*****************************************************************
07/05/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.158
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [NYTr] Hersh: Last Stand - The Military vs Bush's Iran Policy
2 Guardian Unlimited: Talks Between Iran, EU Official Delayed
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Postpones EU Discussions by a Day
4 IRNA: Spanish king urges "fair negotiations" to settle Iran's N-case
5 IRNA: Belarussian ambassador: Nuclear energy is Iran's right
6 IRNA: Blair declines to set deadline on Iran 
7 AFP: Iran nuclear talks would lower temperature in west Asia - Pakis
8 AFP: Iran says may give nuclear response early August
9 AFP: EU awaits 'first response' from Iran on ending nuclear impasse 
10 AFP: Iran puts off nuclear talks for fear of 'assassins'
11 [southnews] N Korea rains on US July 4 celebrations
12 [NYTr] North Korea launches two missiles - reports
13 [southnews] More N Korea tests 'expected'
14 Guardian Unlimited: White House: No Standoff With N. Korea
15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Cites World Outrage at N. Korea
16 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: N. Korea Calling for Attention
17 Guardian Unlimited: Defiant North Korea fires seventh test missile
18 Guardian Unlimited: And then there were two ...
19 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang faces united criticism at UN meeting
20 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Resist North Korea Sanctions
21 BBC: Outcry over N Korea missile test
22 AFP: Kim Jong-Il: dangerous eccentric or shrewd operator? 
23 AFP: Bush says US, allies, will hold NKorea to account
24 AFP: North Korea condemned after test firing missiles 
25 AFP: North Korea launches volley of missiles on US holiday - 
26 AFP: UN weighs punitive measures in response to North Korean missile
27 washingtonpost.com: Early Warning
28 Guardian Unlimited: North Korean 'fireworks display' irritates US 
29 Guardian Unlimited: White House: Missiles Pose No U.S. Threat
30 Indian Health, Nukes, Independence Day, and more
31 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Russia will join talks with EU 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
32 US: Arizona Republic: Pressure loss shuts reactor 
33 Guardian Unlimited: Documents reveal hidden fears over Britain's nuc
34 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for D. C. Cook N
35 Guardian Unlimited: More checks on reactors ordered after cracks fou
36 UPI: Putin: Russia will pursue nuclear energy
37 Guardian Unlimited: Cracks found at nuclear stations
38 Guardian Unlimited: Profits slump halves British Nuclear Group's sal
39 Guardian Unlimited: I've changed my mind on nuclear power, admits Bl
40 Guardian Unlimited: Documents reveal hidden fears over Britain's nuc
41 Guardian Unlimited: Bad news at crucial time for nuclear industry
42 London Times: Nuclear energy for Britain: let the people decide - 
43 AFP: Yemen president to seek nuclear energy 
44 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear task force releases issues paper - 
45 AU The Age: Nuclear group 'arrogant' - 
46 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice
47 US: Philadelphia Inquirer: Exelon bid must be rejected
48 RIA Novosti: Putin talks nuclear power, alternative energy with NGOs
49 BBC: Blair 'changed mind' on nuclear
50 BBC: Reactor crack fears played down
51 FT.com: New laws to deliver nuclear stations in Britain
52 iafrica.com: sa news Feedback on Koeberg bolt soon
53 Platts: Lithuania to import electricity from Russia when Ignalina-2 
54 Platts: UK PM says energy prices, environment changed his nuclear st
55 Platts: Swiss funds for safe end of nuclear power total $3.26 billio
56 Platts: UK BE says nuke safety questions 'essentially not news'
57 Independent: PM's change of heart on nuclear power issue 
58 China Daily: Timescale laid out for first inland nuke plant 
59 FT.com: Debate tilts in nuclear power’s favour 
60 Greenpeace: UK nuclear reactors are defective, say government inspec
61 GREENPEACE UK: Blair obsessed with nuclear legacy
62 US: Dallas Morning News: Unit at nuclear power plant restarted after
63 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
64 Australian: Nuke task force outlines plans 
65 EA: Chornobyl radiation ups risk of thyroid cancer in children and a
66 Telegraph: On nuclear power: 'Changed my mind'
67 US: The Mercury: Consultant hired to help Limerick with nuclear powe
68 Guardian Unlimited: Why cracks at the cores of ageing AGRs 
69 US: AZ Republic: Two Palo Verde reactors shut down over weekend 
70 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry lays out key issues
71 AU ABC: Nuclear task force won't make recommendations. 
72 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry ignoring environment - Opposition. 
73 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry urged to consider thorium reactors. 
74 Scotsman.com: PM decided on nuclear power before starting review
75 UPI: Chernobyl increased thyroid cancer
76 UPI: NTPC to enter nuclear power sector
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
77 Guardian Unlimited: Trident convoys carry risk of nuclear blast
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
78 US: Las Vegas SUN: New wildfire reported in Nevada Test Site north
79 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Public's right to know 
80 US: NRC: State of Rhode Island Relinquishment of Sealed Source and D
81 US: MN: Exposure to radioactive iodine increases the risk of thyroid
82 PM: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Nuclear Testing Anniversary Memorial Inaugurat
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
83 US: KCPW: Nuclear Waste Storage Debate Rages On
84 US: Bradenton Herald Reports: Lockheed wrong on Tallevast
85 AU ABC: Beef producer fears impact of nuclear dump
86 US: New Vision Online: Govt studies uranium use
87 US: CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Radioactive waste moving through WNC, reports
88 US: Post and Courier: 'Interim' dodge on nuclear waste
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
89 Knox News: Letters: workers frustrated
90 Idaho Statesman: Buried plutonium
91 Knox News: Munger: Politicians may decide DOE hot-button issues
92 lamonitor.com: Program said to have wasted millions on contractors 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Hersh: Last Stand - The Military vs Bush's Iran Policy
 
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:01:16 -0400 (EDT)


X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Tim Murphy (activ-l)

The New Yorker - July, 2006
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact

LAST STAND

The military's problem with the President's Iran policy.

by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

On May 31st, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced what appeared 
to be a major change in U.S. foreign policy. The Bush Administration, she 
said, would be willing to join Russia, China, and its European allies in 
direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. There was a condition, 
however: the negotiations would not begin until, as the President put it 
in a June 19th speech at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, "the Iranian 
regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and 
reprocessing activities." Iran, which has insisted on its right to enrich 
uranium, was being asked to concede the main point of the negotiations 
before they started. The question was whether the Administration expected 
the Iranians to agree, or was laying the diplomatic groundwork for future 
military action. In his speech, Bush also talked about "freedom for the 
Iranian people," and he added, "Iran's leaders have a clear choice." There 
was an unspoken threat: the U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air 
Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President's direction, for a 
major bombing campaign in Iran.

Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the 
President's plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and 
officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the 
bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear 
program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious 
economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.

A crucial issue in the military's dissent, the officers said, is the fact 
that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific 
evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners 
are not sure what to hit. "The target array in Iran is huge, but it's 
amorphous," a high-ranking general told me. "The question we face is, When 
does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?" The 
high-ranking general added that the military's experience in Iraq, where 
intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has 
affected its approach to Iran. "We built this big monster with Iraq, and 
there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq," he said.

"There is a war about the war going on inside the building," a Pentagon 
consultant said. "If we go, we have to find something."

In President Bush's June speech, he accused Iran of pursuing a secret 
weapons program along with its civilian nuclear-research program (which it 
is allowed, with limits, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

The senior officers in the Pentagon do not dispute the President's 
contention that Iran intends to eventually build a bomb, but they are 
frustrated by the intelligence gaps. A former senior intelligence official 
told me that people in the Pentagon were asking, "What's the evidence? 
We've got a million tentacles out there, overt and covert, and these 
guys"--the Iranians--"have been working on this for eighteen years, and we 
have nothing? We're coming up with jack shit."

A senior military official told me, "Even if we knew where the Iranian 
enriched uranium was--and we don't--we don't know where world opinion 
would stand. The issue is whether it's a clear and present danger. If 
you're a military planner, you try to weigh options. What is the 
capability of the Iranian response, and the likelihood of a punitive 
response--like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?" 
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior aides "really think 
they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of 
the adversary," he said.

In 1986, Congress authorized the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
act as the "principal military adviser" to the President. In this case, I 
was told, the current chairman, Marine General Peter Pace, has gone 
further in his advice to the White House by addressing the consequences of 
an attack on Iran. "Here's the military telling the President what he 
can't do politically"--raising concerns about rising oil prices, for 
example--the former senior intelligence official said. "The J.C.S. 
chairman going to the President with an economic argument--what's going on 
here?" (General Pace and the White House declined to comment.

The Defense Department responded to a detailed request for comment by 
saying that the Administration was "working diligently" on a diplomatic 
solution and that it could not comment on classified matters.)

A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, "The 
system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don't want to be 
condemned by history. They want to be able to say, 'We stood up.'"

The military leadership is also raising tactical arguments against the 
proposal for bombing Iran, many of which are related to the consequences 
for Iraq. According to retired Army Major General William Nash, who was 
commanding general of the First Armored Division, served in Iraq and 
Bosnia, and worked for the United Nations in Kosovo, attacking Iran would 
heighten the risks to American and coalition forces inside Iraq. "What if 
one hundred thousand Iranian volunteers came across the border?" Nash 
asked. "If we bomb Iran, they cannot retaliate militarily by air--only on 
the ground or by sea, and only in Iraq or the Gulf. A military planner 
cannot discount that possibility, and he cannot make an ideological 
assumption that the Iranians wouldn't do it. We're not talking about 
victory or defeat--only about what damage Iran could do to our interests." 
Nash, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, 
"Their first possible response would be to send forces into Iraq. And, 
since the Iraqi Army has limited capacity, it means that the coalition 
forces would have to engage them."

The Americans serving as advisers to the Iraqi police and military may be 
at special risk, Nash added, since an American bombing "would be seen not 
only as an attack on Shiites but as an attack on all Muslims. Throughout 
the Middle East, it would likely be seen as another example of American 
imperialism. It would probably cause the war to spread."

In contrast, some conservatives are arguing that America's position in 
Iraq would improve if Iran chose to retaliate there, according to a 
government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon's civilian leaders, 
because Iranian interference would divide the Shiites into pro- and 
anti-Iranian camps, and unify the Kurds and the Sunnis.

The Iran hawks in the White House and the State Department, including 
Elliott Abrams and Michael Doran, both of whom are National Security 
Council advisers on the Middle East, also have an answer for those who 
believe that the bombing of Iran would put American soldiers in Iraq at 
risk, the consultant said. He described the counterargument this way: 
"Yes, there will be Americans under attack, but they are under attack 
now."

Iran's geography would also complicate an air war. The senior military 
official said that, when it came to air strikes, "this is not Iraq," which 
is fairly flat, except in the northeast. "Much of Iran is akin to 
Afghanistan in terms of topography and flight mapping--a pretty tough 
target," the military official said. Over rugged terrain, planes have to 
come in closer, and "Iran has a lot of mature air-defense systems and 
networks," he said. "Global operations are always risky, and if we go down 
that road we have to be prepared to follow up with ground troops."

The U.S. Navy has a separate set of concerns. Iran has more than seven 
hundred undeclared dock and port facilities along its Persian Gulf coast. 
The small ports, known as "invisible piers," were constructed two decades 
ago by Iran's Revolutionary Guards to accommodate small private boats used 
for smuggling. (The Guards relied on smuggling to finance their activities 
and enrich themselves.) The ports, an Iran expert who advises the U.S. 
government told me, provide "the infrastructure to enable the Guards to go 
after American aircraft carriers with suicide water bombers"--small 
vessels loaded with high explosives.

He said that the Iranians have conducted exercises in the Strait of 
Hormuz, the narrow channel linking the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and 
then on to the Indian Ocean. The strait is regularly traversed by oil 
tankers, in which a thousand small Iranian boats simulated attacks on 
American ships. "That would be the hardest problem we'd face in the water: 
a thousand small targets weaving in and out among our ships."

America's allies in the Gulf also believe that an attack on Iran would 
endanger them, and many American military planners agree.

"Iran can do a lot of things--all asymmetrical," a Pentagon 
adviser on counter-insurgency told me. "They have agents all over the 
Gulf, and the ability to strike at will." In May, according to a 
well-informed oil-industry expert, the Emir of Qatar made a private visit 
to Tehran to discuss security in the Gulf after the Iraq war. He sought 
some words of non-aggression from the Iranian leadership.

Instead, the Iranians suggested that Qatar, which is the site of the 
regional headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, would be its first 
target in the event of an American attack. Qatar is a leading exporter of 
gas and currently operates several major offshore oil platforms, all of 
which would be extremely vulnerable. (Nasser bin Hamad M. al-Khalifa, 
Qatar's ambassador to Washington, denied that any threats were issued 
during the Emir's meetings in Tehran. He told me that it was "a very nice 
visit.")

A retired American diplomat, who has experience in the Gulf, confirmed 
that the Qatari government is "very scared of what America will do" in 
Iran, and "scared to death" about what Iran would do in response. Iran's 
message to the oil-producing Gulf states, the retired diplomat said, has 
been that it will respond, and "you are on the wrong side of history."

In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a 
major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan 
for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to 
destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred 
miles south of Tehran. The huge complex includes large underground 
facilities built into seventy-five-foot-deep holes in the ground and 
designed to hold as many as fifty thousand centrifuges. "Bush and Cheney 
were dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior 
intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them. Then the world 
came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.'" At 
the time, a number of retired officers, including two Army major generals 
who served in Iraq, Paul Eaton and Charles Swannack, Jr., had begun 
speaking out against the Administration's handling of the Iraq war. This 
period is known to many in the Pentagon as "the April Revolution."

"An event like this doesn't get papered over very quickly," the former 
official added. "The bad feelings over the nuclear option are still felt. 
The civilian hierarchy feels extraordinarily betrayed by the brass, and 
the brass feel they were tricked into it"--the nuclear planning--"by being 
asked to provide all options in the planning papers."

Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College 
before retiring from the Air Force as a colonel, said that Rumsfeld's 
second-guessing and micromanagement were a fundamental problem. "Plans are 
more and more being directed and run by civilians from the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense," Gardiner said. "It causes a lot of tensions. I'm 
hearing that the military is increasingly upset about not being taken 
seriously by Rumsfeld and his staff."

Gardiner went on, "The consequence is that, for Iran and other missions, 
Rumsfeld will be pushed more and more in the direction of special 
operations, where he has direct authority and does not have to put up with 
the objections of the Chiefs."

Since taking office in 2001, Rumsfeld has been engaged in a running 
dispute with many senior commanders over his plans to transform the 
military, and his belief that future wars will be fought, and won, with 
airpower and Special Forces. That combination worked, at first, in 
Afghanistan, but the growing stalemate there, and in Iraq, has created a 
rift, especially inside the Army. The senior military official said, "The 
policymakers are in love with Special Ops--the guys on camels."

The discord over Iran can, in part, be ascribed to Rumsfeld's testy 
relationship with the generals. They see him as high-handed and unwilling 
to accept responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq. A former Bush 
Administration official described a recent meeting between Rumsfeld and 
four-star generals and admirals at a military commanders' conference, on a 
base outside Washington, that, he was told, went badly.

The commanders later told General Pace that "they didn't come here to be 
lectured by the Defense Secretary. They wanted to tell Rumsfeld what their 
concerns were." A few of the officers attended a subsequent meeting 
between Pace and Rumsfeld, and were unhappy, the former official said, 
when "Pace did not repeat any of their complaints. There was 
disappointment about Pace." The retired four-star general also described 
the commanders' conference as "very fractious." He added, "We've got 
twenty-five hundred dead, people running all over the world doing stupid 
things, and officers outside the Beltway asking, 'What the hell is going 
on?'"

Pace's supporters say that he is in a difficult position, given Rumsfeld's 
penchant for viewing generals who disagree with him as disloyal. "It's a 
very narrow line between being responsive and effective and being 
outspoken and ineffective," the former senior intelligence official said.

But Rumsfeld is not alone in the Administration where Iran is concerned; 
he is closely allied with Dick Cheney, and, the Pentagon consultant said, 
"the President generally defers to the Vice-President on all these 
issues," such as dealing with the specifics of a bombing campaign if 
diplomacy fails. "He feels that Cheney has an informational advantage.

Cheney is not a renegade. He represents the conventional wisdom in all of 
this. He appeals to the strategic-bombing lobby in the Air Force--who 
think that carpet bombing is the solution to all problems."

Bombing may not work against Natanz, let alone against the rest of Iran's 
nuclear program. The possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons gained 
support in the Administration because of the belief that it was the only 
way to insure the destruction of Natanz's buried laboratories. When that 
option proved to be politically untenable (a nuclear warhead would, among 
other things, vent fatal radiation for miles), the Air Force came up with 
a new bombing plan, using advanced guidance systems to deliver a series of 
large bunker-busters--conventional bombs filled with high explosives--on 
the same target, in swift succession. The Air Force argued that the impact 
would generate sufficient concussive force to accomplish what a tactical 
nuclear warhead would achieve, but without provoking an outcry over what 
would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki.

The new bombing concept has provoked controversy among Pentagon planners 
and outside experts. Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago 
who has taught at the Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space 
Studies, told me, "We always have a few new toys, new gimmicks, and rarely 
do these new tricks lead to a phenomenal breakthrough. The dilemma is that 
Natanz is a very large underground area, and even if the roof came down we 
won't be able to get a good estimate of the bomb damage without people on 
the ground. We don't even know where it goes underground, and we won't 
have much confidence in assessing what we've actually done. Absent 
capturing an Iranian nuclear scientist and documents, it's impossible to 
set back the program for sure."

One complicating aspect of the multiple-hit tactic, the Pentagon 
consultant told me, is "the liquefaction problem"--the fact that the soil 
would lose its consistency owing to the enormous heat generated by the 
impact of the first bomb. "It will be like bombing water, with its 
currents and eddies. The bombs would likely be diverted." Intelligence has 
also shown that for the past two years the Iranians have been shifting 
their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, 
moving some into urban areas, in anticipation of a bombing raid.

"The Air Force is hawking it to the other services," the former senior 
intelligence official said. "They're all excited by it, but they're being 
terribly criticized for it." The main problem, he said, is that the other 
services do not believe the tactic will work. "The Navy says, 'It's not 
our plan.' The Marines are against it--they know they're going to be the 
guys on the ground if things go south."

"It's the bomber mentality," the Pentagon consultant said. "The Air Force 
is saying, 'We've got it covered, we can hit all the distributed targets.'"

The Air Force arsenal includes a cluster bomb that can deploy scores of 
small bomblets with individual guidance systems to home in on specific 
targets. The weapons were deployed in Kosovo and during the early stages 
of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the Air Force is claiming that the same 
techniques can be used with larger bombs, allowing them to be targeted 
from twenty-five thousand feet against a multitude of widely dispersed 
targets. "The Chiefs all know that 'shock and awe' is dead on arrival," 
the Pentagon consultant said. "All except the Air Force."

"Rumsfeld and Cheney are the pushers on this--they don't want to repeat 
the mistake of doing too little," the government consultant with ties to 
Pentagon civilians told me. "The lesson they took from Iraq is that there 
should have been more troops on the ground"--an impossibility in Iran, 
because of the overextension of American forces in Iraq--"so the air war 
in Iran will be one of overwhelming force."

