley, Utah. WHO: Private Fuel Storage LLC, a Wisconsin-based consortium of eight utilities, and the Goshutes signed a 20-year renewable lease, pending final approval of necessary permits. None of the utilities has committed to sending waste, but the group says it expects to have customers. Details of the lease and payments to the tribe have not been made public. PFS MEMBERS: Xcel Energy Inc., American Electric Power, Southern California Edison, Southern Nuclear Company, First Energy Corp., Entergy Corp., Florida Power and Light Co., and Genoa Fuel Tech (a subsidiary of Dairyland Power Cooperative in Wisconsin). STATUS: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a license for the waste site in February. Approval by the Interior Department of an access route through federal land and final lease certification by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are pending. OPPOSITION: The state of Utah is challenging the NRC's license approval in federal court in Washington. The state's suit claims the commission failed to adequately take into account risks from military jet overflights in the area. Utah officials also are lobbying the Bush administration to block the project. TRIBAL STRIFE: The issue has split the small Skull Valley Band. Opponents of the dump are challenging tribal chief Leon Bear, the primary force behind the project. Bear says the project will provide millions of dollars in economic benefits to the tribe. Opponents, led by Margene Bullcreek, says the dump violates tribal tradition and accuses Private Fuel Storage of ``environmental racism.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 47 Guardian Unlimited: Utah Tribe Divided Over Nuclear Waste From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 24, 2006 5:16 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer SKULL VALLEY, Utah (AP) - Leon Bear, a stocky man in T-shirt and jeans, peers across the sagebrush-pocked valley where his ancestors once chased Pony Express riders and sees the future for his dwindling tribe. Nuclear waste. Just west of the gun-barrel straight, two-lane road that darts through the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, Bear wants to store 4,000 steel and concrete canisters of highly radioactive used fuel from nuclear power plants. The American Indian tribe would reap tens of millions of dollars in rent over the next 40 years. ``I've been shown there's no problem. The way they plan to handle it, it's safe,'' the 46-year-old tribal leader insists, escorting a visitor around the reservation in a glistening new pickup truck. The truck is an example of the largess the tribe already has received from a consortium of eight electric utilities. Nine years ago, the companies signed a lease with the tribe to put 40,000 tons of reactor waste on the reservation. It is the kind of deal that other tribes have rejected, that most communities would oppose, that spells ``not in my back yard'' in the brightest of colors. Utah's establishment in Salt Lake City, the capital 45 miles away, is enraged. Critics, including some within the tribe, call it environmental racism at its rawest. Bear says it is the way to riches that will mean new homes, new jobs and better health care for the 118 members of his tribe. Only about two dozen - including children - still live on the 18,000-acre reservation, but this project will bring many of the others back, he predicts. The Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the lease in 1997. The deal is yet to be consummated amid lawsuits, regulatory hurdles and bitter opposition. It's close, though. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a license for the dump in February. The agency rejected arguments that the dump's location is unsafe because hundreds of F-16 jet fighters fly over the reservation on the way to bombing runs over nearby government land. The chance of a crash that could result in the release of radiation is one in a million, an adequate risk, the NRC said. Private Fuel Storage LLC of Wisconsin, the consortium that would build and run the dump, has begun looking for nuclear power plant owners to sign up for waste shipments. ``We have to store this stuff somewhere,'' says the group's chairman, John Parkyn. The utilities ``were promised this material would be collected and removed to a central location, and now we have one.'' If Bear and Parkyn get their way, the project will mark a watershed in addressing the thorniest problem facing the nuclear industry: where to put nearly 60,000 tons of highly radioactive reactor waste now stored at power plants in 31 states, and the additional 2,000 tons being generated each year. The government promised to take the waste beginning in 1998. But a planned federal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is years behind schedule. Some people say it may never be built. The PFS consortium has spent more than $20 million so far, including licensing costs and payments to the Skull Valley tribe under its 1997 lease. Not a single utility has committed to send waste to Utah, and four of the companies that helped finance the project have said they will not commit any more money as long as Yucca Mountain moves forward. If Yucca Mountain encounters more hurdles and delays, utilities will turn to Skull Valley, Parkyn predicted in an interview. --- The consortium has spent more than $20 million. Neither Bear nor the utilities will say how much of that the tribe has received or will get over the next 40 years if the deal goes through. Speculation is that the total could be as much as $100 million for the tribe. Still, it's hard to find people in Utah who favor the dump. ``You're batting in the 85 percent range of people who don't want this project to go forward. As conservative as the state is, you don't even see those kind of percentages in things like gay marriage,'' says Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, which opposes the project. The state has tried all manner of maneuvers to stop the project, with little success so far. The Legislature imposed steep taxes on anyone doing business with the consortium and banned local governments from providing electricity and other services. The laws were declared unconstitutional by a federal court. Utah's senators have lobbied the Bush administration. So far, administration officials have said only that they remain committed to opening Yucca Mountain - 350 miles south of Skull Valley - and that the tribal project is not part of the government's nuclear waste plan. Dump opponents do have one significant victory. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, got Congress to create a 100,000-acre wilderness near the Goshute reservation with a finger of protected land crossing - and essentially blocking - a proposed right of way for a rail spur to bring the waste to the dump. Parkyn says he will just bring the waste the last 26 miles by truck. --- Once, more than 20,000 Goshutes roamed Utah and Nevada. Now there are only about 500, including the 118 belonging to the Skull Valley Band, according to Bear. Fewer than two dozen, including children, still live in the cluster of homes and trailers a few hundreds yards off the single highway that cuts through the reservation. Most of the households are below the national poverty level. At the tribe's only commercial building, the ``Pony Express Store'' and gas station, the sign is missing several letters. The clerk talks on the phone with little suggestion any customers will be arriving soon. Some of the economic benefits from the proposed dump already are visible. Amid the old, dilapidated houses are a half-dozen new modular homes - some still waiting to be put on foundations - thanks to money from the utilities. Bear lives in one; a second belongs to his brother; a third belongs to the vice chair of the tribe's executive council, also a strong supporter of the waste dump. Two of Bear's neighbors and sharpest critics - Margene Bullcreek and Sammie Blackbear - have not been offered new homes, says a lawyer