Many of the Bush Administration's supporters view the abrupt change in 
negotiating policy as a deft move that won public plaudits and obscured 
the fact that Washington had no other good options. "The United States has 
done what its international partners have asked it to do," said Patrick 
Clawson, who is an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at 
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank. 
"The ball is now in their court--for both the Iranians and the Europeans." 
Bush's goal, Clawson said, was to assuage his allies, as well as Russia 
and China, whose votes, or abstentions, in the United Nations would be 
needed if the talks broke down and the U.S. decided to seek Security 
Council sanctions or a U.N. resolution that allowed for the use of force 
against Iran.

"If Iran refuses to re-start negotiations, it will also be difficult for 
Russia and China to reject a U.N. call for International Atomic Energy 
Agency inspections," Clawson said. "And the longer we go without 
accelerated I.A.E.A. access, the more important the issue of Iran's hidden 
facilities will become." The drawback to the new American position, 
Clawson added, was that "the Iranians might take Bush's agreeing to join 
the talks as a sign that their hard line has worked."

Clawson acknowledged that intelligence on Iran's nuclear-weapons progress 
was limited. "There was a time when we had reasonable confidence in what 
we knew," he said. "We could say, 'There's less time than we think,' or, 
'It's going more slowly.' Take your choice. Lack of information is a 
problem, but we know they've made rapid progress with their centrifuges." 
(The most recent American intelligence estimate is that Iran could build a 
warhead sometime between 2010 and 2015.)

Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council aide for the Bush 
Administration, told me, "The only reason Bush and Cheney relented about 
talking to Iran was because they were within weeks of a diplomatic 
meltdown in the United Nations. Russia and China were going to stiff 
us"--that is, prevent the passage of a U.N. resolution.

Leverett, a project director at the New America Foundation, added that the 
White House's proposal, despite offering trade and economic incentives for 
Iran, has not "resolved any of the fundamental contradictions of U.S. 
policy." The precondition for the talks, he said--an open-ended halt to 
all Iranian enrichment activity--"amounts to the President wanting a 
guarantee that they'll surrender before he talks to them. Iran cannot 
accept long-term constraints on its fuel-cycle activity as part of a 
settlement without a security guarantee"--for example, some form of mutual 
non-aggression pact with the United States.

Leverett told me that, without a change in U.S. policy, the balance of 
power in the negotiations will shift to Russia. "Russia sees Iran as a 
beachhead against American interests in the Middle East, and they're 
playing a very sophisticated game," he said. "Russia is quite comfortable 
with Iran having nuclear fuel cycles that would be monitored, and they'll 
support the Iranian position"--in part, because it gives them the 
opportunity to sell billions of dollars' worth of nuclear fuel and 
materials to Tehran. "They believe they can manage their long- and 
short-term interests with Iran, and still manage the security interests," 
Leverett said. China, which, like Russia, has veto power on the Security 
Council, was motivated in part by its growing need for oil, he said. "They 
don't want punitive measures, such as sanctions, on energy producers, and 
they don't want to see the U.S. take a unilateral stance on a state that 
matters to them." But, he said, "they're happy to let Russia take the lead 
in this." (China, a major purchaser of Iranian oil, is negotiating a 
multibillion-dollar deal with Iran for the purchase of liquefied natural 
gas over a period of twenty-five years.) As for the Bush Administration, 
he added, "unless there's a shift, it's only a question of when its policy 
falls apart."

It's not clear whether the Administration will be able to keep the 
Europeans in accord with American policy if the talks break down.

Morton Abramowitz, a former head of State Department intelligence, who was 
one of the founders of the International Crisis Group, said, "The world is 
different than it was three years ago, and while the Europeans want good 
relations with us, they will not go to war with Iran unless they know that 
an exhaustive negotiating effort was made by Bush. There's just too much 
involved, like the price of oil. There will be great pressure put on the 
Europeans, but I don't think they'll roll over and support a war."

The Europeans, like the generals at the Pentagon, are concerned about the 
quality of intelligence.

A senior European intelligence official said that while "there was every 
reason to assume" that the Iranians were working on a bomb, there wasn't 
enough evidence to exclude the possibility that they were bluffing, and 
hadn't moved beyond a civilian research program. The intelligence official 
was not optimistic about the current negotiations. "It's a mess, and I 
don't see any possibility, at the moment, of solving the problem," he 
said. "The only thing to do is contain it. The question is, What is the 
redline? Is it when you master the nuclear fuel cycle? Or is it just about 
building a bomb?" Every country had a different criterion, he said. One 
worry he had was that, in addition to its security concerns, the Bush 
Administration was driven by its interest in "democratizing" the region. 
"The United States is on a mission," he said.

A European diplomat told me that his government would be willing to 
discuss Iran's security concerns--a dialogue he said Iran offered 
Washington three years ago. The diplomat added that "no one wants to be 
faced with the alternative if the negotiations don't succeed: either 
accept the bomb or bomb them. That's why our goal is to keep the pressure 
on, and see what Iran's answer will be."

A second European diplomat, speaking of the Iranians, said, "Their tactic 
is going to be to stall and appear reasonable--to say, 'Yes, but . . .' We 
know what's going on, and the timeline we're under. The Iranians have 
repeatedly been in violation of I.A.E.A. safeguards and have given us 
years of coverup and deception. The international community does not want 
them to have a bomb, and if we let them continue to enrich that's throwing 
in the towel--giving up before we talk." The diplomat went on, "It would 
be a mistake to predict an inevitable failure of our strategy. Iran is a 
regime that is primarily concerned with its own survival, and if its 
existence is threatened it would do whatever it needed to do--including 
backing down."

The Iranian regime's calculations about its survival also depend on 
internal political factors.

The nuclear program is popular with the Iranian people, including 
those--the young and the secular--who are most hostile to the religious 
leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, has effectively 
used the program to rally the nation behind him, and against Washington. 
Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics have said that they believe Bush's goal 
is not to prevent them from building a bomb but to drive them out of 
office.

Several current and former officials I spoke to expressed doubt that 
President Bush would settle for a negotiated resolution of the nuclear 
crisis. A former high-level Pentagon civilian official, who still deals 
with sensitive issues for the government, said that Bush remains confident 
in his military decisions.

The President and others in the Administration often invoke Winston 
Churchill, both privately and in public, as an example of a politician 
who, in his own time, was punished in the polls but was rewarded by 
history for rejecting appeasement. In one speech, Bush said, Churchill 
"seemed like a Texan to me. He wasn't afraid of public-opinion polls.... 
He charged ahead, and the world is better for it."

The Israelis have insisted for years that Iran has a clandestine program 
to build a bomb, and will do so as soon as it can. Israeli officials have 
emphasized that their "redline" is the moment Iran masters the nuclear 
fuel cycle, acquiring the technical ability to produce weapons-grade 
uranium. "Iran managed to surprise everyone in terms of the enrichment 
capability," one diplomat familiar with the Israeli position told me, 
referring to Iran's announcement, this spring, that it had successfully 
enriched uranium to the 3.6-per-cent level needed to fuel a nuclear-power 
reactor. The Israelis believe that Iran must be stopped as soon as 
possible, because, once it is able to enrich uranium for fuel, the next 
step--enriching it to the ninety-per-cent level needed for a nuclear 
bomb--is merely a mechanical process.

Israeli intelligence, however, has also failed to provide specific 
evidence about secret sites in Iran, according to current and former 
military and intelligence officials. In May, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert 
visited Washington and, addressing a joint session of Congress, said that 
Iran "stands on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons" that would pose 
"an existential threat" to Israel. Olmert noted that Ahmadinejad had 
questioned the reality of the Holocaust, and he added, "It is not Israel's 
threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the 
Middle East and to the well-being of the world at large."

But at a secret intelligence exchange that took place at the Pentagon 
during the visit, the Pentagon consultant said, "what the Israelis 
provided fell way short" of what would be needed to publicly justify 
preventive action.

The issue of what to do, and when, seems far from resolved inside the 
Israeli government. Martin Indyk, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who 
is now the director of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle 
East Policy, told me, "Israel would like to see diplomacy succeed, but 
they're worried that in the meantime Iran will cross a threshold of 
nuclear know-how--and they're worried about an American military attack 
not working. They assume they'll be struck first in retaliation by Iran." 
Indyk added, "At the end of the day, the United States can live with 
Iranian, Pakistani, and Indian nuclear bombs--but for Israel there's no 
Mutual Assured Destruction. If they have to live with an Iranian bomb, 
there will be a great deal of anxiety in Israel, and a lot of tension 
between Israel and Iran, and between Israel and the U.S."

Iran has not, so far, officially answered President Bush's proposal. But 
its initial response has been dismissive. In a June 22nd interview with 
the Guardian, Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, rejected 
Washington's demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment before talks 
could begin. "If they want to put this prerequisite, why are we 
negotiating at all?" Larijani said. "We should put aside the sanctions and 
give up all this talk about regime change."

He characterized the American offer as a "sermon," and insisted that Iran 
was not building a bomb. "We don't want the bomb," he said. Ahmadinejad 
has said that Iran would make a formal counterproposal by August 22nd, but 
last week Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme religious leader, 
declared, on state radio, "Negotiation with the United States has no 
benefits for us."

Despite the tough rhetoric, Iran would be reluctant to reject a dialogue 
with the United States, according to Giandomenico Picco, who, as a 
representative of the United Nations, helped to negotiate the ceasefire 
that ended the Iran-Iraq War, in 1988. "If you engage a superpower, you 
feel you are a superpower," Picco told me. "And now the haggling in the 
Persian bazaar begins. We are negotiating over a carpet"--the suspected 
weapons program--"that we're not sure exists, and that we don't want to 
exist. And if at the end there never was a carpet it'll be the negotiation 
of the century."

If the talks do break down, and the Administration decides on military 
action, the generals will, of course, follow their orders; the American 
military remains loyal to the concept of civilian control.

But some officers have been pushing for what they call the "middle way," 
which the Pentagon consultant described as "a mix of options that require 
a number of Special Forces teams and air cover to protect them to send 
into Iran to grab the evidence so the world will know what Iran is doing." 
He added that, unlike Rumsfeld, he and others who support this approach 
were under no illusion that it could bring about regime change. The goal, 
he said, was to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., said in a speech
this spring that his agency believed there was still time for diplomacy to
achieve that goal. "We should have learned some lessons from Iraq,"
ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, said. "We should have
learned that we should be very careful about assessing our intelligence....
We should have learned that we should try to exhaust every possible
diplomatic means to solve the problem before thinking of any other
enforcement measures."

He went on, "When you push a country into a corner, you are always giving 
the driver's seat to the hard-liners.... If Iran were to move out of 
the nonproliferation regime altogether, if Iran were to develop a nuclear 
weapon program, we clearly will have a much, much more serious problem."
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Talks Between Iran, EU Official Delayed
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday July 5, 2006 10:46 PM

AP Photo XHS102 

By SLOBODAN LEKIC 

Associated Press Writer 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Iran postponed for a day crucial talks
aimed at easing its standoff with the West over its nuclear
program, citing annoyance over the activities of exiled
opposition groups, EU officials said Wednesday. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana expressed surprise that
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani did not appear for
their scheduled meeting Wednesday. Tehran said the meeting would
go ahead on Thursday. 

Western diplomats have threatened to restart efforts to punish
Iran through possible Security Council sanctions unless Tehran
stops its nuclear activities and agrees to talks by July 12 -
just a week away. 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran needed to
give ``a substantive response'' to a Western overture meant to
end the crisis before the Group of Eight leaders meet later this
month in St. Petersburg, Russia. 

``If indeed Iran is trying to stall, it's not going to work,''
Rice told reporters at a Washington news conference with
Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. ``The international
community has said that we need to get an answer, an indication
of where Iran is going with this. We need to know if the path of
negotiation is open or not.'' 

Solana's spokeswoman, Cristina Gallach, said the first
indication of a postponement came when Iranian diplomats in
Brussels complained about the intensified activities in
EU-member countries of opponents of the theocratic regime. 

Gallach said the EU had reassured Iranian diplomats that ``that
the activities of exiled opposition groups ... have nothing to
do with our institutions.'' 

Solana and Larijani were to discuss a package of incentives put
forward by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and
Germany and presented to Tehran by Solana in June. 

The nations called on Iran to suspend enrichment for the
duration of any negotiations, and set out the priority of a
long-term moratorium of such activity until the international
community is convinced that Iran's nuclear aims are peaceful.
The offer includes such incentives as nuclear expertise and
reactors. 

Iranian government officials have insisted they need to clear up
``ambiguities'' contained in the package, and have brushed aside
demands that they respond by July 12, when foreign ministers of
the five permanent U.N. Security Council nations and Germany
consult in Paris. 

Earlier, EU officials said they did not anticipate Larijani to
formally respond to the offer during the talks, but only to seek
clarification of several points of the package - and perhaps to
come up with a counterproposal. 

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Iran to
accept the package, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair also
pushed for a quick reply. 

Tehran repeatedly has asserted that its nuclear program, which
includes uranium enrichment, is peaceful and aimed at generating
power. 

But the U.S., Israel and the EU fear the research program is a
cover for the development of nuclear weapons. 

Western diplomats have increased the pressure, saying they would
restart efforts to punish Iran through possible Security Council
sanctions unless Tehran stops its nuclear activities and agrees
to talks by July 12. 

Work on a Security Council resolution was suspended May 3 to
allow the six powers to draw up the plan of perks if Iran agrees
to a long-term moratorium on enrichment - or punishments that
include the threat of selective U.N. sanctions if it does not. 

Possible U.N.-mandated sanctions include a visa ban on
government officials, freezing assets, blocking financial
transactions by government figures and those involved in the
country's nuclear program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the
shipping of refined oil products to Iran. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Postpones EU Discussions by a Day
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday July 5, 2006 1:01 PM

AP Photo XHS102 

By SLOBODAN LEKIC 

Associated Press Writer 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Iran has postponed its talks with the
European Union on a package of incentives designed to defuse the
standoff over Tehran's atomic program by a day, the EU said
Wednesday. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who had been scheduled to
meet Wednesday with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani,
said he was surprised by the move. 

``I had made it clear to the Iranians and to Dr. Larijani that
we want to proceed rapidly to examine together the ideas I put
to him early last month,'' he said in a statement. 

He added that Larijani had assured him they would meet in
Brussels on Thursday. 

There was no immediate explanation as to what had caused the
delay over what could be a crucial round of talks on the package
put forward by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France
and Germany. 

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki confirmed
there would be no talks Wednesday, but gave no reason or a new
date. 

``Today there will be no negotiations between Larijani and
Solana,'' Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency
on the sidelines of a ceremony to welcome the president of
Armenia to Iran. 

The offer, delivered to Tehran by Solana early last month,
includes incentives for Iran such as nuclear expertise and
reactors if it accepts international oversight of its disputed
nuclear program. 

Iranian government officials have insisted they need to clear up
``ambiguities'' contained in the package, and have brushed aside
demands that they respond by July 12, when foreign ministers of
the five permanent U.N. Security Council nations and Germany
consult in Paris. 

Earlier, EU officials said they did not anticipate Larijani to
formally respond to the offer, but only to seek clarification of
several points of the package - and perhaps to come up with a
counterproposal. 

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Iran to
accept the package, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair also
pushed for a quick reply. 

Tehran repeatedly has asserted that its nuclear program, which
includes uranium enrichment, is peaceful and aimed at generating
power. 

But the U.S., Israel and the EU fear the research program is a
cover for the development of nuclear weapons. 

Western diplomats have increased the pressure, saying they would
restart efforts to punish Iran through a possible Security
Council sanctions unless Tehran stops its nuclear activities and
agrees to talks by July 12. 

Work on a Security Council resolution was suspended May 3 to
allow the six powers to draw up the plan of perks if Iran agrees
to a long-term moratorium on enrichment - or punishments that
include the threat of selective U.N. sanctions if it does not. 

Possible U.N.-mandated sanctions include a visa ban on
government officials, freezing assets, blocking financial
transactions by government figures and those involved in the
country's nuclear program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the
shipping of refined oil products to Iran. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: Spanish king urges "fair negotiations" to settle Iran's N-case -
      
Madrid, July 4, IRNA

Spain-Iran-Nuclear 

Spanish King Juan Carlos said here Monday that he believed
Iran's nuclear case could best be solved through "fair
negotiations."

 He made the remarks as he received the credentials of newly
appointed Iranian Ambassador to Madrid Davoud Mohseni
Salehi-Monfared.

 The Spanish king, during a short talk with Ambassador
 Salehi-Monfared, praised the efforts of Iran to introduce "real
Islam" to the world.

 Underlining the need to solve the Iran nuclear issue through
diplomacy, he called for continued consultations between the two
countries in different fields.

 Voicing his country's readiness to boost ties with the Islamic
Republic of Iran, he said Tehran has played a "crucial role" in
resolving regional and international issues, including the
Afghan crisis.

 Spain currently assists in regional peacekeeping through its
contribution of forces to the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) responsible for reconstruction and
maintenance of security in the two Afghan cities of Herat and
Qale-No in the Iran-Afghanistan joint border.

 For his part, the Iranian envoy announced Iran's willingness to
expand all-out bilateral relations with Spain.

 The 53-year-old Iranian ambassador to Spain is an experienced
diplomat who has held different positions in the Iranian Foreign
Ministry over the past 20 years.

 Ambassador Salehi-Monfared had served as head of the Latin
American section of the ministry, advisor to the foreign
minister and Iran's ambassador to Mozambique, Malawi and Cuba in
the past few years.

 Iran and Spain have ancient relations dating over 6 centuries
back. Tehran-Madrid political, economic and cultural cooperation
have been assessed as "desirable."
 Bilateral trade in 2005 was valued at USD 2.4 million. Current
investment of Spanish companies in Iran is placed at over USD 3
billion.
*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: Belarussian ambassador: Nuclear energy is Iran's right
 
, July 4, IRNA

Belarussian Ambassador to Tehran Leonid V. Rachkov said Islamic
Republic of Iran has the right to gain access to nuclear energy
technology.

 On the occasion of Belarus National Day, the ambassador told
IRNA on Monday evening, "The Belarussian Republic has noted
several times that all member states of NPT have the right to
use peaceful nuclear energy."
 On the concerns of the West about Iran's nuclear program, the
ambassador said, "We believe that all activities must be done
under IAEA control and in the framework of Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT)." He added, of course, we are waiting for Iran's
prompt response to Europe proposal package, too.

 On the prospect of bilateral relations, Rachkov said there are
close political and economic ties between Iran and Belarus and
the parliamentary relations are active and there is a close
cooperation and interaction in international affairs.

 The Belarussian diplomat also declared that the president of
Belarus will visit Iran before the end of current year.

*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: Blair declines to set deadline on Iran 

London, July 4, IRNA

UK Blair-Iran Nuclear 

Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday declined to set a deadline
on Iran to respond to the latest EU framework to develop a
civilian nuclear programme.

 He said he would "not set a deadline" nor whether a reply
should be made by the end of July but added that he would "like
a response as soon as possible."
 The British prime minister expressed hope that Iran at
Wednesday meeting in Geneva gives indications when it may
respond to the latest EU package.

 Answering to parliament's Liaison Committee chairmen, Blair
revealed that he was keen for the US to join in EU-led
negotiations with Iran.

 "I have very strong views that the US had to join," he said
when asked whether Washington should have been involved earlier
in the negotiations. "The Americans joining was a huge thing."
"We are prepared to do everything" to bring the Iranians to the
table, he said in giving evidence on a wide range of issues.

 "We prefer to have good relations with Iran," Blair reiterated
when asked if the nuclear issue leading to a confrontation would
damage Iran's cooperation against drug trafficking from
Afghanistan.

*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Iran nuclear talks would lower temperature in west Asia - Pakistan 

 Wed Jul 5, 8:09 AM ET 		 	 

GENEVA (AFP) - Pakistan said that international diplomatic moves 
to solve the standoff over neighbouring Iran" /> 's nuclear 
programme would help "lower the temperature" in the region. 

 "Pakistan does not support production of nuclear weapons or
proliferation of nuclear technology by any country, including
Iran," Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told journalists on
Wednesday. 

"We also believe Iran has the right to use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes," he added. 

Aziz, who was in Geneva for an unrelated United Nations" />
meeting, said Pakistan was ready to continue to play a role in
diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis. 

"We are all for diplomacy to lower the temperature in the
region," he added. 

"Recent initiatives of several powers give us hope that they
will result in lowering the temperature and creating a better
environment for resolving this matter," the Pakistani prime
minister said. 

Iran is a key partner for Pakistan's energy supplies, including
electricity and gas, and the neighbours maintain high-level
contacts, Aziz underlined. 

Pakistan and India are discussing a 2,600 kilometre (1,600
miles) gas pipeline from Iran, a project opposed by the United
States. 

"These are fast growing economies and our energy needs are
rising," Aziz said. 

The three parties engaged in the discussions have been at odds
over pricing and supplies. 

Iran's deputy oil minister Mohammad-Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian warned
India and Pakistan last month that -- once the nuclear issue is
resolved -- other countries "will be the first customers of our
gas (and will pay) even better prices." 

Iran was also unwilling to sell a large chunk of its planned
daily exports of 480 million cubic meters (17 billion cubic
feet) to just two countries, Nejad-Hosseinian signalled. 

Pakistan's own nuclear programme came under international
scrutiny when chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan
confessed in February 2004 to leaking secrets to Iran, North
Korea" /> and Libya. 

"Whatever information we have about his activities has been
shared with the IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency" /> )
and we do not have any further information to give on Mr Khan
and his activities," Aziz said. 

He insisted that Pakistan has a clear export restraint regime
"that does not allow sharing of information on nuclear
technology with anybody". 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran says may give nuclear response early August

[Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani]   

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has said it may give its response to an
international offer aimed at ending a nuclear standoff around
August 6, but remained firm over its refusal to suspend uranium
enrichment ahead of a key meeting with the EU on the crisis.

"Our negotiations with the Europeans will be on Wednesday, but
it is only the beginning of the talks and our definite response
to their proposals will be ready around middle of (the Iranian
month of) Mordad," or around August 6, chief nuclear negotiator 
Ali Larijani was quoted as saying.

His comments Tuesday, reported on state television, came ahead
of a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday between Larijani and EU
foreign policy chief Javier Solana to discuss the crisis.

The Islamic republic has been offered a package of incentives by
the world's major powers if it agrees to suspend sensitive
uranium enrichment -- a process in the nuclear fuel cycle that
can also make the core of an atom bomb.

But Larijani had said Monday he considered "unreasonable" the
international demands for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment --
a process Iran says it has the right to conduct under the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The enrichment activities are the focus of concerns in the West
that Tehran could acquire nuclear weapons, although the Islamic
republic insists the program is only aimed at generating
electricity.

"We have given our opinion before, and we believe it is not a
reasonable proposal," Larijani said, quoted by the semi-official
Mehr news agency.

A senior Iranian security official had also said Monday that
Tehran could be flexible in the talks to resolve the
long-running standoff if its "red lines" were respected.

The United States said Friday it expected Iran to respond to the
international offer -- which it received June 6 -- at the
Brussels meeting, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
had previously set August 22 as the date.

Last month, US President George W. Bush -- whose administration
has not ruled out military action -- turned up the pressure on
Tehran, warning of "progressively stronger political and
economic sanctions" if it refused to freeze sensitive nuclear
activities in return for talks.

The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday that senior US military
officers have warned the Bush administration that bombing raids
against Iran would likely fail to destroy its nuclear programme
because of a lack of reliable intelligence.

The officers are concerned about contingency plans to launch air
strikes against Iran in the absence of reliable intelligence or
concrete evidence of bomb-making, the magazine said, citing
unnamed active duty and retired officers and officials. 

AFP
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: EU awaits 'first response' from Iran on ending nuclear impasse -
     
 by Lorne Cook Tue Jul 4, 12:43 PM ET 		 	 

BRUSSELS (AFP) - EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana holds key 
talks Wednesday with Iran" /> Iran's chief nuclear negotiator as 
Europe and the United States await a response to an offer to end 
a growing nuclear standoff. 

 Washington is pushing the Islamic republic to state clearly by
next week whether it will accept the offer -- a package of
economic, trade and political incentives -- and suspend its
controversial uranium enrichment activities. 

Some countries fear Iran is trying to covertly develop nuclear
weapons under the guise of a civilian atomic programme, but the
government in Tehran maintains that it only wants to generate
electricity. 

Amid the rhetoric, Solana's talks with Ali Larijani -- their
first face-to-face since the offer was made on June 6 -- are
expected to provide a first real indication about Iran's
intentions. 

"We want tomorrow's meeting to be one that allows us to advance
toward negotiations with Iran," Solana's spokeswoman, Cristina
Gallach, said Tuesday. 

The offer -- by Britain, France and Germany (the so-called EU-3)
as well as China, Russia and the United States -- was received
with optimism but senior Iranian officials have since suggested
that it might be turned down. 

For Solana though, Larijani's reaction is the one that counts. 

"It's important to know officially what they think after all the
various public declarations," Gallach said. "We will see if it's
a first response, a last response, final or temporary." 

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony
Blairsuggested the meeting would be a good time for Iran to say
its piece. 

"I would like a response as soon as possible because I don't
really see what more there is to talk about," he said, and
added: "I don't set a deadline, but it would be interesting if
there was an indication given at tomorrow's meeting for example
of where the Iranians really stood on this question." 

Early signs are that Iran will reject any imposed deadline. 

Larijani was quoted Tuesday as saying that early August might be
possible. 

"Our negotiations with the Europeans will be on Wednesday, but
it is only the beginning of the talks and our definite response
to their proposals will be ready around the middle of (the
Iranian month of) Mordad," or around August 6, he said,
according to state-run television. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had set August 22 as the
date. 

But US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush,
who refuses to rule out military action, wants a quicker answer. 

"It seems like an awful long time for a reasonable proposal," he
said late last month. "It shouldn't take the Iranians that long
to analyse what is a reasonable deal." 

Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putinwants to
start nuclear negotiations with Iran before next week's Group of
Eight summit in Saint Petersburg. 

Under the offer, the six powers affirm Iran's right to develop
nuclear energy, support its building of light water reactors and
provide for enrichment to take place in Russia. 

It would see Tehran's access to international markets and
capital improved and give backing for it to join the World Trade
Organisation, among other incentives. 

In return, Iran would suspend all enrichment-related activities
and accept wider inspections by the International Atomic Energy
Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), according
to a text shown to AFP. 

The sticking point is that the Islamic republic considers
enrichment to be a non-negotiable "red line." Indeed, Larijani
said Monday that the condition of suspension "is not a
reasonable proposal". 

The talks in Brussels come after the IAEA reported Iran to the
UN Security Council in February for hiding its sensitive nuclear
work and losing the confidence of the West by breaking a
suspension of enrichment activities. 

Should they fail, Europe and the United States are likely to
return to the Security Council to try to convince permanent
members Russia and China to strengthen the IAEA's capacity to
deal with Iran. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Iran puts off nuclear talks for fear of 'assassins'

 by Farhad Pouladi Wed Jul 5, 2:41 PM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> postponed key talks in Brussels between 
its chief nuclear negotiator and the EU foreign policy chief 
until July 11 for fear of hit squads, the state news agency IRNA 
reported. 

 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> , meanwhile, 
maintained a mid-July deadline for Iran to accept an offer of 
incentives aimed at curbing its nuclear ambitions and warned 
Tehran against stalling. 

"After receiving some news from Brussels that there are
assassins' squads..., security officials voiced concern about
the safety of the Iranian delegation" led by negotiator Ali
Larijani, IRNA said. 

"Therefore today's trip of Mr Larijani and the accompanying
delegation to Brussels was cancelled," it added. 

"After the European side gave the necessary guarantees to secure
the lives of the Iranian delegation, it was decided that the
session would be held next Tuesday," said IRNA, quoting an
informed source. 

It added, however, that Larijani had "in order to show goodwill
accepted a dinner invitation" for Thursday, in line with a
demand from the EU's top diplomat Javier Solana. 

Earlier, Solana rejected Iranian attempts to buy time to respond
to the international offer on its nuclear programme, giving
Larijani one more day to meet for talks that were due to have
taken place on Wednesday. 

Officially, Iran decided to delay the Brussels meeting due to
the possible presence in the Belgian capital of a loathed exiled
opposition leader, according to Iran's ISNA news agency. 

The reference was to Maryam Rajavi, leader of the National
Council of Resistance of Iran, a banned opposition group
connected to the Iraq" /> -based armed People's Mujahedeen. 

The group is also outlawed in the EU and the United States. 

Rajavi, based in France and one of the fiercest critics of
Iran's clerical regime, cancelled a planned address to the
European Parliament, saying that she did not want it serve as a
"pretext" to halt the nuclear talks. 

The UN Security Council is awaiting Iran's answer to an offer of
economic and political incentives in exchange for a suspension
of uranium enrichment. Tehran could face sanctions if it rejects
the proposal. 

"I had made clear to the Iranians and to Dr Larijani that we
want to proceed rapidly to examine together the ideas I put to
him early last month," Solana said, after the Iranians delayed
the talks at the last minute. 

The EU diplomat's spokeswoman, Cristina Gallach, said that
Solana told Larijani that "waiting another week was impossible"
and that "there had to be a contact before that". 

A further round of talks has already been pencilled in for next
Tuesday, the spokeswoman said. 

Leaders of the Group of Eight major industrial powers had been
expecting to examine Iran's response at a meeting in Saint
Petersburg starting on July 15, but Iran has resisted all
attempts to set a calendar. 

Rice said Wednesday that "we still intend to have a substantive
response from Iran before the middle of July when the heads of
state will meet in Saint Petersburg... 

"If, indeed, Iran is trying to stall, it's not going to work.
The international community has said that we need to get an
answer, an indication of where Iran is going with this," she
said. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 [southnews] N Korea rains on US July 4 celebrations
 
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 00:22:04 -0500 (CDT)


X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

A defiant North Korea test-fired a long-range missile Wednesday that may 
be capable of reaching America, but it failed seconds after launch. The 
North also tested five smaller missiles in an exercise the White House 
called "provocative" but not an immediate threat

North Korea, whose government pays close attention to symbolic gestures, 
chose July 4, the day the United States marks Independence Day, for the 
launch. It came just hours after the U.S. space shuttle Discovery 
blasted off from Florida.

"It got everybody's attention on the Fourth of July. (North Korean 
leader) Kim Jong-Il can set off fireworks, too," said John Pike, 
director of the security Web site GlobalSecurity.org.

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.

_______________________________

North Korea rattles Nikkei

Japan market frets over geopolitical risk as North Korea conducts 
missile test.

July 4 2006: 9:23 PM EDT

TOKYO (Reuters) -- The Nikkei average fell 0.82 percent on Wednesday on 
declines in blue-chip stocks like Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., 
with investors worried about geopolitical risk in Asia after news that 
North Korea launched several missiles early in the morning.

The Nikkei was down 127.75 points at 15,510.75 as of 0004 GMT. The TOPIX 
index lost 0.86 percent to 1,588.69.

Meanwhile, the yen fell against the dollar and hit a record low versus 
the euro.

U.S. officials said that North Korea launched at least five missiles on 
Wednesday, including a long-range Taepodong-2. The United States said it 
was urgently consulting other U.N. Security Council members after the 
launches, which occurred despite repeated warnings from North Korea's 
neighbors and from Washington.

In early Asian trade, the dollar rose to 115.15 yen from around 114.55 
yen in late European trade. U.S. markets were closed on Tuesday for the 
Independence Day holiday.

_______________________________________

US Deployment of New-Type Reconnaissance Plane in S Korea under Fire

Pyongyang, July 3 (KCNA) -- Commenting on the deployment of "U-2 S Block 
20" high-altitude strategic reconnaissance plane in the U.S. air force 
base in Osan, south Korea, a Rodong Sinmun analyst Monday says: This is 
a grave military provocation and blackmail to the DPRK, being an 
indication that the U.S. is rapidly pushing ahead in various fields with 
the extremely dangerous war moves against the DPRK, driving the 
situation on the Korean Peninsula to the brink of war.

As regards the deployment of the plane, the U.S. warmongers claim that 
it had been planned long ago. But it is nothing but a sophism.

Nowadays, the U.S. is daily escalating military pressure upon the DPRK 
with reckless war exercises, massive arms buildup and persistent aerial 
espionage, while driving the six-way talks for a settlement to the 
DPRK-U.S. nuclear issue to a rupture by putting up absurd pretexts and 
fictions. So thick clouds of war are hanging above the Korean Peninsula 
and a touch-and-go situation is prevailing on the peninsula.

Realities make it crystal clear that the fond talk of the U.S. about 
"dialogue" and "peace" is a false advertisement to mislead public 
opinion at home and abroad and its criminal attempt to start a nuclear 
war on the Korean Peninsula at any cost is entering the stage of practice.

  The military strain of the Korean Peninsula carried into extremes by 
the U.S. imperialists attests to the validity of the option of the DPRK 
in building up a strong war deterrent under Songun politics.

Convinced that peace is defended only by arms, the army and people of 
the DPRK are now in full preparedness to answer a preemptive attack with 
a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear 
deterrent.

The U.S. imperialists should ponder over the possible consequences of 
their heedless provocation moves for a war against the DPRK and get out 
of south Korea promptly with all their military hardware including 
strategic reconnaissance planes.
_________________________________________________

North Korea Launches Taepodong-2 Missile: Timeline

July 5 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea fired six missiles over the Sea of 
Japan today, defying demands from the U.S., China, Japan, South Korea 
and Russia to refrain from such tests. They included a long-range 
Taepodong-2 rocket that disappeared after 40 seconds, White House 
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said in Washington.

Japan said it will impose sanctions and the United Nations Security 
Council will meet today to discuss the test.

The following is a timeline of the launches and key events prior to the 
tests. All missile timings are given in local Korean time using 
information provided to reporters in Washington.

3:33 a.m. Scud-C, short-range ballistic missile, is launched. It lands 
in the Sea of Japan, short of Japanese coastline.

4:04 a.m. Rodong, medium-range ballistic missile, or a Scud-C is fired 
and lands short of Japan. This and first launch were not considered 
unusual by U.S. officials.

5:01 a.m. Taepodong-2, long-range ballistic missile, is launched and 
vanishes in less than a minute. This missile also landed in the Sea of 
Japan.

7:12 a.m. Scud-C, or other missile, fired and lands in Sea of Japan at 
7:17 a.m.

7:31 a.m. Rodong missile is launched, landing in the Sea of Japan at 
7:36 a.m.

Time not determined: Another Rodong launched. The U.S. Northern Command 
said all missiles landed in the Sea of Japan. South Korea's government 
said the missile launches were from Hwadae in the northern province of 
Hamkyung Bukdo and Anbyun in Kangwondo province in the east.

July 4: North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency says U.S. 
naval exercises in the Pacific Ocean are an ``escalation of the U.S. 
aggressive moves for a new war.''

July 3: KCNA says a U.S. attack on its missile sites would be met with a 
``relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war.''

June 30: U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top 
American negotiator in six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear 
program, says missile test would call into question commitments to give 
aid and security guarantees pledge earlier.

June 29: A long-range missile test by North Korea would be ``extremely 
provocative,'' Australian Prime Minister John Howard said after holding 
talks with China's Premier Wen Jiabao.

June 28: Japan doesn't have the capability to shoot down a long- range 
missile from North Korea, the Associated Press reported, citing Japanese 
Defense Agency head Fukushiro Nukaga.

June 27: South Korea's government said it will take ``measures'' against 
North Korea in the event the country tests a long-range missile. North 
and South Korea are divided by a fortified border and haven't signed a 
formal peace treaty following the Korean War in the 1950s.

June 26: President George W. Bush urges the North Korean government to 
disclose details of any plans to launch a long-range missile, an act he 
said would be ``provocative.''

June 25: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner says U.S. 
missile defense systems will be used ``to the extent they can'' should 
North Korea fire a long-range ballistic missile capable of hitting North 
America.

June 23: The U.S. will pursue diplomacy to ease tensions with North 
Korea over a possible long-range missile test, the State Department said.

June 22: The U.S. should warn and then launch a pre-emptive strike to 
destroy a missile if North Korea persists with preparations for a test, 
said former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Assistant Defense 
Secretary Ashton Carter.

June 21: China's Premier Wen Jiabao called for a resumption of 
six-nation talks to persuade North Korea to abandon plans to develop 
nuclear weapons, discussions that have been suspended since November 2005.

June 21: John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, rejects 
North Korea's suggestion the two nations hold direct talks over possible 
preparations for the launch of a long-range ballistic missile.

June 21: China joins the U.S., Japan, South Korea and Australia in 
telling North Korea to refrain from testing a long-range missile, saying 
it may damage six-nation discussions on the country's nuclear program.

June 19: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says a North Korean 
missile test would be ``a provocative act'' after the New York Times 
reported the missile may have the capability of reaching North America.

June 16: A long-range missile test by North Korea would violate an 
agreement Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi reached with the 
country's leader, Kim Jong Il, in September 2002, Japan's Chief Cabinet 
Secretary Shinzo Abe said on June 16.

June 11: North Korea is preparing a possible test of a long-range 
Taepodong-2 missile, the Financial Times said on its Web site, citing an 
unidentified senior U.S. official.

June 1: North Korea's government invites Assistant Secretary of State 
Hill to Pyongyang to discuss ways to complete last year's agreement on 
ending the country's nuclear weapons program. The U.S. rejects the offer.

May 25: The U.S. won't lift sanctions against North Korea to coax it 
back to six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons program, Hill says in 
Beijing.

May 19: South Korea's government says it is trying to verify a Japanese 
news report that North Korea may be preparing to test a Taepodong 
long-range ballistic missile.

May 18: The Bush administration is considering opening direct talks with 
North Korea on a peace treaty as a new approach to persuading that 
nation to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, a U.S. official says.

March 8: North Korea test-fires two short-range missiles, U.S. 
government says. North Korea doesn't confirm tests.

Feb. 28: North Korea again denies it is involved in money laundering or 
counterfeiting and reiterates demand for U.S. to lift sanctions before 
it will return to six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons.

November 2005: The fifth round of six-nation talks on North Korea's 
nuclear weapons ends without making progress on a September agreement 
for ridding the Korean peninsula of nuclear arms.

October 2005: The U.S. imposes sanctions on North Korea for money 
laundering and counterfeiting.

September 2005: China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Russia and the 
U.S. reach a broad agreement on ending the North's nuclear weapons 
program at the fourth round of talks on the issue. Parties agree to 
further talks to flesh out details.

May 2005: North Korea test launches a KN-02, a conversion of a Russian 
short-range missile, the SS21.

May 2004: North Korea reiterates commitment to freeze on tests of 
long-range missiles.