representing Bullcreek. Blackbear lives in a small trailer just across the road from the new homes. ``It's entirely environmental racism,'' says Bullcreek, a 59-year-old grandmother. ``You have large corporations wanting to put the nuclear waste that nobody wants in their back yards on our land.'' Bullcreek and other critics of the project contend that tribal members never formally approved the dump and that the majority oppose it. But Bear maintains that the tribe approved the waste project in 1996, before the BIA approved it in March 1997 in a decision that itself has been questioned by dump opponents. A local BIA superintendent, David Allison, approved the lease only three days after receiving the final document. Allison, now retired, defends his decision and says there were months of discussions as the lease was being developed. ``Unquestionably it's to the benefit of the tribe,'' he said in a telephone interview. He acknowledged the issue is ``a very political hot potato'' and added, ``I've even been threatened over this thing.'' Anger over the waste dump has spilled over to a bitter dispute over tribal leadership. Bear's chairmanship expired in 2004, but Bullcreek says he has skirted new elections by repeatedly claiming the lack of a quorum before everyone has arrived at meetings. A suit challenging Bear's leadership and the BIA lease approval was dismissed by a federal court in Salt Lake City. Three years ago, Blackbear and two other nuclear dump opponents assumed leadership of the tribal council and began using its funds. The BIA never recognized them and they were arrested for theft and received probation. Last year Bear faced embezzlement charges and agreed to return $31,500 to the tribe. He also pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion. ``We don't believe the (tribal) chairmanship is a job,'' he said, explaining why he did not pay taxes on his income as tribal leader. ``Apparently the feds don't feel that way.'' --- The radioactive spent fuel rods are now kept in pools of water or in concrete containers at power plants. At Skull Valley, they will be kept in steel canisters inside concrete enclosures resting atop a concrete slab. A private security force will be at the site with double fences cordoning off the inner 100 acres where the waste will be kept. Consortium officials say the facility will comply fully with NRC security requirements. Tooele County, Utah, which surrounds the reservation, is anything but pristine. A few miles to the east, over the Stansbury Mountain range, the government is storing and burning nerve gas and other chemical agents. To the south is the Dugway Proving Ground, where the government uses chemical and biological agents in tests. Toward the northwest are private landfills holding hazardous, toxic and low-level radioactive waste. Not far away, on the Great Salt Lake, is a magnesium plant once ranked by the Environmental Protection Agency as the nation's No. 1 toxic polluter. Skull Valley itself has long been viewed as a bit foreboding. In the late 19th century, the state located its only leper colony there. Bullcreek, nonetheless, argues that becoming the country's storehouse for nuclear waste - ``This poison,'' she calls it - is contrary to Goshute tradition. ``It will destroy the harmony we have, the tranquility that we have in our valley.'' Bear scoffs at the dissent. ``We've got to live today,'' he says. ``We can't go back and live like the old days. You can't feed your children, you can't feed your family that way.'' ^--- On the Net: Skull Valley Goshutes: http://www.skullvalleygoshutes.org/ Private Fuel Storage LLC: http://www.privatefuelstorage.com/ Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov Public Citizen: http://www.citizen.org/CMEP/ Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 48 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Grants License to N.M. Uranium Plant From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 24, 2006 1:16 AM By SUE MAJOR HOLMES Associated Press Writer ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its first license for a major commercial nuclear facility in 30 years Friday, allowing an international consortium to build what would be the nation's first private fuel source for commercial nuclear power plants. Construction of the $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility, under review for the past 2 years, could begin in August, and the plant could be ready to sell enriched uranium by early 2009, said Jim Ferland, president of the consortium of nuclear companies, Louisiana Energy Services. The southeastern New Mexico plant would be near the small community of Eunice, where support for the project is strong. Critics say it would pollute the environment, guzzle scarce water and leave the town with tons of radioactive waste and nowhere to put it. Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.S. energy secretary, said Friday that although the state was largely excluded from the licensing process, he expects that an agreement state officials reached with LES will protect New Mexicans and their environment. A Kentucky facility owned by the Energy Department and operated by a privatized federal corporation is currently the only source of enriched uranium for commercial U.S. nuclear power plants. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a longtime supporter of nuclear power, said the license was important not only for LES, ``but for what this facility will mean for the renaissance of nuclear energy in this country.'' Ferland said the nuclear power industry watched the plant's licensing process closely, viewing it as a bellwether for them to consider applying for licenses for new nuclear power plants. ``I think the industry will walk away from this ... feeling quite comfortable,'' he said. The NRC's staff issued the license after rulings from a three-member panel of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Last month, federal officials cleared one of the last legal hurdles - questions over waste disposal. Critics argued that disposal costs could leave New Mexico stuck with the project's nuclear waste. But the board ruled May 31 that uncertainties over waste disposal costs are irrelevant; the agreement with New Mexico calls for hundreds of millions of dollars to be set aside for waste disposal. The plant would generate a form of waste that no U.S. disposal site can handle, and no U.S. processing facility exists that can convert the waste into lower-level radioactive material. The plant could run at full capacity for eight to 10 years before running out of onsite space for the material. LES has an agreement with a French company to build such a plant in this country, but no site has been selected and no license has been issued. LES is made up of European-based Urenco, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and minor U.S. partners. Ferland expects Urenco's board to give final approval to the project when it meets July 5. Public Citizen is among the groups opposing the plant. A message left Friday evening for the Washington-based organization was not immediately returned. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 49 London Times: US tycoon who got secret CBE in line for Sellafield contract - Sunday Times - Britain June 25, 2006 Steven Swinford and Tracey Boles DAYS after it emerged that the government had secretly given one of America’s most powerful corporate figures a CBE, it is now known that Whitehall has lifted a ban that had barred his construction firm from a lucrative nuclear waste contract in Britain. The giant Bechtel Corporation is being allowed to bid to clean up the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant — the first of a series of contracts that will eventually be worth £70 billion. It had been barred from bidding because it helped the government to set up the authority that will award the contracts. Two former Bechtel employees sit on the authority’s board. Opposition politicians and union officials complained yesterday that Bechtel will have an unfair advantage. Riley Bechtel, the corporation’s chief executive, has a personal fortune of more than £1.6 billion and is the 50th richest person in the United States. He was made a CBE in 2003 for his “services to UK-American commercial relations” but news of this award emerged only last weekend. In 2002 the family-owned corporation won a £23m contract to help to set up Britain’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the body responsible for dismantling nuclear facilities. Once the NDA began operating last year, Bechtel was barred from bidding for nuclear waste contracts until 2008 because it had acquired in-depth knowledge of the authority’s activities. However, it emerged this weekend that the NDA and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) had lifted the embargo two months ago. This enables the engineering giant to bid for the NDA’s first big contract, the £1 billion clean-up at Sellafield which will go out for tender in 2007. The government is said to believe that Bechtel’s expertise would help it to reduce the cost of cleaning up Britain’s nuclear legacy. But opposition MPs and unions criticised the decision to lift the ban. They point out that two members of the NDA’s board, Jim Morse, programme director, and Mark Leggett, commercial director, have previously worked at Bechtel. Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesman, said: “This is a highly alarming development and raises serious questions about the DTI’s role in the decommissioning programme. If the goalposts are going to be moved it gives Bechtel an unfair advantage.” Davey linked the decision to Tony Blair’s conversion to nuclear power, saying: “There is mounting evidence that Labour’s U-turn on nuclear power comes after the development of an extraordinarily close relationship with the nuclear industry.” Mike Graham, national secretary of Prospect, the engineering union which represents most of the Sellafield workforce, said: “We are very concerned. Bechtel have clearly got insider knowledge of the bidding process and have an unfair advantage. It’s not on.” Further contracts lie ahead. Four Magnox reactors will be closed by 2010 and Britain’s other reactors will be retired over the following decade. Bechtel is expected to bid for British Nuclear Group, the government’s nuclear clean-up arm which is being privatised. Bechtel will have to compete against several other US engineering giants for the company, which is expected to sell for up to £1 billion. Bechtel has worked on a number of large public contracts in Britain including the Channel tunnel rail link, the Jubilee Line Tube extension and the west coast main line. It is bidding for a leading role in the construction of the London Olympics site. Based in San Francisco, it has also won extensive contracts for US reconstruction work in Iraq. George Schultz, a board member, was secretary of state under Ronald Reagan. Times and The Sunday Times. ***************************************************************** 50 AU ABC: Govt denies choosing nuclear waste site ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story Saturday, 24 June 2006. 14:10 (AEDT)Saturday, 24 June 2006. The Federal Government denies a newspaper report that Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory has been chosen as the site for a nuclear waste site. The report claims a deal has been struck between the Northern Land Council and the Federal Government to build the $30 million depository on the Aboriginal-owned Muckaty Station, about 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek. But a spokesman for the Federal Science Minister, Julie Bishop, says no such deal has been made. He says Muckaty Station owners have not officially offered their land and it is not one of the sites being considered by a current review that is due to report back to the Government in about 10 months time. The Northern Land Council also denies the report, saying it is unsubstantiated speculation. The government spokesman says no decision will be made until the review process is completed. ***************************************************************** 51 Deseret News: N-waste bitterly divides Utah tribe [deseretnews.com] Sunday, June 25, 2006 Goshute leader says $$ needed; others decry risks, racism By H. Josef Hebert Associated Press SKULL VALLEY, Tooele County — Leon Bear, a stocky man in T-shirt and jeans, peers across the sagebrush-pocked valley where his ancestors once chased Pony Express riders and sees the future for his dwindling tribe. ['Image'] Douglas C. Pizac, Associated PressMargene Bullcreek stands beside a sign marking a reservation boundary. nuclear waste. Just west of the gun-barrel straight, two-lane road that darts through the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, Bear wants to store 4,000 steel and concrete canisters of highly radioactive used fuel from nuclear power plants. The tribe would reap tens of millions of dollars in rent over the next 40 years. "I've been shown there's no problem. The way they plan to handle it, it's safe," the 46-year-old tribal leader insists, escorting a visitor around the reservation in a glistening new pickup truck. The truck is an example of the largess the tribe already has received from a consortium of eight electric utilities that nine years ago signed a lease with the tribe to put 40,000 tons of reactor waste on the reservation. It's the kind of deal other tribes have rejected, that most communities would oppose, one that spells "not in my back yard" in the brightest of colors. Utah's establishment in Salt Lake City, the capital 45 miles away, is enraged. Critics, including some within the tribe, call it environmental racism at its rawest. But Bear says it's the way to riches that will mean new homes, new jobs and better health care for the 118 members of his tribe. Only about two dozen — including children — still live on the 18,000-acre reservation, but this will bring many of the others back, he predicts. The Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the lease in 1997. The deal is yet to be consummated amid a mountain of lawsuits, regulatory hurdles and bitter opposition. It's close, though. ['Image'] Photos By H. Josef Hebert, Associated PressPonies roam freely on the reservation. The nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a license for the dump in February. It rejected arguments that its location is unsafe because hundreds of F-16 jet fighters fly over the reservation on the way to bombing runs over nearby government land. The chance of a crash that could result in the release of radiation is one in a million, an adequate risk, the NRC said. Private Fuel Storage LLC of Wisconsin, the consortium that would build and run the dump, has begun looking for nuclear power plant owners to sign up for waste shipments. "We have to store this stuff somewhere," says PFS Chairman John Parkyn. The utilities "were promised this material would be collected and removed to a central location, and now we have one." If Bear and Parkyn get their way, it will mark a watershed in addressing the thorniest problem facing the nuclear industry: where to put nearly 60,000 tons of highly radioactive reactor waste now stored at power plants in 31 states, and the additional 2,000 tons being generated each year. The government promised to take the waste beginning in 1998, but a planned federal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is years behind schedule. Some say it may never be built. The PFS consortium has spent more than $20 million so far, including licensing costs and payments to the Skull Valley tribe under its 1997 lease. But no utility has committed to send waste to Utah, and four of the companies that helped finance the project so far have said they won't commit any more money as long as Yucca Mountain moves forward. If Yucca Mountain encounters more hurdles and delays, utilities will turn to Skull Valley, Parkyn predicted in an interview. ['Image'] Photos By H. Josef Hebert, Associated