October 2003: North Korea test launches a Chinese Silkworm 
surface-to-air missile, which falls into Sea of Japan.

April 2003: North Korea test launches a Silkworm surface-to-air missile 
with a range of 60 kilometers.

March 2003: North Korea test launches a Chinese Silkworm surface- to-air 
missile with a range of 100 kilometers.

February 2003: North Korea test launches a Chinese Silkworm 
surface-to-air missile with a range of 100 kilometers.

September 2002: North Korea agrees to indefinite freeze on tests of 
long-range missiles in Pyongyang Declaration when Japan's Koizumi visits 
the country. Two countries agree to normalize ties after Koizumi 
apologized for war time aggression and agreed to provide food aid to 
North Korea.

August 1998: North Korea test launches Taepodong-1 three-Stage, 
long-range ballistic missile, with a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,553 
miles). Missile flies over Japan and falls into the Pacific Ocean. North 
Korea claims test was a successful launch of Kwangmyongsong-1 Satellite.

May 1993: North Korea test launches Rodong-1 mid-range ballistic missile 
with range of 1,300 kilometers.

April 1984: North Korea test launches Scud-B missile with range of 280 
kilometers.

Last Updated: July 5, 2006 00:24 EDT

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 
*****************************************************************
 12 [NYTr] North Korea launches two missiles - reports
 
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:01:48 -0500 (CDT)


X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Reuters - Jul 4, 2006
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-04T203928Z_01_N04284348_RTRUKOC_0_UK-KOREA-NORTH-MISSILE.xml

North Korea launches two missiles - reports

TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea fired two missiles on Wednesday,
Japanese NHK television reported.

NHK said one missile landed in the Japan Sea 600 km (370 miles) from
the Japanese mainland. Shortly afterwards it quoted the Japanese
Defence Ministry as saying North Korea had fired a second missile.

CNN reported that a North Korean intercontinental missile the United
States has been monitoring had not been fired.

No further details were immediately available.

U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi had warned North Korea against test-firing a long-range
missile.

Last week, Bush echoed earlier U.S. threats of a harsh response if
North Korea went ahead with such a launch.

Koizumi said Japan would "apply various pressures" but declined to
give details.

Experts say North Korea is developing long-range missiles to have the
capability one day to deliver a nuclear bomb, but that Pyongyang is
years away from having such a weapons system.

The first time North Korea test-fired a long-range missile -- in 1998
over Japan -- it rattled financial markets and raised fears among the
Japanese.

(Writing by Ralph Gowling)

) Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 13 [southnews] More N Korea tests 'expected'
 
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 02:01:59 -0500 (CDT)


X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

AUSTRALIA expects the North Korean government to conduct further missile 
tests in coming days, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

Mr Downer said North Korea's ambassador blamed the tests on his nation 
feeling threatened by the US.

More N Korea tests 'expected'

AAP 05jul06

AUSTRALIA expects the North Korean government to conduct further missile 
tests in coming days, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

Mr Downer said the Government believed North Korea had fired six 
missiles overnight, being five short-range missiles and one longer range 
missile.

The Government condemned the tests, and had spoken to North Korea's 
ambassador in Australia, Chon Jae Hong, to register its displeasure, Mr 
Downer said.

"I told the North Korean ambassador that we condemn the testing of 
missiles, that it did very much heighten concerns about security in 
North Asia," Mr Downer said.

"It's our view that the United States should take the matter to the 
United Nations Security Council, it is a challenge to international 
peace and security."

Mr Downer said North Korea's ambassador blamed the tests on his nation 
feeling threatened by the US.

"The fact is, as I explained to him, the United States is not the issue 
here," Mr Downer said.

"North Korea is a very real threat to international peace and security 
and we think this is a matter that should be bought to the United 
Nations Security Council.

"The Chinese should certainly do everything they can to stop the North 
Koreans conducting further missile tests  and we think they probably do 
plan to launch more missiles in the next day or so."

_____________________________________

North Korean Media Says U.S. Attack Would Prompt Nuclear War

July 3 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea's state-run media said today the 
country's army is ready to answer any preemptive U.S. military attack 
against a missile site with a ``relentless annihilating strike and a 
nuclear war.''

The Korean Central News Agency, citing an unidentified Rodong Sinmun 
newspaper ``analyst,'' highlighted what it described as aggressive U.S. 
intentions by repeating accusations made last week that the U.S. 
military is sending spy planes into its airspace.

The analyst said ``the fond talk of the U.S. about `dialogue' and 
`peace' is a false advertisement to mislead public opinion at home and 
abroad'' and he accused the U.S. government of a ``criminal attempt to 
start a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula at any cost,'' according to 
the news agency's own English translation.

North Korea's threat of retaliation comes as the U.S. says the 
secretive, nuclear-armed communist country is preparing to test a 
Taepodong-2 missile capable of reaching American shores. The U.S., China 
and other countries have asked the North Korean government not to carry 
out such a test, which President George W. Bush said last week would be 
``provocative.''

In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow today cautioned dictator 
Kim Jong Il after reading the North Korean media account.

``We're encouraging North Korea not to launch a missile and return to 
the six-party talks,'' he said. Snow declined to comment further.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said after meeting Bush last 
week in Washington that the U.S. and its allies ``would apply various 
pressures'' should North Korea launch its missile. Koizumi declined to 
specify what steps might be taken.

Security Pledge

The U.S., China, South Korea, Japan and Russia agreed in September to 
provide North Korea with security guarantees, food and energy in return 
for ending a nuclear arms program that may have built as many as 13 
warheads.

North Korea has refused to return to the negotiations until the U.S. 
removes sanctions it imposed over allegations of money laundering and 
counterfeiting by North Korean companies.

U.S. behavior on the Korean peninsula ``attests to the validity of the 
option of the DPRK in building up a strong war deterrent,'' the analyst 
said, according to the Korean news agency. DPRK are the initials for the 
country's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

North Korea, with a population of about 23 million, is economically and 
politically isolated from much of the world. It ranks 193rd on a list of 
countries measured by gross domestic product per capita -- tied with 
Haiti, according to U.S. government figures. Haiti is the Western 
Hemisphere's poorest nation.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Judy Mathewson in Washington at  jmathewson@bloomberg.net;
Heejin Koo in Seoul at  hjkoo@bloomberg.net

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: White House: No Standoff With N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday July 5, 2006 4:01 PM

AP Photo DCLJ105 

By DEB RIECHMANN 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House said Wednesday that North
Korea's missile tests were a rebuff of international demands to
stop its nuclear weapons program and does not reflect a standoff
between Washington and Pyongyang. 

``This is not a U.S.-North Korea matter and we're not going to
let the leader of North Korea transform it into that,'' White
House press secretary Tony Snow said. 

He said North Korea may test fire a few more short- to
medium-range missiles on top of the seven already fired, ``but
honestly we don't know what to expect.'' 

The United States and Japan asked the U.N. Security Council to
hold an emergency session Wednesday. 

``I'm not going to share proposals,'' Snow said. ``There will be
something forthcoming, and it will not be simply a U.S.
proposal, but it will be reflective of the five other parties in
the six party talks. Absolutely.'' 

There is a high degree uncertainty within the administration
about the situation. 

``It's very difficult to ascertain precisely what's going on,''
Snow said. 

He said that President Bush on Wednesday morning attended a
National Security Council meeting, but that it was focused on
Cuba, not North Korea. The missile issue was covered in the
president's intelligence briefing, he indicated. 

Snow said the U.S. Northern Command, responsible for defending
U.S. territory, has concluded with a high degree of confidence
that North Korea's test of the long-range Taepodong-2, believed
capable of reaching American soil, failed within a minute after
liftoff, and was not aborted. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Cites World Outrage at N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday July 5, 2006 6:01 PM

AP Photo DCLJ105 

By DEB RIECHMANN 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration declared Wednesday it
won't allow North Korea's test-firing of missiles to become a
Washington-Pyongyang standoff, saying global expressions of
revulsion dramatize concern over its nuclear intentions. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, talking with reporters at
the State Department as she met with Turkey's minister of
foreign affairs, Abdullah Gul, said that expressions of outrage
demonstrate ``it is now not a matter of the United States and
North Korea.'' 

The United States still believes six-party talks with North
Korea offer the best opportunity for resolving the nuclear
impasse, she said, adding that ``the international community
does have at its disposal a number of tools to make it more
difficult for the North Koreans to engage in this kind of
brinkmanship.'' 

``I can't really judge the motivations of the North Korean
regime, I wouldn't begin to try,'' Rice added. But she did
suggest that the North Koreans may have miscalculated how the
tests would be seen, saying ``they have gotten a very strong
reaction from the international community.'' 

``If it was the desire of Kim Jong Il to turn this into a
two-party negotiation or standoff between the United States and
North Korea, he blew it,'' said White House press secretary Tony
Snow said. ``Instead, what has happened is that the United
States continues to work with its allies in the region.'' 

Rice said that Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill,
who oversees the stalled negotiations with North Korea, was in
touch with the other countries at the six-party table. They are
China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. 

Rice added that she believes ``it would still be incumbent on
the North Koreans to use that kind of infrastructure to address
these issues.'' 

The White House earlier had said that the missile tests were a
rebuff of international demands to stop its nuclear weapons
program and did not set up a standoff between Washington and
Pyongyang. 

Hill, in an interview with The Associated Press, said he would
leave Wednesday night for Beijing and continue on for talks with
officials in other countries involved in the negotiations, South
Korea, Japan and Russia. 

``We have a lot of support in a lot of places,'' Hill said, but
he hoped the unity would be strengthened in the talks he would
be holding with the other participants. 

While Hill was reluctant to say what the Bush administration
could do specifically, he said there would probably be some kind
of resolution adopted in the Security Council. He declined to
provide any details. 

Snow said that North Korea could test fire a few more short- to
medium-range missiles on top of the seven already fired, ``but
honestly we don't know what to expect.'' 

The United States and Japan asked the U.N. Security Council to
hold an emergency session Wednesday, but Snow declined to
disclose details about options the United States might be
considering. 

The test-firings of seven missiles - including a long-range
missile designed to reach U.S. soil - began as America
celebrated the Fourth of July. It raised the stakes in a nuclear
crisis and pressured the U.S. and its partners to penalize
Pyongyang. North Korea fired a seventh missile early Wednesday,
after the initial round of world reaction. 

Unlike during previous North Korean missile launches, the U.S.
military now has a missile defense system. A couple of weeks
ago, when the United States learned that the North Koreans were
preparing to launch a Taepodong-2, U.S. officials said the U.S.
missile defense system was ``operational,'' meaning it was ready
for possible use in the event of a threatening North Korean
missile launch. The officials said at the time that the
administration was considering circumstances under which it
might try to shoot down a North Korea missile. 

Snow said the U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for
defending U.S. territory, has concluded with a high degree of
confidence that North Korea's test of the long-range
Taepodong-2, believed capable of reaching American soil, failed
within a minute after liftoff, and was not aborted. 

``The failure of the Taepodong shows their missile talk is
greater than their capability,'' said Rep. Ike Skelton of
Missouri, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services
Committee, who urged sustained diplomacy to defuse rising
tensions. 

The White House said that regardless of whether the series of
launches occurred as planned, they demonstrate North Korea's
intent to intimidate other states by developing missiles of
increasingly longer ranges. The administration urged North Korea
to refrain from further provocative acts, including further
ballistic missile launches. 

The challenge for President Bush is to mobilize international
support for penalizing the North Koreans. The United States and
several of North Korea's neighbors had issued stern warnings,
saying a missile test would mean further isolation and
sanctions. 

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the
Foreign Relations Committee, called the testing an ill-advised
move by ``an incredibly immature regime in the North.'' 

Early in his administration, Bush named North Korea, along with
Iran and Iraq, in his ``axis of evil.'' Yet, he has focused most
of his attention on the later two nations, even though Pyongyang
claims it already has nuclear weapons. 

``The American officials have said that if the North Koreans
proceed with a test, there are going to be consequences,'' said
Robert Einhorn, former assistant secretary of state for
nonproliferation in the Clinton administration and chief U.S.
negotiator with North Korea from 1996 to 2000. ``If there aren't
consequences, the Bush administration is going to look like a
paper tiger,'' said Einhorn, now with the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. 

--- 

Associated Press Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to
this story. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: N. Korea Calling for Attention
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday July 5, 2006 11:46 PM

AP Photo WHCD116 

By JOSEPH COLEMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea's test-firing of a stream
of missiles harmlessly into the sea appeared to be a military
failure, but it achieved one important objective for Pyongyang:
it got worldwide attention. 

The public way the North prepared for the tests and their timing
- the Fourth of July, during a launch of a U.S. space shuttle -
indicated the isolated state was eager to make itself the focus
of global diplomacy and Washington's attention after months of
seeing Iran take center stage with its nuclear program. 

``They chose their day very interestingly,'' said Jonathan
Pollack of the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I. ``This
was a curious coincidence with the launch of the shuttle from
Cape Canaveral.'' 

Assessing North Korean motives is always risky, but the
consensus is that the isolated regime is eager to draw
Washington into direct talks - something the U.S. has refused -
and figures posing a threat is a good way to achieve that. 

After all, Pyongyang shocked the world by firing a long-range
missile over northern Japan in 1998. Two years later, leader Kim
Jong Il was basking in a visit by Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright. 

But times have changed. Not only has the Bush administration
taken a harder line with Pyongyang, but Wednesday's test - in
which a long-range missile apparently imploded 35 seconds after
launch - was much less impressive than the 1998 display. 

The U.S. has already spurned North Korea's call for direct
talks, instead urging Pyongyang to rejoin six-party nuclear
talks. Those talks have been stalled since last year by a North
Korean boycott in protest of a U.S. crackdown on the country's
alleged counterfeiting, money-laundering and other wrongdoing.
The other parties are China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. 

Michael Green, President Bush's senior adviser on Asia until
December and now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, called for a stern response to the tests. 

``Now is the time for the other parties to put pressure on North
Korea, to impose consequences and to make it very clear that
these kinds of provocations will only further isolate North
Korea,'' he said. 

Still, others point out that options may be limited. 

The North Korean regime has braved famine, economic deprivation
and diplomatic isolation without caving in before, and its No. 1
patron, China, may block tough pressure against Pyongyang. 

Even with Japan and the United States pressing for a U.N.
Security Council meeting Wednesday on the issue, few people
expected members to take immediate harsh action. 

``China is likely to oppose any imposition of sanctions on North
Korea over this problem, so I think the process will ultimately
be inconclusive,'' said Takashi Shiraishi, an East Asian affairs
expert at Japan's National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies. 

It was equally unclear what the test tells the world about the
state of North Korea's weapons delivery program. The fizzling of
what is believed to have been a long-range Taepodong-2 suggested
the North Koreans are far from perfecting technology needed to
hit the United States with a warhead. 

Still, the tests could be an advertisement of sorts, meant to
attract interest from potential buyers of North Korean missile
technology. North Korea is already a major exporter of weapons,
including missiles. According to the Council on Foreign
Relations, North Korea has reportedly sold missile technology to
Iran, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries. 

``Even if the Taepodong-2 test launch was a failure as
suspected, there is the possibility that it was 'successful
enough' if we think ahead to the next two years or so,'' said
Shiraishi. 

``If we don't deal with the problem of North Korea's nuclear
weapons during that time, then that could be enough time for the
North to enable their missile to carry a nuclear warhead and
then we would have a truly serious situation,'' he added. 

There was some speculation the North feared the long-range
missile would fail, which is why the country also fired off
several more reliable shorter-range missiles to provide some
successes. 

And, given the crafty nature of North Korean diplomacy, there is
also the possibility the Taepodong's ``failure'' was staged to
allow Pyongyang to defy the world with the test of a long-range
missile, but not to let it fly so far as to trigger a military
response from the U.S. 

``The fact that they went down so far away from Japan is not
quite as shocking to the Americans and Japanese as it might have
been if they had come close,'' Kensuke Ehata, a Tokyo-based
defense analyst, told Japanese national broadcaster NHK. 

Despite the wide condemnation of the missile launches, some said
the world has no choice but to engage the regime and lure it out
of isolation as a way of making it less dangerous and more
predictable. 

Albright, who met with Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang in 2000, said
the missile launches illustrate how the Bush administration
needs to review its approach to North Korea. She also urged the
development of anti-missile defenses. 

``Although the Taepodong failed, it certainly has given the
North Koreans an opportunity to learn a lot about what they have
in terms of their missile technology,'' she told CNN. 

--- 

Joseph Coleman is The Associated Press chief of bureau in Tokyo
and has been covering Asia since 1995. AP writers Carl Freire in
Tokyo, Charles Hutzler in Beijing, and Ken Guggenheim in
Washington contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 17 Guardian Unlimited: Defiant North Korea fires seventh test missile
 
Justin McCurry in Tokyo and Jonathan Watts in Beijing

Wednesday July 5, 2006
 		 
[Preparations for a North Korean military parade] 

Preparations for a North Korean military parade. Photograph:
Getty Images

 North Korea ignored international condemnation of its missile
tests by launching a seventh missile today, insisting it was its
sovereign right to do so.

The launch came hours before the UN security council was due to
convene in New York to discuss what US and Japan said would be a
tough response. Japanese media, citing government officials,
said the seventh missile was launched at 5.22pm local time and
landed in the sea six minutes later. There was no immediate
indication of the range or size of the missile.

Hours before, the communist regime launched six missiles, 
including a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, which is capable of 
striking the US mainland but which failed 40 seconds after 
launch.

"The Taepodong obviously was a failure - that tells you
something about capabilities," said US national security adviser
Stephen Hadley. 

Other analysts, however, said it was possible that North Korea
either aborted the missile or reduced the amount of fuel in its
tanks as a compromise so that it would not fly over Japan.

Though all of the missiles landed in the sea, their launch
raised Japanese anxiety over Pyongyang's ballistic missile
programme. Residents on Sado island, off Niigata prefecture,
reported seeing the sky turn orange for about five minutes when
the missiles were launched. "When I went outside at 4am the sky
had turned a colour I'd never seen before," a 74-year-old local
woman told Kyodo news agency.

In a typically defiant riposte, Pyongyang said the missile tests
were its right as a sovereign nation, despite Japan's claims
they violated a moratorium on missile tests agreed between the
countries in 2002.

"The missile launch is an issue that is entirely within our
sovereignty. No one has the right to dispute it," Ri Pyong-dok,
a researcher at the North Korean foreign ministry, said on
Japanese television. "On the missile launch, we are not bound by
any agreement."

The security council is to discuss a Japanese resolution
condemning the tests. Japan's foreign minister, Taro Aso, said
there was a "very high possibility" the UN would impose economic
sanctions against North Korea.

The Japanese defence agency said the first six missiles were
fired between 3.30am and 8.20am and that all had landed in the
Sea of Japan several hundred miles from the Japanese coast.
Tokyo condemned the tests and said North Korea had "threatened
the stability of the international community". The US called
them a "provocation".

"The United States strongly condemns these missile launches and
North Korea's unwillingness to heed calls for restraint from the
international community," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

China called for a cool-headed response to North Korea's missile
tests, according to Kyodo news agency, which quoted foreign
ministry official Liu Jianchao as saying that countries should
respond calmly to the missile test launches. 

China was closely watching North Korea's moves, said Liu.

Beijing has led international negotiations aimed at resolving
North Korea's nuclear stand-off with the United States. The
latest provocation is a setback for that diplomatic campaign.

It is also a slap in the face for the Chinese prime minister,
Wen Jiabao, who last week publicly warned North Korea not to do
anything that would heighten tension in the region.

Though it stopped short of imposing economic sanctions, Tokyo
immediately banned a North Korean passenger ferry moored off the
Japanese coast from visiting Japan for six months. The
Mangyongbyong-92 was allowed to dock briefly in the Japan Sea
port of Niigata today to allow a party of schoolchildren to
disembark. The vessel is suspected of carrying drugs, hard
currency and up to 90% of the parts North Korea needs for its
missile development programme.

Tokyo also said North Korean officials in Japan would not be
allowed to re-enter the country and that charter flights between
the two countries would be halted.

Tokyo's chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, said Japan would
wait and see how Pyongyang responded before deciding whether to
impose tougher measures, such as freezing private remittances
from Japan to North Korea, a major source of foreign currency
for the communist regime.

"It is regrettable and we protest strongly against North Korea
for going ahead with a launch despite warnings from relevant
countries, including Japan," Mr Abe said. "It is a serious
problem from the standpoint of our national security, peace and
stability of the international community and proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction."

South Korea was unusually forceful in its condemnation, saying
the tests would increase the North's isolation and set back
six-party talks on its nuclear weapons programme. No talks have
taken place since November after a boycott by Pyongyang, which
is angered by a US crackdown on alleged North Korean
counterfeiting.

South Korea condemned the barrage as a provocation that would
further isolate Pyongyang and increase the risk of an arms race
in north-east Asia. Suh Choo-suk, senior secretary to the
president on national security, called on North Korea to resolve
the problem through dialogue by returning to six-party talks,
and comply with international non-proliferation efforts.

Speculation mounted that the North was about to conduct more
missile tests. "We think they probably do intend to launch more
missiles in the next day or two," Alexander Downer, the
Australian foreign minister, told reporters after a telephone
conversation with Pyongyang's ambassador to Australia, Chon
Jae-hong.

The Australian prime minister, John Howard, suggested the main
impact of the launches could be to undermine Pyongyang's
relations with its main sympathisers. "North Korea is in total
breach of international obligations in doing this and I hope
that North Korea feels isolated and feels the condemnation not
only of Australia, the United States and Japan but also of China
and naturally of South Korea." 

"North Korea wants to send a very strong message so that it can
have direct negotiations to persuade the US to lift sactions,"
said Toshimitsu Shigemura, professor of international relations
at Waseda University. 

"Pyongyang has no normal diplomatic ties so it has to launch
missiles to attract attention. In 1998, they launched a missile
over Japan and then President Clinton accepted negotiation, so
based on their experience, missile launches work."

Other analysts said the launch had weakened its bargaining power
in protracted negotiations over its nuclear programme.

Before this launch, North Korea had some success in persuading
people that it should be able to talk one-on-one with the US,
said Professor Kim Sung-han of the South Korean Institute of
Foreign Affairs and National Security. 

"But now no one will tolerate North Korea setting the conditions
under which it comes to the negotiating table," he said. 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: And then there were two ...
 
Brian Whitaker

Wednesday July 5, 2006 The Guardian             

      [George Bush delivers his state of the union address in
2002] 
George Bush delivers his 2002 state of the union address.
Photograph: Getty Images
   
 "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of
mass destruction while starving its citizens," President Bush
declared in 2002 in his state of the union address.

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror ...
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to
support terror ... states like these, and their terrorist
allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace
of the world."

Four years on, the axis is down to two members. Saddam Hussein's
regime has been removed, leaving Iraq in turmoil - and with no
sign of the weapons that provided a basis for the US-led
invasion.

As far as North Korea and Iran are concerned though, little has 
changed. Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful 
purposes only, although the US and others suspect it is using 
that as a cover to develop weapons.

Having originally signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in
1968, it signed an additional protocol in 2003 that allows
detailed inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In November 2004, under international pressure, Iran agreed to
suspend uranium enrichment but - as the diplomatic cat-and-mouse
game continued - it resumed again in January this year.

US intentions towards Iran remain unclear. Washington's official
position is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable and
that all options for preventing it, including military force,
are on the table. Some argue a strike would be
counter-productive and the world may eventually have to accept
an Iranian bomb.

Last month the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China
agreed on a package of incentives for Iran to stop its nuclear
programme. Iran described the proposals as positive but says it
will not give a formal reply until next month.

President Bush's inclusion of North Korea - a tiny, impoverished
dictatorship - in the axis of evil raised eyebrows at the time,
with suggestions he had named it to avoid being accused of
picking on Muslim countries. His stance also conflicted with
South Korea's "sunshine policy" of seeking a gradual thaw in
relations with its northern neighbour.

North Korea pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty in 2003
and, far from denying nuclear weapons activity, has tended to
boast about it and possibly even exaggerate. In February last
year a foreign ministry statement claimed it had succeeded in
making nuclear weapons.

There are signs that North Korea is seeking to trade its nuclear
activities for a package of aid and diplomatic benefits, but the
US is wary of rewarding President Kim's regime.
 
Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News                                       
               Agency

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang faces united criticism at UN meeting
 
Japanese resolution calls for sanctions and block on funds and
technology 

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Justin McCurry in Tokyo
and Jonathan Watts in Beijing

Thursday July 6, 2006
 		 
North Korea faced united condemnation of its missile tests at the 
UN security council yesterday, with the US and Japan pressing for 
a strong response to the launch of seven missiles in 24 hours.

In an emergency session convened after North Korea launched the 
missiles, including a long-range weapon that failed seconds after 
lift-off, Japan asked security council members to endorse a call 
for Pyongyang to halt missile development and its nuclear 
programme.

The draft resolution also urged North Korea to return to 
six-party negotiations without pre-conditions.

"We hope that the response of the council will be swift, strong
and resolute," said Kenzo Oshima, Japan's ambassador to the UN.

Among the measures sought by Japan were a ban on the transfer of
technology and funds that could contribute to North Korea's
missile programme or other weapons of mass destruction.

Japan has already imposed sanctions on North Korea, cancelling a
weekly ferry and charter flights and South Korea said it would
withhold 500,000 tonnes of rice Pyongyang had sought this year.

In Washington, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, warned
Pyongyang could face further penalties for defying warnings
against missile tests.

"The international community does have at its disposal a number
of tools to make it more difficult for North Korea to engage in
this kind of brinksmanship and to engage in the continued
pursuit of its nuclear weapons programmes," she told reporters.

But hopes of maintaining a tough and united front to what the
Bush administration has described as a "provocation" were
tempered by the awareness that there was limited support for the
ultimate censure - a security council resolution - from Russia
and China.

As North Korea's ally and neighbour, China has led international
negotiations aimed at resolving North Korea's nuclear stand-off.
The latest provocation is a slap in the face for the China's
prime minister, Wen Jiabao, who last week warned North Korea not
to raise tension in the region.

In a statement from Beijing, China called on all sides to
maintain restraint, and avoid actions that would "add to
tensions and further complicate the situation".

However, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the UN, told
reporters: "If all council members feel that some appropriate
action is needed by the council, we will see."

Despite those signs of reluctance, the US ambassador to the UN,
John Bolton, said he believed that the security council would
manage to craft a unanimous response to the missile tests,
underlining North Korea's isolation.

"I think there is support for sending a clear signal to
Pyongyang, and we'll proceed to see if we can't get that done in
the next few days," he said.

The measured tones were a departure from the harsh rhetoric the
White House has employed in the past towards North Korea. US
officials said yesterday they believed that North Korea was
trying to prod Washington into direct negotiations after
six-party talks stalled last year.

North Korea has asked repeatedly for one-on-one meetings with US
officials, and for the release of funds in a Macao bank frozen
by the US Treasury.

Washington said it would not be drawn into a head-on
confrontation. "I view this as an opportunity to remind the
international community that we must work together to continue
to work hard to convince the North Korean leader to give up any
weapons programs," Mr Bush said in his first public comments on
the tests.

Yesterday's emergency session of the security council was called
after North Korea defied warnings from the US, Japan and China
to test fire its long-range Taepodong missile, as well as six
Scud-like missiles.

As North Korea underlined its disregard for international
opinion by the launch of a seventh missile yesterday morning,
speculation mounted that the country was about to conduct more
missile tests.

"We think they probably intend to launch more missiles in the
next day or two," Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign
minister, said after a conversation with Pyongyang's ambassador
to Australia.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Resist North Korea Sanctions
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 12:16 AM

By EDITH M. LEDERER 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - China and Russia resisted an attempt in
the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against North
Korea for its missile launches Wednesday, saying only diplomacy
could halt the isolated regime's nuclear and rocket development
programs. 

Japan, backed by the U.S. and Britain, circulated a resolution
that would ban any country from transferring funds, material and
technology that could be used in North Korea's missile and
weapons of mass destruction programs. 

China, the North's closest ally, and Russia, which has been
trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with Pyongyang, countered
that they favor a weaker council statement without any threat of
sanctions. Both countries hold veto power in the council, making
sanctions unlikely. 

North Korea, which has proclaimed itself a nuclear weapons
state, has said sanctions would amount to a declaration of war.
China and Russia are clearly concerned that a U.N. demand for
such measures would only make the current situation worse and
delay a return to six-party talks. China and Russia are part of
the talks along with North and South Korea, the United States
and Japan. 

In a possible sign that Moscow's and Beijing's position may
carry the day, President Bush addressed the issue in a subdued
manner without the harsh warnings that he had issued as recently
as last week when he said that a missile launch would be
unacceptable. 

Bush said Wednesday that the failure of North Korea's long-range
missile test does not lessen the need to push the communist
regime to give up its nuclear weapons program. 

``One thing we have learned is that the rocket didn't stay up
for very long,'' Bush said about the Taepodong-2 missile that
failed 42 seconds after liftoff Tuesday. ``It tumbled into the
sea.'' 

``It doesn't diminish my desire to solve this problem,'' he said
in Washington. 

The failure of the Taepodong-2 missile - the object of intense
international attention for more than a month - suggested a
catastrophic failure of the rocket's first, or booster, stage. A
working version of the intercontinental missile could
potentially reach the United States with a light payload. 

The North also fired six shorter-range missiles on Wednesday,
arguing it had the right to such launches. All of them
apparently fell harmlessly into the Sea of Japan. 

Tokyo responded swiftly by barring North Korean officials from
traveling to Japan, and banned one of its trading boats from
entering Japanese waters for six months. 

In South Korea, separated from the North by the world's most
heavily armed border, officials said Wednesday's tests would
affect inter-Korean initiatives such as the dispatch of food and
fertilizer from the South to the North, but stressed that
diplomacy was the best way to solve the crisis. 

Both Japan and South Korea are within range of North Korean
missiles. 

The Security Council held an emergency session at Japan's
request, and council experts met late Wednesday for about 1
hours to discuss the draft resolution. One participant said
experts would meet again Thursday morning. 

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the current
council president, said after the council meeting that all 15
members ``expressed deep concern'' at the missile tests. 

``Thirteen delegations were in favor of a resolution, and two
delegations thought a presidential statement would be more
appropriate,'' he said, confirming that these were China and
Russia. 

``It's too early to say at this moment what the outcome will be
except to say that there is an agreement in the council to act
swiftly and firmly,'' de La Sabliere said. 

The draft resolution proposed by Japan and obtained by The
Associated Press would condemn North Korea's ballistic missile
launches and deplore its role as ``the world's leading
proliferator of ballistic missiles and related technology.'' It
would demand that Pyongyang immediately halt ``the development,
testing, deployment and proliferation of ballistic missiles and
reconfirm its moratorium on missile launching.'' 

If approved, the council would strongly urge North Korea to
return immediately to the six-party talks ``without
precondition'' and stop all nuclear-related activities with the
aim of completely dismantling its nuclear programs, including
both plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment. 

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya and Russia's U.N.
Ambassador Vitaly Churkin both noted that after North Korea
shocked Japan in August 1998 by blasting a Taepodong-1 missile
over its territory and into the Pacific Ocean, the Security
Council reacted merely with a press statement. 

Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima called Wednesday's launches
``far more serious.'' 

North Korea's ``possible combination of nuclear weapons with
missile development and testing'' is unacceptable and requires
``quick, strong action'' by the Security Council, he said. 

Flanked by the U.S. and British ambassadors, Oshima said
possible sanctions against North Korea ``may be discussed, but
that, of course, is up to the council.'' 

China's Wang expressed regret and concern at the missile tests,
but left far more ambiguity over how much council action would
be acceptable to Beijing. 

He stressed the importance of constructive actions to maintain
peace in north Asia. 

Asked what the council could do to promote peace, Wang replied:
``I think that in 1998 similar circumstances that the Security
Council issued some sort of comments or statements. We'll see.'' 

Russia's Churkin said that while ``a strong and clear message is
needed to North Korea,'' the goal should be a resumption of
six-party talks, which have been suspended since last September,
and a diplomatic solution. 

``We believe that at this point a strong and clear message is
necessary from the Security Council to North Korea,'' he said,
backing a presidential statement which becomes part of the
council's record unlike a press statement. 

Russia is ``troubled'' by the impact of the launches on region
security and the Korean nuclear issue, he said. ``And of course
we cannot overlook the fact that according to some information
which is being verified some missile fragments fell not far from
the Russian territory.'' 

Churkin cautioned, however, ``against whipping up the emotions
too much'' and urged all everyone to be ``clear-headed'' and
keep in mind the need for talks to achieve a diplomatic
solution. 

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the council must send a
``strong and unanimous signal'' that North Korea's missile
test-launch was unacceptable. 

The initial council discussion ``was very interesting because no
member defended what the North Koreans have done,'' he said. ``I
think there is support for sending a clear signal to
Pyongyang.'' 

North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon refused to talk to
reporters Wednesday when he arrived at his country's U.N.
mission, shielding himself with a large black umbrella against
the rain and the media barrage. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 21 BBC: Outcry over N Korea missile test
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 5 July 2006
 
[2002 picture of Taepodong-type missile]                                

The Taepodong-2 may be able to reach Alaska                                                                 

World powers have condemned North Korea for test-firing a series 
of missiles, including one thought capable of reaching the US. 

The seven missiles included a long-range Taepodong-2, which the 
US said failed shortly after take-off. 

The US called the tests "provocative", and urged a resumption of 
multilateral talks. Japan went on to announce a range of 
sanctions against Pyongyang. 

The UN Security Council has held an emergency meeting on the 
crisis. 

The ambassadors of the US, Japan and the UK said there had been 
widespread concern with not a single member of the council 
defending North Korea's actions. 

A draft resolution drawn up by Japan and the US is said to demand 
that Pyongyang immediately stop the development, testing and 
deployment of ballistic missiles. 

In quotes: World reaction Insoluble problem? Japan watches 
anxiously                                 

It also calls on member states to prevent the transfer of 
resources, items and technology that could contribute to North 
Korea's missile programme. 

Experts are beginning discussion on the document but there is no 
indication when it may be passed by the council. 

Tokyo - one of North Korea's harshest critics, and in easy reach 
of a long-range missile - has already said it will ban the entry 
of North Korean officials, chartered flights and a ferry. 

In its first response to the tests, China urged all sides to 
remain calm. 

Japanese and South Korean military are on high alert, and share 
prices have fallen in both countries. 

See the possible range of North Korea's missiles                                 

Pyongyang remained defiant. A foreign ministry official said such 
launches were a matter of national sovereignty, Japanese media 
reported. 

The BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says the North has been 
feeling under pressure and ignored in recent months, with the US 
refusing to negotiate on its demands over its nuclear plans. 
	
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the strong reaction 
from the international community demonstrated that this was not a 
matter between the US and North Korea. 

Ms Rice said the six-party talks provided the forum for 
discussing the missile crisis. 

Without specifying what punitive measures the US could take, she 
said: "The international community does have at its disposal a 
number of tools to make it more difficult for North Korea to 
engage in this kind of brinksmanship and to engage in the 
continued pursuit of its nuclear weapons programmes and of its 
missile programmes." 

Heightened alert 

Some observers believe it was not a coincidence that North Korea 
launched six of the missiles as the US celebrated its 
Independence Day holiday and launched the space shuttle from 
Florida. 

NORTH KOREAN MISSILE MOVES               

1998: Test long-range Taepodong-1 over Japan 1999: Agrees to 
moratorium on long-range tests 2003: Six-nation talks begin on N 
Korea's nuclear programme 2005: Six-nation talks stall July 2006: 
N Korea launches seven missiles, including long-range 
Taepodong-2, which fails N Korea's missile programme                             

According to US officials, the six earlier launches took place 
over a four-hour period, beginning at 0332 Japan time (1832 GMT 
Tuesday). 

Among them was the Taepodong missile - thought capable of 
reaching Alaska. US officials said it failed shortly after 
take-off, while the others fell into the Sea of Japan. 

The seventh missile launch came hours later, at 1722 Japan time 
(0822 GMT) according to local media reports. 

The US and North Korea's neighbours have been on heightened alert 
in recent weeks amid suspicions that Pyongyang was preparing to 
launch the Taepodong-2, which has a range of up to 6,000 km 
(3,730 miles). 

It was Pyongyang's first test of a long-range missile since a 
self-imposed moratorium in 1999. 

The last time North Korea tested a long-range missile was in 
1998, when it launched a Taepodong-1 over northern Japan. 
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: Kim Jong-Il: dangerous eccentric or shrewd operator? 

>Wednesday July 5, 11:10 AM 
  
  [Kim Jong-Il]   

SEOUL (AFP) - With his bouffant hair, platform heels and
penchant for haute cuisine and Hollywood films, North Korean
leader Kim Jong-Il is often ridiculed in the West.

But experts close to the Stalinist state say the reclusive
figure with his finger apparently on the nuclear trigger is a
shrewd and ruthless political operator who sees enhanced
firepower as the key to his regime's survival.

"This is not a crazy or deluded man," Michael Breen, commentator
and author on North Korea, told Advertisement
<img
src="http://eur.a1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/a/eu/any/pc2iaction300x2
5030k1.gif" width=300 height=250 border=0> [ src=] AFP. "He has
shown how shrewd he can be."

Analysts around the world pondering reasons for North Korea's
first ballistic missile test since 1998 have suggested
everything from attention-seeking to an attempt to jolt the US
back into direct talks.

Experts such as Breen, however, insist it is wrong to
underestimate the tactical abilities of the 64-year-old or
ascribe purely international motives.

Breen said the idea of Kim seeking attention was a
"Washington-centred view" and instead speculates that the
missile launch may have more to do with internal North Korean
politics.

"There maybe an internal policy logic to this," he said.

Yet the view persists of Kim as a heavy-drinking playboy whose
lifestyle extends to drinking the finest cognacs, compiling a
20,0000-strong movie collection and hand-picking virgins for his
own private "Pleasure Squad".

While North Korea is commonly portrayed as the world's bad guy
in Hollywood action movies, Kim himself comes in for comical
treatment: he was ridiculed in the "Team America" animated
feature made by the creators of cult US TV cartoon "South Park".

"The myth in the outside world is of this totally weird playboy.
The real man is politically very shrewd. He has that North
Korean skill of playing a weak hand well," said Breen, author of
"Kim Jong-Il: North Korea's Dear Leader".

The perception of Kim at home is also skewed. Through propaganda
he is worshipped by most North Koreans despite decades of
hardship and a mid-90s famine that left up to three million
people dead.

"He is a god-like figure to the people," said Yu Suk-Ryul, a
North Korean expert in Seoul. "What he wants is what North Korea
gets."