PressLeon Bear stands near a landfill containing garbage from Salt Lake City. The landfill provides income for the Goshutes. The PFS consortium has spent more than $20 million so far. Neither Bear nor PFS will say how much of that the tribe has received or will receive over the next 40 years if the deal goes through. Speculation is that it could be as much as $100 million for the tribe. Still, it's hard to find people in Utah who favor the dump. "You're batting in the 85 percent range of people who don't want this project to go forward. As conservative as the state is, you don't even see those kind of percentages in things like gay marriage," says Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, which opposes the project. The state has tried all manner of maneuvers to stop the project, with little success so far. The Legislature imposed steep taxes on anyone doing business with PFS and banned local governments from providing electricity and other services. The laws were declared unconstitutional by a federal court. Utah's senators have lobbied the Bush administration. So far, administration officials have said only that they remain committed to opening Yucca Mountain — 350 miles southwest of Skull Valley in Nevada — and that the PFS project is not part of the government's nuclear waste plan. Dump opponents do have one significant victory. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, got Congress to create a 100,000-acre wilderness near the Goshute reservation with a finger of protected land crossing — and essentially blocking — a proposed right of way for a rail spur to bring the waste to the dump. Parkyn says he'll just bring the waste the last 26 miles by truck. Once, more than 20,000 Goshutes roamed across Utah and Nevada. Now there are only about 500, including the 118 belonging to the Skull Valley Band, according to Bear. ['Image'] Douglas C. Pizac, Associated PressA sign, riddled by bullet holes, stands along the highway leading to the Goshute Reservation. Fewer than two dozen, including children, still live in the cluster of homes and trailers a few hundreds yards off the single highway that cuts through the reservation. Most of the households are below the national poverty level. At the tribe's only commercial building, the "Pony Express Store" and gas station, the sign is missing several letters and the clerk talks on the phone with little suggestion any customers will be arriving soon. Some of the economic benefits from the proposed dump are already visible. Amid the old, dilapidated houses are a half-dozen new modular homes — some still waiting to be put on foundations — thanks to money from PFS. Bear lives in one, another belongs to his brother and a third to the vice chairman of the tribe's executive council, also a strong supporter of the waste dump. Two of Bear's neighbors and sharpest critics — Margene Bullcreek and Sammie Blackbear — have not been offered new homes, says an attorney representing Bullcreek. Blackbear lives in a small trailer just across the road from the new homes. "It's entirely environmental racism," says Bullcreek, 59. "You have large corporations wanting to put the nuclear waste that nobody wants in their back yards on our land." Bear maintains that the tribe approved the waste project in 1996, before the BIA approved it in March 1997 in a decision that itself has been questioned by dump opponents. A local BIA superintendent, David Allison, approved the lease only three days after receiving the final document. Allison, now retired, defends his decision and says there were months of discussions as the lease was being developed. "Unquestionably, it's to the benefit of the tribe," he said in a telephone interview. He acknowledged the issue is "a very political hot potato" and added, "I've even been threatened over this thing." ['Photo'] Associated Press Anger over the waste dump has spilled over to a bitter dispute over tribal leadership. Bear's chairmanship expired in 2004, but Bullcreek says he has skirted new elections by repeatedly claiming the lack of a quorum before everyone has arrived at meetings. A lawsuit challenging Bear's leadership and the BIA lease approval was dismissed by a federal court in Salt Lake City. Three years ago, Blackbear and two other nuclear dump opponents assumed leadership of the tribal council and began using its funds. The BIA never recognized them, and they were arrested for theft and received probation. Last year Bear faced embezzlement charges and agreed to return $31,500 to the tribe. He also pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion. "We don't believe the (tribal) chairmanship is a job," he said, explaining why he didn't pay taxes on his income as tribal leader. "Apparently the feds don't feel that way." The radioactive spent fuel rods are now kept in pools of water or in concrete containers at power plants. At Skull Valley, they will be kept in steel canisters inside concrete enclosures resting atop a concrete slab. A private security force will be at the site with double fences cordoning off the inner 100 acres where the waste will be kept. PFS officials say the facility will comply fully with NRC security requirements. Tooele County, which surrounds the reservation, is anything but pristine. A few miles to the east over the Stansbury Mountain range, the government is storing and burning nerve gas and other chemical agents. To the south is the Dugway Proving Ground, where the government uses chemical and biological agents in tests. Toward the northwest are private landfills holding hazardous, toxic and low-level radioactive waste. And not far away on the Great Salt Lake is a magnesium plant once ranked by the Environmental Protection Agency as the nation's No. 1 toxic polluter. Skull Valley itself has long been viewed as a bit foreboding. In the late 19th century, the state located its only leper colony there. Bullcreek, nonetheless, argues that becoming the country's storehouse for nuclear waste — "this poison," she calls it — is contrary to Goshute tradition. "It will destroy the harmony we have, the tranquility that we have in our valley." Bear scoffs at the dissent. "We've got to live today," he says. "We can't go back and live like the old days. You can't feed your children, you can't feed your family that way." © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 52 SF New Mexican: Feds grant rare license to N.M. uranium-enrichment plant By SUE MAJOR HOLMES | Associated Press June 24, 2006 ALBUQUERQUE -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its first license for a major commercial nuclear facility in 30 years Friday, allowing an international consortium to build what would be the nation's first private fuel source for commercial nuclear-power plants. Construction of the $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility, under review for the past 21/2 years, could begin in August, and the plant could be ready to sell enriched uranium by early 2009, said Jim Ferland, president of the consortium of nuclear companies, Louisiana Energy Services. The southeastern New Mexico plant would be near the small community of Eunice, where support for the project is strong. Critics say it would pollute the environment, guzzle scarce water and leave the town with tons of radioactive waste and nowhere to put it. Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.S. energy secretary, said Friday that although the state was largely excluded from the licensing process, he expects an agreement that state officials reached with LES will protect New Mexicans and their environment. A Kentucky facility owned by the Energy Department and operated by a privatized federal corporation is currently the only source of enriched uranium for commercial U.S. nuclear-power plants. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a longtime supporter of nuclear power, said the license was important not only for LES, "but for what this facility will mean for the renaissance of nuclear energy in this country." Ferland said the nuclear-power industry watched the plant's licensing process closely, viewing it as a bellwether for them to consider applying for licenses for new nuclear-power plants. "I think the industry will walk away from this ... feeling quite comfortable," he said. The NRC's staff issued the license after rulings from a three-member panel of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Last month, federal officials cleared one of the last legal hurdles -- questions over waste disposal. Critics argued that disposal costs could leave New Mexico stuck with the project's nuclear waste. But the board ruled May 31 that uncertainties over waste-disposal costs are irrelevant; the agreement with New Mexico calls for hundreds of millions of dollars to be set aside for waste disposal. The plant would generate a form of waste that no U.S. disposal site can handle, and no U.S. processing facility exists that can convert the waste into lower-level radioactive material. The plant could run at full capacity for eight to 10 years before running out of on-site space for the material. LES has an agreement with a French company to build such a plant in this country, but no site has been selected and no license has been issued. By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/25/2006 8:07 pm) ( Report this comment ) Anne, there is an easy way to treat high level waste so that it is low level waste. You dilute the waste with inert materials. Than happily off to Utah the waste goes. This practice is probably illegal. I've had discussions with people who thought that a good way to dispose of radioactive waste would be to put the uranium back into the mine where it came from, along with the tailings. Of course this is ridiculous, for no other reason than the fact that the mine isn't in the stable condition it was in before mining. By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/25/2006 7:56 pm) ( Report this comment ) Anne, WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) is the repository for TRU waste (elements heavier than Uranium) generated from defense projects. Since Uranium is not heavier than uranium this waste can't be sent to WIPP for that reason alone. The salt beds that WIPP was dug from must be geologically stable, seeing that any water perking through the limestone would have dissolved that salt away long ago, salt is most easily dissolved in water, after all. The fact that the salt beds exist at all atest to the stability of the formation. By randy echter (Submitted: 06/25/2006 6:38 pm) ( Report this comment ) I've said for years nukes aren't a question of IF but WHEN,for a world that refuses to address the question of human population numbers.An abundant energy supply is an assumption of capitalism but it's supply isn't necessarily assured by reserves.Of course nukes are dangerous,sort of a last resort as a way to run a world......does that tell you whether or not the hour is late? By CM Williams (Submitted: 06/25/2006 6:25 pm) ( Report this comment ) I still believe that with 3/4 of the state in drought, we don't need a nuclear facility here--we don't have the water to process this waste. Yucca Mountain isn't that stable with all it's faults and fissures. If it ever leaks, it will poison the ground water supplies. By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 06/25/2006 5:50 pm) ( Report this comment ) I did not say that I agreed with the NRC decision. I think decoupling the cost of waste disposal from the plant siting decision is an outrageously arrogant fiat. While there are probably considerable uncertainties about disposal costs, someone will have to pay them. We can make some guesses, can't we, and build siting and disposal costs into our decisions. Its called long-range planning. Put it back out to bid with all the ugly eventualities built in. What I would suggest for all forms of energy is to include cradle-to-grave costs of generation to the price at the meter or pump. You want to turn on the lights, you better figure out what to do with the waste, whether it be radioactive from nuclear, CO2 from oil, or the mercury, heavy metals, acid rain, and particulates from coal, (or for that matter the ultimate disposal costs of solar panels). Maybe we can even include a greenhouse gas insurance premium that will pay for the possibility of shoreline erosion and sea-level change (like auto insurance, it doesn't guarantee it will happen or whose fault it will be--it just means we know we are taking a risk). In that arena, conservation wins hands-down.. Of course,nothing we do here will neccesarily keep us safe from a ruined environment. Think global, act local, eh? China is currently building a large coal fired power plant a week, according to a recent NY Times article. Using 75 year old techology, too. Poisoning their cities, but driving Beemers and buying appliances. Currently, a significant fraction of the anthropogenic particulates measured in the Western U.S., according to this article, are lofting over the Pacific Ocean from the Far East. So we need to think about ways for the Chinese (and Indians) to generate power without poisoning us, or for that matter watching them modify the atmosphere and eventually, the climate. As far as this discussion goes, if we use HEU left over from the Cold War, then my question to Mr. Streeper was what do we do when it runs out? His suggestion, while good from the perspective of using the Cold War stuff up, doesn't answer the long term question about nuclear power and it still leaves us with a nuclear fuel cycle headache. Do we shut down when we use up the HEU? But while using up HEU, we produce more spent fuel products. Can nuclear be made "safe"? After reading Normal Accidents by Perrow, I worry too. But waste handling can be improved if we resumed reprocessing, thus allowing us to segregate different nuclear fuel cycle waste products, i.,e., separating long from short-lived half-live waste nuclides. This might allow a better disposition of each type of material. Pres. Carter stopped reprocessing. That was a political decision. As far as the article stating "The plant would generate a form of waste that no U.S. disposal site can handle, and no U.S. processing facility exists that can convert the waste into lower-level radioactive material." What material? DU? What the hell does that paragraph mean in specific terms? Do we have to play twenty questions with the newspaper as well as with each other? Can AP hire someone who is not a scientific illiterate? For that matter, can we agree to use paragraphs? By Anne Ortiz (Submitted: 06/25/2006 3:57 pm) ( Report this comment ) David Lopez the article states clearly that, "The plant would generate a form of waste that no U.S. disposal site can handle, and no U.S. processing facility exists that can convert the waste into lower-level radioactive material." Also, I think I have explained twice now that the WHIP site is not optimal nuclear waste site even for nuclear waste that has been converted into lower-level radioactive material because of its geological composition being lime stone which is easily penetrated and NM underground water aquifers run below the WHIP site. Thus NM water can potentially be contaminated should a leak occur. As for your request on energy free homes with solar radiant heat and all kinds of other treats like solar electricity and that is without mentioning utilization of the wind. Enjoy: (There is info on both solar energy for water, electricity, and even college classes to learn how to build your own energy free home.) www.jc-solarhomes.com/solar_energy.html www.jc-solarhomes.com/solar_hot_water.html www.jc-solarhomes.com/photovolt.html www.jc-solarhomes.com/solar_home_plans.htm www.buildingwithawareness.com/house14.html And you can find compost toilets that are clean and odor free, low energy washer/dryers/refrigerators etc...it all depends on how much you are willing to explore. By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/25/2006 9:15 am) ( Report this comment ) I think it must be clarified