According to at least one defector, what the Dear Leader wants
is a nuclear missile that can strike the United States, in the
belief that the superpower would then no longer interfere with
his regime.

Kim has defied international sanctions and condemnation to
pursue nuclear warheads that could be loaded onto the long-range
Taepodong-2 missile test fired Wednesday, which is capable of
hitting Hawaii if successfully launched.

"I don't think he is prepared to give up his nuclear weapons,"
said Breen.

"That would require him to trust the United States and South
Korea. We may have to live with a nuclear North Korea for a
while."

The diminutive Kim, dubbed a "pygmy" by US President George W.
Bush, grew up as the pampered first son of North Korea's
founding father Kim Il-Sung.

North Korea's propaganda has transformed the two Kims into
mythical figures with a vast personality cult.

When the son was born on February 16, 1942, a bright star and
double rainbows appeared over his birthplace at Mount Paekdu, a
sacred mountain, according to Pyongyang propaganda.

Independent experts say Kim was actually born in Russia at a
guerrilla camp near Khabarovsk where his father was based while
conducting warfare against Japanese forces who had colonised the
Korean peninsula.

After graduating from Kim Il-Sung University in 1964, the
22-year-old Kim began his climb to the pinnacle of the ruling
elite through the ranks of the Korean Worker's Party.

His role apparently included planning terrorist attacks
including the 1983 bombing in Myanmar that killed 17 South
Koreans and the 1987 bombing of a Korean Airlines jet that
killed all 115 people on board.

According to a senior South Korea official, Kim pulled the
strings during 1994 negotiations to resolve a nuclear crisis
concerning a plutonium producing plant at Yongbyon, 90
kilometres (55 miles) north of Pyongyang.

For freezing that programme, he extracted a promise for the
construction of two light-water nuclear reactors and, until the
reactors were completed, annual shipments of 500,000 tonnes of
fuel oil.

That project was officially scrapped earlier this year amid a
renewed stand-off over its weapons programme.

Despite his pre-eminent role in North Korea, he waited three
years after his father's death in 1994 before taking over
leadership of the ruling Korean Workers' Party. 

Copyright � 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 AFP: Bush says US, allies, will hold NKorea to account

 by Olivier Knox Wed Jul 5, 5:08 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> President 
George W. Bushdirected an all-out diplomatic counter-offensive to 
North Korea" /> North Korea's seven-missile barrage as aides 
puzzled over Pyongyang's intentions and downplayed the crisis. 

 Bush said he would personally reach out to world leaders and
that the failure of a long-range North Korean rocket thought
able to strike US territory did not weaken his worries about
Pyongyang's nuclear and missile arsenals. 

The Taepodong 2 "didn't stay up very long, it tumbled into the
sea, which doesn't, frankly, diminish my desire to solve this
problem," Bush said in his first public remarks on the
situation. "We will hold them to account." 

As senior US officials urged China to be "very firm" with North
Korea, Bush downplayed Beijing's mild response to the 14-hour
rain of rockets and said the Chinese "have played and will
continue to play an important role." 

With US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza
Ricein touch with her counterparts in China, Japan, Russia and
South Korea" /> South Korea-- US partners in the six-country
negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program -- Bush told
reporters: "I, of course, will be on the phone, as well." 

Bush said that US officials were analyzing the Taepodong 2
missile launch but dismissed the other missiles as "pretty
routine weapons" and said the immediate political impact was
that North Korea was worse off. 

"What these firings of the rockets have done is, they've
isolated themselves further, and that's sad for the people of
North Korea," Bush said as he met with his Georgian counterpart,
Mikheil Saakashvili. 

He also signalled a rejection of direct US talks with North
Korea, saying that Washington and its four partners "spoke with
one voice about the rocket launches, and we will work together
to continue to remind the leader of North Korea that there is a
better way forward for his people." 

The senior US envoy on the North Korean nuclear crisis,
Christopher Hill, was to travel to the region later, stopping in
Beijing, then Seoul, Tokyo and finally Moscow, according to US
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. 

Exact timings of the visits were still being worked out,
officials said. 

Bush seemed to echo past US statements that Washington will not
use humanitarian aid as a lever, saying he was "deeply concerned
about the plight of the people of North Korea." 

Hill signalled the flavor of US diplomacy by warning in an
interview with CNN International that Beijing, host of stalled
six-party talks on North Korea, must now play a crucial role. 

"We need China to be very, very firm with their neighbors and
frankly with their long-term allies the North Koreans, on what
is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior,"
said Hill, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and
Pacific affairs. 

US officials have long pressed China, a major donor of economic
and energy aid to the impoverished Stalinist state, to pressure
Kim Jong-Il to dismantle missile and nuclear programs. 

The UN Security Council, meanwhile, held emergency
consultations. 

"By the tenor of the statements of all of the council members, I
think there is support for sending a clear signal to Pyongyang,"
said US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who hoped for action
"in the next few days." 

Investors on Wall Street, meanwhile, were spooked by the tests,
analysts said, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average down
82.76 points (0.74 percent) to 11,145.26 and the tech-rich
Nasdaq composite 37.69 points (1.72 percent) lower at 2,152.74
at 1600 GMT. 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 24 AFP: North Korea condemned after test firing missiles 

 by Lim Chang-Won Wed Jul 5, 7:40 AM ET 		 	 

SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea" /> has test-fired seven missiles 
including a long-range Taepodong-2 capable of reaching US soil, 
triggering international outrage and crisis talks at the United 
Nations" /> Security council. 

 US and regional officials said Wednesday that the first set of
missiles, including five short- and medium-range models as well
as the Taepodong-2 which failed shortly after launch, splashed
down in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). 

Japan's Defense Agency said a seventh missile was fired some 10
hours later at 5:22 pm (0822 GMT), and that it was likely a
short-range Nodong or Scud. 

The test launches by the Stalinist state triggered a flurry of
diplomatic initiatives, headlined by a meeting of the powerful
15-member UN Security Council to discuss the crisis. 

Washington described the tests as "provocative behaviour" and
said it was dispatching a senior official to the region shortly
after the firings, which coincided with the US Independence Day
holiday and a space shuttle launch. 

South Korea" /> , which has a policy of engagement with its
reclusive neighbour, condemned the move which it said had
threatened regional stability, and urged Pyongyang to return to
six-party nuclear disarmament talks. 

"North Korea should be held responsible for all the
consequences," said Suh Choo-Suk, South Korean President Roh
Moo-Hyun" /> 's security policy advisor. 

Japan denounced the launches as a "grave problem", put its
troops on a higher state of alert and unleashed a package of
sanctions including a ban on North Korean diplomats entering the
country. 

Britain said the tests were "provocative" and only served to
raise tensions in the Asia Pacific region, while France accused
the Stalinist regime of being a "major contributor" to global
weapons profileration. 

Russia also slammed the tests, saying they undermined
international efforts to ease nuclear tension on the Korean
peninsula. 

In the first comment from North Korea, foreign ministry official
Ri Pyong Dok reportedly said the launches were an issue of
national sovereignty. 

"We will not be restricted by any agreement regarding this
issue," he told a group of Japanese journalists visiting North
Korea, according to Japan's Kyodo News. 

Japanese vessels were dispatched to the Sea of Japan to try to
retrieve the fallen missiles for analysis, Defense Agency head
Fukushiro Nukaga said. 

Japan is particularly sensitive to missile tests by North Korea,
which in 1998 fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan into the
Pacific, prompting Tokyo and Washington to step up cooperation
to build missile defenses. 

Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said Pyongyang had defied the
international community by pushing ahead with the tests despite
repeated calls for restraint as it prepared the launch in recent
weeks. 

"This is a grave problem in terms of peace and stability not
only of Japan but also of international society. We strongly
protest against North Korea," said Abe, the government's top
spokesman. 

In Washington, senior officials urgently consulted with their
counterparts in China, Japan, Russia and South Korea -- partners
in six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions -- to weigh
an array of diplomatic options. 

US national security advisor Stephen Hadley" /> condemned the
tests, saying: "We do consider it provocative behaviour." 

But he said the Taepodong-2 did not pose a danger to the United
States because "a missile that fails after 40 seconds is not a
threat." 

The US missile defense system based in California, Alaska and
onboard US Navy ships had been on high alert in anticipation of
the Taepodong-2 test and was ready to shoot down any missile if
it threatened US territory. 

But because the long-range missile failed at an early stage, "no
action was taken," said a US defense official. 

A senior US official said the United States was sending its
envoy to the six-nation North Korean nuclear talks, Assistant
Secretary of State Christopher Hill, to Asia on Wednesday to
discuss the situation. 

Hill warned last week that a long-range missile launch by North
Korea could derail the stalled six-party talks over Pyongyang's
nuclear program. 

The negotiations, which began in August 2003, have been stalled
since November last year over Pyongyang's objections to the
imposition of financial sanctions by the United States. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: North Korea launches volley of missiles on US holiday - 

 Tue Jul 4, 8:54 PM ET 		 	 

TOKYO (AFP) - North Korea" /> test-fired six missiles, including 
a long-range Taepodong-2 capable of reaching US soil, sparking 
furious condemnation from neighboring Japan and the United 
States. 

 US officials in Washington said Pyongyang launched five short-
or medium-range missiles, which splashed down in the Sea of
Japan, and a Taepodong-2 that apparently failed less than a
minute after liftoff. 

The South Korean news agency Yonhap reported 10 launches, but
there was no official confirmation. 

Urgent consultations were underway at the United Nations" /> in
New York following the tests, which coincided with the US
Independence Day holiday and a US space shuttle launch.
Washington announced it was dispatching a senior official to the
region. 

South Korea" /> called an emergency cabinet meeting following
the tests by its communist neighbor while Japan denounced the
launches as a "grave problem" and said it was considering
economic sanctions against North Korea. 

The White House condemned the tests as "provocative behaviour"
and a violation of a seven-year-old missile launch moratorium
but said they did not pose an immediate threat to the United
States. 

In Tokyo, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe told
reporters the missiles landed in the Sea of Japan, several
hundred kilometers (miles) from the coast of Japan. 

Abe, the government's top spokesman, said Pyongyang had defied
the international community. "Today's launches were done despite
advance warning by the relevant countries," he said. 

"This is a grave problem in terms of peace and stability not
only of Japan but also of international society. We strongly
protest against North Korea." 

"Japan will take stern measures against North Korea," he added.
"Cooperating with the United States, we will work for the UN
Security Council to take appropriate measures. 

"Japan will take any kind of sanctions we can take." 

In Washington, the White House denounced the launches as
"provocative" and the Taepodong-2 firing as a violation of a
unilateral North Korean pledge made in 1999 to forego long-range
tests. 

"We do consider it provocative behavior," US national security
advisor Stephen Hadley" /> told reporters. 

Hadley said the Taepodong-2 did not pose a danger to the United
States because "a missile that fails after 40 seconds is not a
threat." 

The US missile defense system based in California, Alaska and
onboard US Navy ships had been on high alert in anticipation of
the Taepodong-2 test and ready to shoot any missile down if it
threatened US territory. 

But since it failed at an early stage, "no action was taken,"
said a US defense official. 

A senior US official said the United States was sending its
envoy to the six-nation North Korean nuclear talks, Assistant
Secretary of State Christopher Hill, to Asia on Wednesday to
discuss the situation. 

At the United Nations, US Ambassador John Bolton held urgent
talks with his foreign counterparts, but no formal meeting of
the UN Security Council was immediately scheduled. 

Japan is particularly sensitive to missile tests by North Korea,
which in 1998 fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan into the
Pacific, prompting Tokyo and Washington to step up cooperation
to build missile defenses. 

The North Korean missile launches came as millions of Americans
celebrated Independence Day and minutes after the US space
shuttle Discovery roared into space from Cape Canaveral,
Florida. 

US President George W. Bush" /> was at the White House
celebrating his 60th birthday two days early with a group of
friends after making a stay-the-course speech on Iraq" />
earlier in the day at a military base in North Carolina. 

Bush stayed out of sight but discussed the volatile situation
with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> , Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, and Hadley, the White House said. 

US envoy Hill warned last week that a long-range missile launch
by North Korea could derail the six-party talks over Pyongyang's
nuclear program. 

He said that a missile test would have "the opposite effect" and
actually compromise rather than strengthen the regime's
security. 

Preparations for the launch of a multi-stage Taepodong-2 with a
range of up to 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) had been underway
for several weeks at Musudanri on the remote northeast coast of
North Korea. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 26 AFP: UN weighs punitive measures in response to North Korean missile tests

 Wed Jul 5, 7:30 PM ET 		 	 

UNITED NATIONS, July 5, 2006 (AFP) - The UN Security Council on 
Wednesday weighed a draft resolution that would condemn North 
Korea" /> North Korea's missile launches and call for punitive 
measures, but Russia and China signaled their opposition. 

 Experts from the 15-member council Wednesday afternoon pored 
over the draft, which was prepared by Japan and the United States 
with support from Britain, and were due to resume their 
deliberations Thursday at 11 am (1500 GMT). 

A council diplomat said no agreement was reached and the experts
would now report back to their capitals for detailed
instructions on how to proceed. 

The draft said UN members states should prevent the transfer of
financial resources, items, goods and technology that could
contribute to Pyongyang's missile "and other WMD" programs. 

But its reference to punitive measures looked likely to be
removed from the final text, amid stiff Chinese and Russian
opposition to any form of sanctions against Pyongyang. 

The draft condemns North Korea's test launch of seven missiles
-- including a long-range Taepodong-2 capable of reaching US
soil -- and called on the Stalinist state to immediately cease
all missile testing, deployment and proliferation. 

It also urged North Korea to immediately resume six-party talks
involving China, Japan, Russia and South Korea" /> South
Koreaand to work toward speedy implementation of its September
19, 2005 pledge to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for
offers of aid and security. 

The draft cites Chapter Seven of the UN charter which is invoked
in cases of threats to international peace and security and can
authorize sanctions or even military action as a last resort. 

During closed-door morning consultations, Japan pushed for a
swift and strongly-worded resolution condemning the missile
tests. 

"We hope that the response of the council will be swift, strong,
and resolute," Japan's UN ambassador Kenzo Oshima Oshima said
after the morning consultations. 

Tokyo has slammed the North Korean launches and threatened
"stern measures," including possible economic sanctions. 

While 13 council members spoke in favour of a resolution, Russia
and China said they would prefer a non-binding council
presidential statement. 

Warning against "whipping up emotions too much," Russian
Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the council should keep its focus
on the resumption of six-party talks. 

"I think we should be clear-headed," said Churkin, who all but
ruled out any possibility of a resolution that contained
punitive measures against Pyongyang. 

"In the discussion today, I didn't hear the word sanctions and I
frankly do not expect that anybody will be proposing any
sanctions," he said. 

Earlier, Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya, whose country is a
close ally of Pyongyang, said Beijing was concerned about the
North Korean launches but stressed that any response should be
"constructive to maintaining peace in that part of the world." 

Beijing has refrained from condemning the missile tests, urging
all sides to "remain calm and exercise restraint," with analysts
saying China will not endorse a tough response. 

US Ambassador John Bolton voiced strong support for a resolution
and stressed that no council member had sought to defend
Pyongyang's test-firing. 

"I think that the tenor of that discussion shows how little
support there is in the international community as a whole for
these North Korean missile launches," he said. 

Bolton also expressed hope that the council would reach
agreement on the draft resolution as quickly as possible. 

In Washington, meanwhile, Washington's envoy to talks on the
crisis urged China to take a strong line with North Korea. 

"We need China to be very, very firm with their neighbors and
frankly with their long-term allies the North Koreans, on what
is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior,"
Christopher Hill, a top State Department official, told CNN
International. 

The White House said Hill would leave for Asia later in the day
to consult US partners on Pyongyang's missile launches. 

Pyongyang abandoned the six-party talks in November 2005 after
Washington imposed financial sanctions for alleged
counterfeiting and money laundering activities. 

In Seoul, analysts said North Korea's first ballistic missile
test since 1998 was aimed at forcing Washington to hold direct
negotiations. 

But the United States again ruled out direct talks and US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid
North Korea may have "miscalculated" if it thought its
"brinksmanship" would divide the international community. 

The European Union" /> European Unionalso condemned the
launches, calling them "provocative" and saying they added to
strain on regional stability. 

South Korea, for its part, said it may halt shipments of rice
and other humanitarian aid to North Korea. 

Japan denounced the launches as a "grave problem," put its
troops and police on a higher state of alert and unleashed a
package of sanctions including a ban on North Korean diplomats
entering the country. 

In Moscow, a Kremlin aide said the North Korean tests would come
under scrutiny at a G8 summit of the world's leading industrial
nations in Saint Petersburg this month. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 27 washingtonpost.com: Early Warning
 
Early Warning by William M. Arkin - 

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
 			 
What To Do About North Korea
 	 	 
Bravo to the Bush administration for its measured response to
North Koreas Fourth of July fireworks display. 

The North's missile tests, their date chosen to coincide with
America's Independence Day, were, as the presidents national
security adviser called them, "provocative behavior." 

Yet the firing of the single intercontinental Taepodong II,
which exploded in mid-air less than a minute after launch, just
shows how unsophisticated Pyongyang is.  The overall display,
which included up to six other missile launches as of this
morning, also demonstrates how desperate the country is for
international attention. 

North Korea definitely shouldnt be rewarded for its tantrum, and
punishing it is also a certain type of reward.  No instead, we
should cautiously ignore the Muddled Kingdom, work to remove it
from the front pages, let its neighbors take the diplomatic
lead, shake our heads in exasperation at what can only be
described as really bad behavior of no true consequence, and
then build a strategy to eliminate the country Eastern
European-style, circa 1990. 

Threat!  Irrational!  Madman! 

I know what the bloggers  unsophisticated and desperate for
attention  will say: a paranoid dictator and a Communist menace,
missiles they don't need, nuclear weapons, a country that would
not hesitate to sell their nuclear technology to Osama bin
Laden. 

After the blah, blah, blah gets launched -- it's easy not to
have to govern -- we are left with the question of what to do
about the North. 

There is no question that North Korea is an unpredictable,
isolated, crazy country, one of the last of its kind left on
earth. 

Its missile tests yesterday and this morning, a snub to Chinese,
Japanese and South Korean urgings against testing, and a
violation of an agreed long-range missile moratorium, are
threatening.  But the threat should not outweigh our ability to
respond calmly and coolly. 

"This is an issue of national sovereignty, and other countries
have no right to judge," a North Korean Foreign Ministry
official told Japanese television. 

Judge?  North Korea's neighbors sustain it, and Japan has
already announced that it may ban North Korean ships from
Japanese ports for six months, while the South likely will
reduce financial aid.  
These are exactly the types of steps administration hard-liners
have been proposing for months to either force North Korea back
to the negotiating table, or force its hand.  There is also talk
additional of United Nations economic sanctions. 

"The Taepodong is a failure.  That tells you something about
capabilities," President Bush's national security adviser,
Stephen J. Hadley, told reporters Tuesday night.  "It's hard to
get a sense of what they think could be achieved by this."  The
administration's tepid response, even as it dispatched
negotiators to the region and made all of the requisite
denouncements, is a step in the right direction. 

In the international machinery, diplomatic and economic
retaliation is almost certain as a tangible response.  The
North's neighbors will use aid to punish and to coerce Pyongyang
back to negotiations, and the United States will step up its
military and missile defense activity to protect itself against
an actual threat.  

The problem is that punishment, while necessary, can backfire. 
The North is likely to respond with belligerence, digging in its
heels. 

Here is the North Korean conundrum: Fear of an irrational act in
a desperate moment by the North pushes its neighbors and the
broader international community to send aid and offer
"sunshine," even as they get flipped off.  But the aid and help
has done little to end North Korea's isolation, and it is the
isolation that allows the outrageous behavior. 


Sure we have to "punish" the North for its bad behavior; sure we
need to be vigilant against an actual attack.  But if I were in
charge, I'd be saying a lot while pooh-poohing the North Korean
threat and shaking my head wondering aloud just what this poor
little country thinks it is going to get from defying its only
friends.  I'd be doing in this case exactly what the Bush
administration is doing. 

Then I'd be asking the "new" CIA and the fabulous info-warriors
at the Pentagon just what they had in mind as a long term plan
to end the North's isolation and turn it into an East Germany
that will disintegrate from its own internal rot. 	
                
+ 	 	� 2006 The Washington Post Company 	 			 		 	 	 	 	 	 		 	
	 	 		 	 		 			 [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 28 Guardian Unlimited: North Korean 'fireworks display' irritates US 
but falls short of target
 
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Wednesday July 5, 2006 The Guardian             

[North Korean leader Kim Jong Il ] 
North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. Photograph: AP
   
 The United Nations security council was expected to meet today
to try to craft a response to the provocative firing of up to
six missiles by the North Korean regime.

Yesterday's launch was intended to cause maximum irritation to
Washington - timed within minutes of the launch of the shuttle
Discovery on Independence Day. But what was intended as a
demonstration of North Korea's military capabilities turned out
to be a failure when one of the missiles, the long-range
Taepodong, failed within seconds of liftoff.

The immediate reaction of the Bush administration seemed to be 
tempered by the lack of a real security threat. State department 
officials said the Taepodong, which some analysts had believed 
capable of reaching America's Pacific coast, failed within 42 
seconds of launch. Japanese television said one missile landed in 
the Japan Sea, 370 miles off the mainland. Nonetheless the 
national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, told reporters: "We do 
consider it provocative behaviour."

Administration officials said the secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice, was conferring with her counterparts from
China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to determine a diplomatic
response. Meanwhile, a senior state department official was on
his way to the region. Japan announced it was considering
economic sanctions.

Two other missiles, which appeared to be smaller, previously
tested Scud-type models were launched at the same time as the
Taepodong; further missiles were reported hours later.

But while yesterday's tests exposed the weakness of North
Korea's missile programme and the hollowness of its threats, the
launch was still viewed with great seriousness. America's
ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, last night embarked on a
flurry of diplomatic activity to try to persuade fellow members
of the security council to take harsh measures against North
Korea. In Tokyo, Japan's chief spokesman "strongly protested"
the tests.

The launch of the Taepodong follows concern in the US, Japan and
South Korea that Pyongyang's Stalinist leader, Kim Jong Il, was
contemplating such a display as a bargaining measure. North
Korea had been trying to restart the stalled six-nation talks on
its nuclear programme. In addition, analysts believed Kim Jong
Il had been trying to solidify his support within his military,
and put pressure on the international community to pay greater
attention to North Korea's demands.

"This is a major setback for North Korea. Their strength was in
pretending that they were going to test a missile," said Joseph
Cirincione, vice-president for national security at the Centre
for American Progress, a Washington thinktank. "This fireworks
display just blew up in his face."
 
Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News                                       
               Agency
World Food Programme
History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com
CIA factbook: North Korea
CIA factbook: South Korea

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 29 Guardian Unlimited: White House: Missiles Pose No U.S. Threat
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday July 5, 2006 1:01 PM

AP Photo DCLJ105 

By DEB RIECHMANN 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush White House condemned North Korea for
its defiant missile tests and accused Pyongyang of trying to
``intimidate other states'' but said the missiles posed no
danger to the United States. 

The test-firings of six missiles - including a long-range
missile designed to reach U.S. soil - came as America celebrated
the Fourth of July and raised the stakes in a nuclear standoff
and pressured the U.S. and its partners to penalize Pyongyang.
North Korea fired a seventh missile early Wednesday, after the
initial round of U.S. reaction. 

For now, talking is the order of the day. Japan asked the U.N.
Security Council to hold an emergency session Wednesday. Tokyo
was expected to present a U.N. resolution protesting the missile
tests, which sent U.S. officials scurrying to telephones for
urgent, long-distance diplomacy. 

The long-range missile, called the Taepondong-2, failed less
than a minute after liftoff. It's unclear what North Korea
learned from launching the shorter and medium-range ones, which
fell into the Sea of Japan, but could be capable of striking its
neighbors. 

``Regardless of whether the series of launches occurred as North
Korea planned, they nevertheless demonstrate North Korea's
intent to intimidate other states by developing missiles of
increasingly longer ranges,'' White House press secretary Tony
Snow said in a statement released late Tuesday night. ``We urge
the North to refrain from further provocative acts, including
further ballistic missile launches.'' 

Democrats also expressed concern. 

``This is an incredibly immature regime in the north. That's the
part that frightens me about them,'' Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del,
ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said
Wednesday. 

``I'm not concerned immediately about their nuclear capability
or anything coming close to reaching the United States in this
decade and maybe beyond,'' Biden told CBS News. ``But I do think
they're so irrational ... that they may play a game of
brinksmanship.'' 

Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, U.N. ambassador
during the Clinton administration, told ABC News that North
Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, was using the missile firings to
flex his muscle. 

``He's trying to say, hey, I'm around. I'm a player ... He's
crazy like a fox. He's unpredictable. He's reckless. But you
have to take him seriously,'' Richardson said. 

Donald Gregg, ambassador to Seoul during the administration of
Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, agreed that the North Koreans
were ``far from being able to miniaturize a warhead to put on
this missile.'' He called the test-firings ``a very stupid move
on the part of the North Koreans,'' and told ABC News that
``what Kim Jong Il has done now plays into the hardliners who
don't want to do business with us anyway.'' 

The White House said the United States would continue to take
all necessary measures to protect itself and its allies, yet
further diplomacy, not military action, appeared to be the
preferred course of action. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Christopher Hill,
assistant secretary of state, began talking Tuesday with their
counterparts in Japan, China, Russia and South Korea. Hill was
being dispatched to the region for new rounds of discussions. 

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was meeting Wednesday
with his South Korean counterpart, a meeting that now will be
dominated by the tests, which could plunge global relations with
the reclusive communist nation farther into a deep freeze. 

``We do consider it provocative behavior,'' Hadley told
reporters in a telephone briefing Tuesday. 

President Bush, who was at the White House with family and
friends gathered to celebrate the Fourth of July and his 60th
birthday on Thursday, was notified of the test firings, and
consulted with Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. 

``It wasn't that he (the president) was surprised because we've
seen this coming for a while,'' Hadley said. ``I think his
instinct is that this just shows the defiance of the
international community by North Korea.'' 

The test-firings, however, present a weighty national security
challenge for Bush. The president named North Korea, along with
Iran and Iraq, in his ``axis of evil,'' yet has focused most of
his attention on the later two nations even though Pyongyang
claims it already has nuclear weapons. 

``The American officials have said that if the North Koreans
proceed with a test, there are going to be consequences,'' said
Robert Einhorn, former assistant secretary of state for
nonproliferation in the Clinton administration and chief U.S.
negotiator with North Korea from 1996 to 2000. ``If there aren't
consequences, the Bush administration is going to look like a
paper tiger.'' 

The challenge for Bush is to mobilize international support for
penalizing the North Koreans. The United States and several of
North Korea's neighbors had issued stern warnings, saying a
missile test would mean further isolation and sanctions. 

The White House stressed that the nuclear standoff with North
Korea was not a battle between Washington and Pyongyang. The
United States, Japan, Russia, China and South Korea have been
involved in so-called six-party talks on the issue, but those
negotiations have been stalled since North Korea boycotted them
in September. ``The appropriate thing is to pull together all
the parties and figure out in a unified way the best way to
proceed,'' Snow said. 

About two weeks ago, in anticipation of the tests, the North
American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado was put on
heightened alert, or ``Bravo-Plus'' - a status slightly higher
than a medium threat level. NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command
are responsible for defending U.S. territory. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 30 Indian Health, Nukes, Independence Day, and more
 
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:10:15 -0500 (CDT)


X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

7.25.2006 * www.fcnl.org

Were trying out a new format for our email newsletter. Let us know 
what you think by email kathyguthrie@fcnl.org

*From the Hill: "In Indian Country, don't get sick after June"

Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is vitally 
important to modernize the health delivery system and save lives. Read 
more on FCNL's website at 
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1949&issue_id=109

*Lobby Strategy: War is not the answer with North Korea

A new U.S. relationship with North Korea could, over time, transform 
that country without the devastation of war. The U.S. should propose a 
new relationship with North Korea by offering a peace treaty and steps 
to normalization of relations. Read more FCNL's statement at 
http://www.fcnl.org/press/releases/nkorea_missiletest.htm

*United Nations: Political posturing, yet some hope for progress

Last week the United Nations convened a conference to review strategies 
for addressing the illegal trade of small arms and light weapons. 
Despite stalemates on continuously controversial issues, FCNL and other 
arms control advocates saw promise in the U.S. support of global 
principles for the trade of small arms. Find out more about the 
conference and read updates from FCNL staff in attendence at 
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1836&issue_id=46

*Report Back: U.S.- India nuclear deal advances

Key House and Senate committees in late June passed legislation (H.R. 
5682) to weaken the Atomic Energy Act and pave the way for the U.S. to 
sign the nuclear deal with India. However, Congress can still stop the 
deal. Read more at http://www.fcnl.org/nuclear/index.htm

*Grassroots Tip: Congress tries to control constituent Email

Several House offices have recently implemented an additional step for 
constituents to email their represenstative. But individuals and 
advocacy organizations alike have expressed frustration with what has 
been called an infringement on First Amendment rights. Read more about 
how Congress and advocacy groups like FCNL are dealing with this 
popular communication tool and the issues involved with e-advocacy at 
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1951&issue_id=120

*From the Quakers Colonel: The Court, the people, and the president

Read what FCNLs Senior Fellow, Col. Dan Smith (USA Ret.) has to say 
about the Supreme Court ruling on military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay 
at 
http://quakerscolonel.blogspot.com/2006/06/court-people-and-president.html

*FCNL In the News

Cheney Urges Congress to OK U.S. - India Nuclear Deal (Reuters, 
6/22/06) Read the article in The Washington Post at 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201973.html
See photos from FCNL's press conference on the U.S. India nuclear deal 
(Reuters, 6/22/06) at 
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060622/ids_photos_ts/r431468461.jpg

*From the Executive Secretary: Fourth of July Statement

In this time of war, I hope we will declare our independence from hate 
and killing. I hope we will resort to the power of love and the force 
of truth to mend a broken world. Let us pray for a share of the wisdom 
and courage of those who came before us. Read Joe Volk's Statement at 
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1950&issue_id=40

*War Is Not the Answer Photo of the Week

Two participants in the April United for Peace and Justice march in
New York City proudly wear War is Not the Answer Stickers. See the 
photo at http://www.fcnl.org/images/wina/4-29protest_stickers.jpg

Order a yard sign of your own at 
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=signs

Please forward this email to others who might be interested.

_______________________________________

The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/

Contact Congress and the Administration: 
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/

Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign 
bumper stickers and yard signs:
http://www.fcnl.org/pubs/
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=bump

Contribute to FCNL:
http://www.fcnl.org/donate/

Subscribe or update your information to this list:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see 
the end of this message.

Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls.

________________________________________

Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330

We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored.

---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit 
http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=72331580&queueid=788143351.
*****************************************************************
 31 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Russia will join talks with EU 

  2006/07/05   
  
  09:13:33 �.� 
Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali
Larijani said in Tehran on Tuesday that Russian envoy is to join
the talks with the European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier
Solana and EU troika on Iran's nuclear issue. 

Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Qatari Foreign
Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim al-Thani, he said, "We are
seriously following up the negotiations and insisting on the
removal of the existing ambiguities on the EU proposals at the
earliest opportunity." 

China has declared that under no circumstances would it join
nuclear talks between Iran and the European. 

Asked by a reporter, Larijani said presence or absence of any
country depends on its own stance since a country is entitled to
make decision on the basis of its national interests. 

"China has not made a firm expression on whether it would attend
the meeting or not," Larijani underlined. 

mk   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 32 Arizona Republic: Pressure loss shuts reactor 

Ken Alltucker 
The Arizona Republic 

Jul. 4, 2006 12:00 AM                                            

Arizona Public Service Co. survived the sweltering weekend with 
just one of three reactors working at the Palo Verde Nuclear 
Generating Station west of Phoenix.

 Unit 3 shut down on Saturday after a loss-of-pressure incident 
that spilled thousands of gallons of non-radioactive water into 
the reactor's turbine building and elsewhere. 

The problem was caused by a small piece of glass that shattered, 
triggering a loss of suction pressure in a feedwater pump, APS 
spokesman Jim McDonald said. 

The incident occurred within Palo Verde's condensate system,
which converts steam into water. 

Crews replaced the "sight glass" and restarted the reactor
Monday. 

It typically takes two to three days for a reactor to regain
full power if all goes well after a shutdown.

 The other out-of-service reactor, Unit 1, could restart soon,
too. Unit 1 operated at reduced power from late December to
mid-March, when APS decided to shut it down to repair a
vibrating pipe.

 APS repaired the reactor by relocating a valve to dampen the
vibrations, and the utility anticipates the reactor will restart
within a week or so. 

The Palo Verde nuclear plant, in Wintersburg about 50 miles west
of downtown Phoenix, is Arizona's largest single source of
electricity. APS operates the plant on behalf of seven owners,
including Salt River Project.

 Nuclear-generated electricity typically is less expensive than
electricity produced by coal or natural-gas power plants.

 When Unit 1 shut down in March, APS estimated that it would
cost $46 million after taxes to buy fuel and power to replace
the lost electricity. 

The Phoenix-based utility is allowed to recover 90 percent of
its fuel costs from ratepayers. The one caveat is that state
regulators must agree that the costs were prudently incurred.

 That's been a matter of debate. The commission hired a
consultant to investigate Palo Verde's numerous outages over the
past two years to determine whether lack of maintenance or other
factors have led to any of Palo Verde's problems. 

If the state decides that APS is responsible for the outages, it
could reject the utility's request to pass along Palo
Verde-related costs to ratepayers. 

Reach the reporter at ken.alltucker@arizonarepublic.comor (602)
444-8285.

Copyright � 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 Guardian Unlimited: Documents reveal hidden fears over Britain's nuclear plants
 
Unexplained cracks in reactor cores increase likelihood of
accident, say government inspectors 

John Vidal and Ian Sample
Wednesday July 5, 2006
The Guardian 		 

[Hinkley Point nuclear power station near Bristol] 
Revelations of safety concerns at Britain's AGR power stations
come at a crucial time for the nuclear industry, with results of
the government's energy review due in the next fortnight.
Photograph: Martin Argles
 

 Government nuclear inspectors have raised serious questions
over the safety of Britain's ageing atomic power stations, some
of which have developed major cracks in their reactor cores,
documents reveal today.

The safety assessments, obtained under Freedom of Information
legislation, show the Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) has
issued warnings over the deterioration of reactor cores at
Hinkley Point B in Somerset and other British nuclear plants.
The directorate also criticises British Energy, which operates
13 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors including Hinkley.

According to the papers, the company does not know the extent of 
the damage to the reactor cores, cannot monitor their 
deterioration and does not fully understand why cracking has 
occurred. They reveal that in June last year, the NSD said it was 
faced with "significant regulatory issues ... for all operating 
AGR reactors".

The NSD's most recent safety assessment of Hinkley, completed in
April, warns that its continued operation is likely to increase
the risk of an accident. While the NSD says it does not believe
that there is any immediate radiation danger to the public, it
says there is a possibility of serious faults developing that
would force the long term or permanent closure of other nuclear
plants of the same design.

"While I do not believe that a large release [of radiation] is a
likely scenario, some lesser event ... is, I believe, inevitable
at some stage if a vigilant precautionary approach is not
adopted. There is an an increased likelihood of increased risk
should we agree to continued operation," says the inspector.

The documents show the NSD wants more frequent and more probing
inspections of the reactor cores at all Britain's AGR plants.
These inspections require the reactors to be shut down for
weeks. The premature closing of any nuclear power plant could
throw Britain's electricity supplies into chaos. Closure of
Hinkley Point would be likely to lead to closure of at least
three other nuclear stations built at the same time, which are
also known to be suffering from cracks in their cores.

Cracks in the graphite brick cores of ageing reactors have been
observed for some time but until now there has been little
public knowledge of the extent of the problem. British Energy
warned in 2004 that its Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Heysham 2
and Torness plants might not be able to be extend their 30-year
lives because of cracked bricks, but it gave few details of the
extent of the problem.

British Energy is keen to extend the life of its AGR reactors
but the papers, obtained by Greenpeace via Stop Hinkley, a local
nuclear watchdog group, suggest that unless British Energy
improves safety checks, the plants might have to be closed.

The revelations come at a critical point, with the government's
energy review expected to be published in the next two weeks and
both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown having indicated that a new
generation of nuclear power is needed. Yesterday the prime
minister told the Commons liaison committee that he had altered
his position in favour of nuclear power since the last white
paper on energy policy in 2003. "I'll be totally honest with
you, I've changed my mind," he said.

However, John Large, an independent nuclear engineer who has
advised the government and who reviewed the FoI papers for
Greenpeace yesterday said it was "gambling with public safety"
to allow Hinkley Point to continue operating. Calling for other
AGR stations to be closed, he said: "The reactors should be
immediately shut down and remain so until a robust nuclear
safety case free of uncertainties has been established".

He accused the NSD of being reluctant to call for the closure of
Hinkley Point because of the Mr Blair's stated intention to
review nuclear power. "What nuclear installations inspector is
going to close a plant down at such a politically critical
time?", he asked.

In the papers from June 2005, an inspector concludes of
Britain's AGR power stations: "I judge that there is significant
uncertainty in the likelihood and consequences for the core
safety functionality posed by ... core damage. The assessor
needs to assume worst case consequences of ... core damage
unless the licensee is able to provide robust arguments."

In a 2004 assessment, the inspector complains about the "lack of
clarity" by British Energy, "continued uncertainty" in the
prediction of behaviour in reactor cores, and the "lack of
progress" made by British Energy in addressing issues in all AGR
reactors.

British Energy said yesterday it had provided new evidence to
the NSD. "If the health and safety executive [the government
body that oversees the NSD] were not confident in the safety of
the reactor cores we would not allow the reactors to operate.
The assessment report was part of the ongoing regulatory process
... The Nuclear Safety Directorate is monitoring closely British
Energy's work on graphite and, where necessary, is influencing
the scope and extent of the reactor core inspections that the
company carries out.

"British Energy has also been working on methods to monitor the
cores whilst the reactors are in service. This will provide
added re-assurance on the condition of the cores."

Stephen Tindale , executive director of Greenpeace said: "These
documents show the incompetence of the government and British
Energy who have known about these cracks yet have refused to do
anything about it."