that nuclear weapon production and nuclear power production are two entirely different beasts, with their products built in entirely different facilities. I think that contaminated sites can be cleaned up, leaving behind a site, while not pristine, at least not a wasteland. However since the nuclear waste can't be neutralized, it must be put somewhere less harmful, like WIPP. Now you have two sites that have been exposed to nuclear waste. In hind site, Los Alamos, Hanford, Savannah River should all have been built at the WIPP site, that way only one site is contaminated. All the Uranium enrichment should be done at Yucca Mountain, again so only one site is contaminated. I really would like to see citations on those homes that can be built energy free. To me, taking a pile of building materials and arranging them into a house takes energy, it just has to. After the home is built, of course, solar, geothermal,wind can all make maintaining that house possible without using the grid. By CM Williams (Submitted: 06/25/2006 9:08 am) ( Report this comment ) In 1979 a dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream at Church Rock, N.M. [http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KO O9.html] Our govenor just sold us out. Some day we will realize there's "something" more valuable than money. By Anne Ortiz (Submitted: 06/25/2006 7:13 am) ( Report this comment ) Khalil, I do not know what your profession is, but I have never disagreed with you until now. Did you get it... there is no way to clean up nuclear waste regardless of how much money there is! And thus the environment will affect our bodies from water, air and soil causing illness and even cancer. Funny that you got off the high road you usually travel for convenience with great cost to humanity a theme you have seemed to support consistently in the past. The professor/geologist whose thesis was classified actually taught me at NM Tech before I went to med sch and it is fact that the WHIP site is built over lime stone which is no barrier to our underground water supply in NM. So God help us if there is a leak out there. And we dare allow our politicians continue in this vain. Clean renewable energy is not a myth...homes can now be built energy free and the initial costs are more than off set by the energy savings. You are right CM Williams, NM has no water to support ventures that are futile. If uranium enrichment plant is allowed, we are in for a lesson we about contamination we should have learned as children from Dr. Seuss's in the "Cat in the Hat." By Eric Scott (Submitted: 06/25/2006 6:36 am) ( Report this comment ) Khalil you didn't mention solar power. I respect your opinions based on the nature of your profession. I hate to see that this license was granted. I don't want my beloved New Mexico or her citizens to be polluted. Several states refused this operation and it sickens me they got away with it here. CM Williams, excellent point - - is their some basis to stop this operation due to lack of water? By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 06/24/2006 10:52 pm) ( Report this comment ) That puts off the inevitable, Mr. Streeper. Sooner or later we have to solve the energy problem. If people don't want to burn coal, and if we are running out of oil, then what? I suppose we can harness some of the wind energy on these pages and power a few turbines. By CM Williams (Submitted: 06/24/2006 10:29 pm) ( Report this comment ) That's a good point, Ms. Garrison. We don't have the WATER to support this venture! By Ann Garrison (Submitted: 06/24/2006 10:00 pm) ( Report this comment ) This "international consortium": is Urenco and it is totally European owned. And this plant and the whole nuclear power infrastructure are nothing but an excuse to build nuclear weapons infrrastructure. Nucleaer power is the costliest, most dangerous, most toxic energy "we" can produce, when you consider the whole process, from mining, in which most of the miners get sick, to milling and enrichment, where most milling and enrichment workers get sick, to transport, during which an earthquake might drop a skyscraper on a truck full of the doubled plutonium allowances headed for Los Alamos or Lawrence Livermore, or a train full of plutonium or tritium or some other sort of enriched uranium. Then there's the building of power plants, reactors, and--yes weapons, and infrastructure for building power plants and weapons---all of which comsume huge amounts of energy, which I do not expect to be clearn or renewable. Then there's the irreparable contamination caused by Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) exploding radioacive weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Non-Nuclear Weapons States where these weapons have no concept of nation state boundaries and remain in the atmosphere for 4.5 billion years. Tnd, all that high-tech health care, for all the people with cancer and kidney disease and the like as a result of all this idiocy, also very high techm, and energy intensive and unlikely to be powered by anything clean or renewable. And then there's the nuclear waste piling and piling nad piling up higher and hgiher and wider, taking up more space and emitting more radiation, by sheer quantity alone, and each new load pof "depleted" uranioum has a radopactove half life of 4.5 billion years. Let's not forget all the nuclear water contamination, and clean-up. like the Columbia River near Hanfor'sirreparably contaminated nuclear enrichment site in Hanford,m Washington, and the groundwater around Entergy's Yankee Power Plant in southern Vermont and wastern Masssachuseetts. . . and the Rio Puerco neaer Church Rock, forever contaminateed on July 17, 1969 and here we are back, and all the water being wasted or contaminated to mine this stsuff in Indian Country. . . . Oh and Divine Strak; let's not forget this brilliant idea; the 700-ton conventional monster bomb that does seem to be postponed indefinitely, although the DOE, which shields a good chunk of the DOD seems to think it's still on, now for September. . . though,m last time I looked, the Dod seemed to disagree. That'll land smack in the middle of what is probably the most concentrated pile of radioactive dirrt on earth, the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, scattering it every which way. Can't clearn that up; no reason to waste any more energy trying. Would someone please tell me that this is not happening, that we are not this stupid and isolated? ---Ann Garrison, katrinawithoutborders@hotmail.com By Charles Streeper (Submitted: 06/24/2006 6:12 pm) ( Report this comment ) I don't understand why we can't use up the remaining Highly Enriched Uranium stockpiles in the US and Russia before starting up enrichment facilities. By CM Williams (Submitted: 06/24/2006 10:36 am) ( Report this comment ) Why? Why no plan on waste disposal? Why HERE? Aren't we polluted enough with Los Alamos and Church Rock? By Anne Ortiz (Submitted: 06/24/2006 10:22 am) ( Report this comment ) It should be noted that the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology geologists in fact suported the finding of the hazard of the the WHIP site being built over lime stone should a leak radioactive waste occur our underground water would be contaminaded, but the thesis that evidenced this finding became classified during the planning of the site and is therefore not public information. By Anne Ortiz (Submitted: 06/24/2006 8:49 am) ( Report this comment ) Govenor Richardson, with clean energy from the sun and wind-- we are still willing to run a plant with enormous waste pollution and danger to New Mexicans for MONEY!!! "The plant would generate a form of waste that no U.S. disposal site can handle, and no U.S. processing facility exists that can convert the waste into lower-level radioactive material." Yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission : "board ruled May 31 that uncertainties over waste-disposal costs are irrelevant; the agreement with New Mexico calls for hundreds of millions of dollars to be set aside for waste disposal." Money still does not equal ability/technology to reduce the level of radioactivity for storage. Therefore, the waste disposal is in fact relavant and no amount of money may cure this ill. Govenor Richardson don't be short sighted and don't even think for a moment that the Louisiana Energy Services(LES) is thinking about New Mexicans for even one moment when it comes to making hundreds of millions of dollars. I have supported you publically and I cannot support this mess. Bing sold us out with the WHIP site built over lime stone that could easily leak radioactive waste into our natural underground water source for money...and Senator Dominici's "renaissance" comment is rediculous because this would not be an intellectual achievment.. Now there is no plan for the waste, but that was irrelevant to the granting of this "rare license" ??? Govenor Richardson, be a scientific leader of clean alternative energy, the seemingly large amount of money is nothing compared to a clean and safe environment. ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 53 AFP: European consortium to build uranium enrichment plant in US Sunday June 25, 08:25 PM WASHINGTON (AFP) - US authorities have given a European-led consortium peremission to build the first uranium enrichment plant in the United States for 30 years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the new 1.5 billion dollar plant would be built at Eunice in New Mexico by Louisiana Energy Services (LES). Work on the National Enrichment Facility (NEF) is to start in August and the plant could be selling enriched uranium by 2009, according to officials. LES is made up of the European firm Urenco, British Nuclear Fuels and a number of smaller US partners. "This is a historic and remarkable achievement for our company, for the nuclear industry as a whole," said LES president Jim Ferland, emphasizing how it was the first major commercial nuclear facility to be licensed in the United States in three decades. The Eunice plant will use gas centrifuge technology developed by Urenco and that the plant already had contracts worth three billion dollars. "It will use a proven technology that has operated safely in Europe for 30 years," LES said in a statement. Urenco already has plants in Britain, the Netherlands and Germany. LES made its application in 2003 and since then US authorities have been conducting regulatory and security checks. The nuclear commission said in a statement that "since the flow of technology and classified information would be into the United States, no concerns were identified." At the moment, the only US uranium enrichment plant is in Kentucky. President George W. Bush has set a target of reducing US dependence on Middle East oil by 75 percent by 2025. He has also called for the building of new nuclear power plants. There are more than 100 nuclear reactors in the United States but none has been built since the fire at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvannia in 1979. Copyright © 2006 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Santa Fe New Mexican: New director aims to take LANL forward By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican June 24, 2006 LOS ALAMOS -- The director of Los Alamos National Laboratory says he's ready for a new era there, with enough money to pay the best scientists, a motivated workforce and a clear mission. "The mission, in my vision of the lab, is really to be the national-security-science laboratory for the 21st century," director Mike Anastasio said in a recent interview. Anastasio is also the president of Los Alamos National Security LLC, the private company that took over management of the lab on June 1 after bidding on a federal contract. The lab's mission remains the same after the change in management, he said. Its stated mission is to help ensure the safety and reliability of the country's nuclear weapons without nuclear testing -- commonly referred to as stockpile stewardship. The lab also is involved in broad scientific research and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In addition to stockpile stewardship, Anastasio said, the lab must be able to anticipate the country's needs by having a strong base in science. "The base core of what the lab is about is that science and technology that enables us to do whatever the country needs us to do," Anastasio said. He added he is committed to that vision. "It takes a special place to be able to anticipate what the country is going to need in the future, and that's what makes us a national laboratory," he said. For example, Anastasio said, work by the national labs in the early 1990s enabled them to help the government respond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "When 9/11 happened, literally the next day, capabilities from the lab were deployed in the field," he said. Anastasio also said he has the people needed to get the job done, including about 9,400 employees who worked for the lab when it was managed by the University of California. About 96 percent of the people who worked at Los Alamos before June 1 chose to work for the new company, he said. "We feel very good about that outcome." A few people left, Anastasio said, but the lab had no need to recruit crucial scientists. "I did not need to make a personal appeal to a large number of people to get them to stay," he said. " ... So I think it's a testament to the team that we have." The lab has a work force of about 12,000, including subcontractors and students. The four partners in Los Alamos National Security LLC are the University of California, Bechtel National, Washington Group International and BWX Technologies Inc. "During the transition (after the company was awarded the contract in December), I spent as much time as I could going around the laboratory and meeting with small groups of people, just me and them," Anastasio said. He emphasized the transition now is over, and people at the lab want to move on. "The morale is quite good," he said. "People are excited about the future. ... It's an exciting place because of the things you can achieve." Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com. ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 55 Tri-City Herald: Geologists take hard look at Columbia Basin formation Published Sunday, June 25th, 2006 By Lynne Lynch, Herald Basin bureau Two new books written by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory geologists Bruce Bjornstad and Steve Reidel complement each other. Bjornstad's On the Trail of the Ice Age Floods: A geological field guide to the Mid-Columbia Basin, highlights the glacial Lake Missoula floods that carved out the Pacific Northwest. And Reidel's Big Black Boring Rock, Essays on Northwest Geology, talks about the basalt rock scattered throughout the Columbia Basin and how it shaped the region. "Bruce's book is on the Missoula floods," Reidel said. "He always works on the overburden (the sediment above the basalt) and I work on the big black boring rock." The floods deposited a 300-foot thick, 12-mile long sand and gravel pile called the Cold Creek Bar on what is now part of Hanford's 200 West and 200 East waste management areas and waste treatment plant, Reidel said. The geologists drill holes in the rock and study it to help monitor the flow of waste through the soil and rock, Reidel said. Although both men share the same profession, they followed different approaches in writing their books. Reidel's 142-page book of geology essays grew from the Northwest Geology column he started writing for the Herald in 1991. Following a former Herald editor's instructions, Reidel strove to write each article concisely and free of jargon and to concentrate on features readers could drive to see. That way, a busy reader's attention would be retained throughout the article, he said. Reidel called the 600-word essays in the book "more a labor of love than anything else." With his 307-page book, Bjornstad said he hopes to expand readers' awareness of the floods and help them better appreciate nature. The first half of his book lays out the background of the floods and will probably appeal to everyone, he said. The second half should interest outdoor enthusiasts who want to track down the mammoth flood boulders during a hike or biking trip, he added. "This is the kind of book you can take and bang around," Bjornstad said. The authors will be signing copies of their books from 5 to 7 p.m. Wednesday at the CREHST museum's auditorium, 95 Lee Blvd., Richland. The books also will be available for sale. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 56 WWUB: Hanford Site tour mixes new with information from past Walla Walla Union-Bulletin: [union-bulletin.com] Updated: Saturday, June 24, 2006 10:43 PM PDT Although its original purpose of producing plutonium for nuclear bombs has ended, the site continues to produce headlines. By Andy Porter RICHLAND - Once it was one of the most secret places in the country. Now it is one of the most contaminated spots on Earth. It is also one of the most historic. Retired nuclear engineer Norm Miller talks about the history and engin eering of Hanford's B Reactor. Behind him is the massive front face of the reactor where cooling water was guid ed into the core via hundreds of nozz les. U-B photo by Andy Porter--> And, judging by the small crowd who toured it this week, it is also a magnet for anyone curious about the Atomic Age, huge government projects and massive cleanup efforts. "It" is the Hanford Site, a 586-square-mile reservation created in World War II as part of the Manhattan Project. Although its original purpose of producing plutonium for nuclear bombs has ended, the site continues to produce headlines as efforts to deal with its toxic legacy continue. The desire to see what is inside the fences of the reservation drew 350 people here over three days to view the mix of past, present and future at the once-secret site. The tour started at the Volpentest HAMMER training facility, built to train Hanford personnel, and then went past the "300 Area," where the uranium slugs were fabricated to produce the plutonium. Heading to the heart of the reservation, the tour bus passed by the now-decommissioned Fast Flux Test Facility, a sodium-cooled research reactor and the still-functioning Energy Northwest reactor, the one reactor on the site not under Department of Energy control. As explained by Michele Gerber, one of the tour guides and author of "On the Home Front," the DOE reactors and other facilities on the reservation were dedicated to creating one final product, plugs of plutonium which were later machined into the explosive hearts of nuclear weapons. "We made about 27,000 of those," Gerber said. "That was about 60 percent of the nuclear material made in the United States. "That's why Hanford's famous and that's why it will be famous for probably as long as we're alive," she said. The tour continued past the former townsite of Hanford, where the original Hanford High School, built in 1908, still stands. The area was also home to a small city of barracks, mess halls and trailers that formed the Hanford construction camp that, at its peak, held about 51,000 people. The high point of the visit was the one stop where visitors were allowed off the bus and into one of Hanford Site's most famous structures, the B Reactor. Although unimpressive on the outside, the squat, gray concrete building is a milestone in more ways than one, explained Norm Miller, a retired nuclear engineer who was one of the tour guides. Along with being the world's first, full-scale, plutonium-production reactor, the facility also set an unofficial record by being built and put into operation in only 13 months. It remained in operation for the next 24 years before being shut down in 1968. The tour's final leg led through the "200 Areas," where the plutonium was chemically separated from uranium slugs and then made a stop at one of the largest landfills in the United States, where low-level radioactive waste is being buried in lined pits. As with everything else at the Hanford Site, the quantities are huge. According to Tom Kisenwether, one of the site workers, more than six million tons of waste have been buried at the site, with more to come. "We do about 3,000 tons a day," he said. Copyright © 2006 Walla Walla Union-Bulletin 112 S. 1st Ave. Walla Walla, WA 99362 - Phone (509) 525-3300 Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 57 Albuquerque Tribune: Richardson is correct to question DOE's plan Editorials June 24, 2006 There are advantages to having a former secretary of energy as your governor. Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, who served in that role under former President Clinton, challenged this week the Department of Energy's plan to restructure - specifically, to merge its Office of Environment, Safety and Health into other DOE divisions. Richardson sent a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman opposing and criticizing the plan, which he charged "downgrades and weakens safety and health protections." DOE's Clay Sell, a deputy secretary and former congressional staffer who worked on energy issues for New Mexico's Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, denied the criticism. He insisted the move was aimed solely at making DOE stronger and more efficient. Those may sound like good Republican talking points, but worker safety and local environmental health should not be traded for them. Nor should they be undermined in any partisan way. Richardson is correct to challenge openly the need for any bureaucratic change that would de-emphasize what should be a vital mission of environment, safety and health protection at an agency whose history in these realms is notorious. At times, DOE and its predecessors insisted national security issues placed it above federal laws protecting worker safety and health and the nation's environment. The courts and Congress decided otherwise. Given the current record of the Bush administration in setting itself above the law in so many areas, DOE employees and Americans living near DOE facilities should be as concerned about this proposal as is Richardson. Richardson, who had a checkered history at DOE that included a nasty showdown with Congress over security, was pretty diligent about maintaining DOE's environmental remediation, safety and health programs. And for good reasons. As a former New Mexico congressman familiar with the work and failings of New Mexico's two nuclear-weapons laboratories - Sandia and Los Alamos national labs - Richardson was intensely aware, far more than the typical member of Congress, of the department's frequently shabby record on environmental safeguards and the health and safety of its employees. Thousands of DOE employees and contract workers in New Mexico and other states deserve vigilant protection, as do people residing near DOE facilities that still are very much in the state of Cold War-era remediation for contamination of surrounding land and water. No wonder, then, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire also signed Richardson's letter. Her state easily has DOE's worst potential environmental nightmares in stored radioactive and chemical wastes at Hanford in southeastern Washington. "Given the absence of any external studies demonstrating this office is dysfunctional or ineffective, there appears to be no compelling reason to reduce or change its function," Richardson wrote Bodman. Indeed, given the government's record of general environmental disregard over the last five years, there are compelling reasons not to make this change. Governors across the country, in particular several who have DOE facilities in their states, would be wise to join Richardson and Gregoire in insisting DOE do nothing to devalue its environmental, safety and health programs and enforcement. Likewise for their congressional delegations. 2006 © The Albuquerque Tribune | | ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************