Problem sites

Hinkley Point B, Somerset (switched on 1976)
 Known to have core damage

Hartlepool, Cleveland (1983)
 Known to have core damage

Hunterston B, Ayrshire (1976)
 Known to have core damage

Heysham 1, Lancashire (1983)
 Known to have core damage

Dungeness, Kent (1983)
 Documents hint that core damage found

Torness, East Lothian (1988)
 Documents hint that core damage found
 
	
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 
        
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region III - 2006-02
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-06-028           
July 3, 2006 CONTACT:     Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria 
Mitlyng (630) 829-9662     E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov  
  


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Indiana Michigan Power Co. on Thursday, July
6, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance for
last year at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is
located near Bridgman, Mich. 

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 7 p.m. at the Lake Charter Township Hall, 3220 Shawnee Road,
in Bridgman. The NRC will respond to questions or comments from
the public before the close of the meeting. 

The NRC continually reviews the performance of the D. C. Cook
plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities,
NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. This meeting
will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual
assessment of safety performance with the company and with local
officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to
explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information
as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of
these facilities. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meetings discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cook_2005q4.pdf
. 

The NRCs assessment concluded that the D. C. Cook plant operated
safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection
findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant
performance. The colors start with green and then increase to
white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance
of the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for D.
C. Cook during 2005 were determined to be green. As a result of
this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline
level of inspections during the upcoming year. 

In addition, the NRC will conduct additional inspections related
to corrective actions for violations issued to the utility in
November 2005. The violations were associated with providing
incomplete and inaccurate information with regard to
applications for new, renewed, or amended reactor operator
licenses; providing incomplete and inaccurate information in a
letter describing corrective actions for a previous violation;
and the failure to provide timely information with regard to a
change in medical status of licensed reactor operators. 

The NRC will also conduct additional oversight activities for
the reactor vessel head replacement to be performed during the
Fall 2006 refueling outage.

 Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident
Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists
from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill. Among the areas of
plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists
are emergency preparedness, problem identification and
resolution, maintenance effectiveness, and radioactive material
processing and transportation. 

Current performance information for D. C. Cook is available on
the NRCs web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/COOK1/cook1_chart.html
for Unit 1
 and
 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/COOK2/cook2_chart.html
for Unit 2.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, July 05, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 35 Guardian Unlimited: More checks on reactors ordered after cracks found
 
John Vidal and Ian Sample

Thursday July 6, 2006
The Guardian 		 

The government's nuclear watchdog has demanded that British 
Energy carry out more frequent checks on its nuclear power 
stations amid concerns over cracks in the reactors' cores, it 
emerged yesterday.

The Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) wrote to British Energy 
urging it to step up inspections after an assessment of the 
Hinkley Point B advanced gas-cooled (AGR) nuclear plant in April. 
A spokesman for the directorate said yesterday that the extra 
inspections might involve reactors closing down more frequently.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, 
published in the Guardian yesterday, show that the inspector who 
visited Hinkley Point B raised concerns over cracks that have 
appeared in graphite bricks in the core of the reactor since 
2004. The report states that while the damaged bricks are 
unlikely to cause a serious nuclear accident, a minor incident, 
in which fuel or control rods - used to rein in the chain 
reaction - are unable to move properly, was "inevitable" without 
more frequent inspections.

British Energy is required to carry out inspections of reactor
cores every three years. For an inspection to take place, the
nuclear plant must be shut down for a number of weeks. In the
past 18 months, the company has increased the number of
inspections it makes of its reactor cores, by exploiting
downtime every three months when the plants are refuelled, a
spokeswoman for British Energy said.

The company is looking at new ways of inspecting reactor cores
while they are still running, but the NSD said it needed to be
convinced that the techniques worked before approving them. "If
they can provide the level of evidence and data we need from
monitoring reactor cores while they are still running, then
there wouldn't necessarily be a requirement to have more power
outages. But if they can't, then that is what it will come to,"
an NSD spokesman said.

The inspector's report on Hinkley Point B raises particular
concerns about British Energy's inability to detect subsurface
cracks developing in bricks. "This is a significant shortfall in
the safety case," the inspector says. "I judge it essential to
develop a means to detect subsurface cracks initiated from the
periphery of the bricks ... If this is not achieved there is a
reasonable likelihood that extensive subsurface cracking may be
present and subsequent propagation to the surface may occur over
a relatively short time period."

Several British Energy reactors which were revealed yesterday to
be physically deteriorating, are believed to be close to being
uneconomic to run. According to British Energy's figures, the
three oldest, at Hinkley, Hartlepool and Heysham, are barely
operating 50% of the time, partly because they need to be
inspected more frequently. However, the company, and the
government, are eager to extend their lives because of fears of
supply shortages.
 
   Useful links  

British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 36 UPI: Putin: Russia will pursue nuclear energy

 United Press International - Energy - 

7/5/2006 2:11:00 PM -0400                               

MOSCOW, July 5 (UPI) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said
Tuesday that Moscow would continue to pursue nuclear power in
the absence of viable renewable alternatives. 

"I agree that it is necessary to say, to work on alternative
sources of energy, renewable sources of energy," he told the
Civil Eight forum for nongovernmental agencies in St.
Petersburg, Channel One Russian television reported. 

"But the sequence of events probably should be somewhat
different. I am already starting to debate a little. I will stop
it at once. First of all we need to work out an alternative for
humanity, a decision has to be presented first, and then the
development of nuclear power may be halted," Putin said. 

Energy security is set to be high on the agenda at the upcoming
Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg this month. 

The Russian government has been ironing out recommendations that
it will present at the summit, one of which is to pursue nuclear
energy as an alternative enery resource.

 														
� Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 37 Guardian Unlimited: Cracks found at nuclear stations
 
[UP] 

Press Association 

Wednesday July 5, 2006 12:18 PM

Unexplained cracks in the reactor cores of Britain's atomic
power stations have been uncovered by nuclear inspectors, it has
been reported. 

The safety assessments, obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act, show the Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) has
issued warnings over the state of the reactor cores at Hinkley
Point B in Somerset and other UK nuclear plants. 

The Guardian reported that NSD also criticised British Energy,
which runs 13 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors including
Hinkley. 

It is understood the documents state that British Energy is
unaware of the full extent of the damage to the reactor cores,
cannot explain why the cracking has occurred and is unable to
monitor the deterioration. 

The NSD says it does not believe there is any immediate risk to
the public but believes it poses questions over the future of
other nuclear plants of the same design. 

But the most recent safety checks of Hinkley, completed in
April, found that continued operation was likely to increase the
risk of an accident, the NSD found. 

An inspector reported: "While I do not believe that a large
release (of radiation) is a likely scenario, some lesser event
... is, I believe, inevitable at some stage if a vigilant
precautionary approach is not adopted. 

"There is an increased likelihood of increased risk should we
agree to continued operation." 

The papers, which were obtained by Greenpeace via Stop Hinkley,
a local nuclear watchdog group, indicate the NSD requires more
stringent inspections of the plants, which would require the
closure of reactors for weeks. 

In 2004, British Energy warned that its Hinkley Point B,
Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and Torness plants might not be able to
extend their 30-year lives because of cracked bricks. 

� Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 38 Guardian Unlimited: Profits slump halves British Nuclear Group's sale price hopes
 
Terry Macalister

Tuesday July 4, 2006 The Guardian             

British Nuclear Group has seen its profits slump by more than 30% 
in the run-up to next year's sale, knocking earlier industry 
hopes that it could achieve a price of �1bn down to something 
closer to �500m. The company also admitted yesterday it would not 
be reopening the Thorp fuel reprocessing plant this summer. The 
plant has been closed for more than a year after a fire that 
brought criticism from the Health and Safety Executive.

But Mike Parker, chief executive of BNG's parent group, British 
Nuclear Fuels, had good news on its Urenco fuel-making operation, 
saying he expected to sell the 33% stake for more than �1bn - 
although many hurdles remain.

BNG, which manages the Sellafield site, produced profits before
interest, tax and exceptionals of �72m for the 12 months to
March 31, compared with �108m last time. Mr Parker blamed the
downturn on the change in the company's status. BNG is now a
contractor for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, whereas 12
months earlier it worked directly for BNFL in a simulated
internal market. BNG did not lose any clean-up or management
contracts but failed to meet the goals set by the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority.

The BNG sale to a private-sector business - probably American,
such as Fluor or Bechtel - is expected to kick off formally in
April next year, with a winner scheduled to be announced that
autumn.

Mr Parker confirmed that BNFL was considering an initial public
offering for Urenco but said this would not be executed without
shareholders' permission. Urenco made profits of �71m, compared
with �57m last time, and Mr Parker said he hoped a sale would
achieve more than the $5.4bn (�2.9bn) made by selling the
100%-owned Westinghouse to Toshiba.

BNFL, which included in its annual figures the operations of
BNG, Urenco and the sold design and engineering group
Westinghouse, also saw its earnings slump. Pre-tax profits fell
from �206m to �153m after nearly �30m of exceptional costs to do
with the restructuring of its corporate centre in London.
Excluding exceptionals and before tax and interest, profits rose
from �169m to �208m.
 
	
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 39 Guardian Unlimited: I've changed my mind on nuclear power, admits Blair
 
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Tuesday July 4, 2006             

Tony Blair all but confirmed the government would commission a 
new series of nuclear power stations today, as he admitted to MPs 
he had "changed his mind" on the controversial issue.

Three years ago an energy review put nuclear on the back burner 
while pushing for more renewables, but Mr Blair put that position 
in doubt when he commissioned another review last year.

Today he told the panel of senior MPs: "Whereas we left the 
question open and we were very sceptical at that point [of the 
first review], certainly, I'll be totally honest with you, I've 
changed my mind."

The report, authored by energy minister Malcolm Wicks, is due any 
day now.

Possibly to sweeten the pill, after cabinet ministers such as
Peter Hain expressed doubts about the cost and clean-up problems
of nuclear, Mr Blair expressed confidence that "people will be
surprised" by the review's stance on energy conservation and
renewables - the two options preferred by most environmentalists.

However, the PM said he didn't think energy needs, or security
of supply, would be "curable" by renewables alone.

He denied claims that he had pre-empted the review and insisted
that he was responding to the evidence before him.

"If the review had come out with evidence that this was a bad
idea, then of course my mind would have been differently made
up," he told the liaison committee, which compromises the 31
select committee chairs.

But he added that, looking at the evidence, it was "very
difficult" to see how Britain could secure energy supplies and
meet emissions goals without replacing nuclear power. 

He dismissed the suggestion that he wanted to give the go-ahead
for a new generation of nuclear power stations to secure his
legacy after he stands down. "I don't know if it's part of my
legacy at all," he said.

Mr Blair said that four years ago the committee would not even
have been asking him about energy supply. "Things have changed,"
he said.

With the cost of dealing with radioactive waste from the
existing UK power stations put at �75bn, attention has switched
to how the government may have to subside private nuclear energy
firms.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat's environment spokesman, said:
"Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology. Not a single
nuclear plant has been built anywhere in the world by private
investors without lashings of government subsidy since Chernobyl
and Three Mile Island.

"Other countries like Germany and Sweden have opted for a
non-nuclear future and are making good progress with energy
saving and renewables.

"The prime minister's prejudgement of the energy review merely
underlines his infatuation with big solutions rather than
pragmatic ones."
 
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 40 Guardian Unlimited: Documents reveal hidden fears over Britain's nuclear plants

Unexplained cracks in reactor cores increase likelihood of
accident, say government inspectors 

John Vidal and Ian Sample

Wednesday July 5, 2006 The Guardian             

[Hinkley Point nuclear power station near Bristol] 
Revelations of safety concerns at Britain's AGR power stations
come at a crucial time for the nuclear industry, with results of
the government's energy review due in the next fortnight.
Photograph: Martin Argles

 Government nuclear inspectors have raised serious questions
over the safety of Britain's ageing atomic power stations, some
of which have developed major cracks in their reactor cores,
documents reveal today.

The safety assessments, obtained under Freedom of Information
legislation, show the Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) has
issued warnings over the deterioration of reactor cores at
Hinkley Point B in Somerset and other British nuclear plants.
The directorate also criticises British Energy, which operates
13 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors including Hinkley.

According to the papers, the company does not know the extent of 
the damage to the reactor cores, cannot monitor their 
deterioration and does not fully understand why cracking has 
occurred. They reveal that in June last year, the NSD said it was 
faced with "significant regulatory issues ... for all operating 
AGR reactors".

The NSD's most recent safety assessment of Hinkley, completed in
April, warns that its continued operation is likely to increase
the risk of an accident. While the NSD says it does not believe
that there is any immediate radiation danger to the public, it
says there is a possibility of serious faults developing that
would force the long term or permanent closure of other nuclear
plants of the same design.

"While I do not believe that a large release [of radiation] is a
likely scenario, some lesser event ... is, I believe, inevitable
at some stage if a vigilant precautionary approach is not
adopted. There is an an increased likelihood of increased risk
should we agree to continued operation," says the inspector.

The documents show the NSD wants more frequent and more probing
inspections of the reactor cores at all Britain's AGR plants.
These inspections require the reactors to be shut down for
weeks. The premature closing of any nuclear power plant could
throw Britain's electricity supplies into chaos. Closure of
Hinkley Point would be likely to lead to closure of at least
three other nuclear stations built at the same time, which are
also known to be suffering from cracks in their cores.

Cracks in the graphite brick cores of ageing reactors have been
observed for some time but until now there has been little
public knowledge of the extent of the problem. British Energy
warned in 2004 that its Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Heysham 2
and Torness plants might not be able to be extend their 30-year
lives because of cracked bricks, but it gave few details of the
extent of the problem.

British Energy is keen to extend the life of its AGR reactors
but the papers, obtained by Greenpeace via Stop Hinkley, a local
nuclear watchdog group, suggest that unless British Energy
improves safety checks, the plants might have to be closed.

The revelations come at a critical point, with the government's
energy review expected to be published in the next two weeks and
both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown having indicated that a new
generation of nuclear power is needed. Yesterday the prime
minister told the Commons liaison committee that he had altered
his position in favour of nuclear power since the last white
paper on energy policy in 2003. "I'll be totally honest with
you, I've changed my mind," he said.

However, John Large, an independent nuclear engineer who has
advised the government and who reviewed the FoI papers for
Greenpeace yesterday said it was "gambling with public safety"
to allow Hinkley Point to continue operating. Calling for other
AGR stations to be closed, he said: "The reactors should be
immediately shut down and remain so until a robust nuclear
safety case free of uncertainties has been established".

He accused the NSD of being reluctant to call for the closure of
Hinkley Point because of the Mr Blair's stated intention to
review nuclear power. "What nuclear installations inspector is
going to close a plant down at such a politically critical
time?", he asked.

In the papers from June 2005, an inspector concludes of
Britain's AGR power stations: "I judge that there is significant
uncertainty in the likelihood and consequences for the core
safety functionality posed by ... core damage. The assessor
needs to assume worst case consequences of ... core damage
unless the licensee is able to provide robust arguments."

In a 2004 assessment, the inspector complains about the "lack of
clarity" by British Energy, "continued uncertainty" in the
prediction of behaviour in reactor cores, and the "lack of
progress" made by British Energy in addressing issues in all AGR
reactors.

British Energy said yesterday it had provided new evidence to
the NSD. "If the health and safety executive [the government
body that oversees the NSD] were not confident in the safety of
the reactor cores we would not allow the reactors to operate.
The assessment report was part of the ongoing regulatory process
... The Nuclear Safety Directorate is monitoring closely British
Energy's work on graphite and, where necessary, is influencing
the scope and extent of the reactor core inspections that the
company carries out.

"British Energy has also been working on methods to monitor the
cores whilst the reactors are in service. This will provide
added re-assurance on the condition of the cores."

Stephen Tindale , executive director of Greenpeace said: "These
documents show the incompetence of the government and British
Energy who have known about these cracks yet have refused to do
anything about it."

Problem sites

Hinkley Point B, Somerset (switched on 1976)
 Known to have core damage

Hartlepool, Cleveland (1983)
 Known to have core damage

Hunterston B, Ayrshire (1976)
 Known to have core damage

Heysham 1, Lancashire (1983)
 Known to have core damage

Dungeness, Kent (1983)
 Documents hint that core damage found

Torness, East Lothian (1988)
 Documents hint that core damage found
 
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 41 Guardian Unlimited: Bad news at crucial time for nuclear industry
 
Terry Macalister
Wednesday July 5, 2006
The Guardian 		 

Safety scares at British nuclear sites could not come at a worse 
time for an industry which believes that the government is poised 
to give the green light to a new generation of atomic plants.

The energy review - to be published as early as next week - will 
endorse a new era for an energy sector that was written off by 
critics as environmentally dirty, obsessively secretive, and 
financially suspect. But the twin fears of global warming and 
foreign energy dependency have convinced policymakers that the 
public is willing to give another chance to an atomic industry 
that has only just escaped its military heritage. What Tony Blair 
does not need at this moment are revelations that suggest 
conflict at the heart of the nuclear industry about the safety of 
the country's ageing fleet of reactors.

Nuclear Group looks unlikely to hear this Friday what fine it 
will pay for failing to run the Thorp reprocessing plant at 
Sellafield in Cumbria safely. Carlisle court business is said to 
be so congested that the penalty - and surrounding negative 
publicity - will not materialise until well into the summer 
holidays. Nuclear operators will dismiss the latest graphite 
scare as an old issue that is being well monitored and can 
ultimately be taken care of easily enough, and will want to talk 
of the future.

Already, big American and other foreign nuclear contractors such
as Bechtel, Fluor and Washington Group International have beefed
up their presence in London and started lobbying for work - some
through big public relations firms. They are partly here to
clean up some of the the waste and mess from the current
generation of atomic plants but they are also mindful that there
could be rich pickings from a new building programme.

They know, as Mr Blair does, that public opinion remains
volatile and, at best, split down the middle over nuclear power.
Many of those in favour do not want to hear bad news at this
juncture - especially as it comes three months after the
publicity given to the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and
reminders that sheep on Welsh mountainsides are still
contaminated 20 years on from that accident.
 
	
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 42 London Times: Nuclear energy for Britain: let the people decide - 

Comment -

July 06, 2006                        

Sir, It is widely acknowledged that the realisation of a
sustainable energy system that can address the twin issues of
climate change and global energy security is one of the most
urgent tasks facing mankind. We, the undersigned, are in one
form or other involved in working towards the realisation of a
sustainable energy system in the UK. 
The use of nuclear power is one of the options that the
Government is proposing in order to address climate change and
security of supply in the UK. However, we share a grave concern
that in order to create the framework that will enable the
building of new nuclear power stations, the Government is
considering bringing in measures that could distort the energy
market, or undermine the democratic process by taking decisions
about the location of new power stations away from locally
elected representatives. 

There are widely differing views across Europe about whether
nuclear power has a role to play in a future sustainable energy
system. But one thing that is certain is that the realisation of
a sustainable energy system cannot be achieved without
addressing energy demand, and gaining public acceptance for the
use of new low-carbon technologies. 

In Sweden, a country that has made great leaps along the path to
environmental sustainability, a referendum was held in the 1980s
to determine the future of nuclear power. The public debate that
took place increased awareness of energy issues dramatically
across the whole country. Its impacts are still having an effect
today and it is one of the key reasons why Swede are highly
sensitised to the environmental impacts of energy production and
use. 
If we wish to reduce energy demand in all sectors and to
increase the widespread use of low-carbon energy sources in the
UK, engaging with the population is essential. An aware,
motivated and engaged population will result in more CO2 savings
being made, at less cost, more quickly and with more lasting
benefits for society as a whole. 

The energy review carried out by the DTI has not engaged the
population, nor has it involved the widest possible
consultation. If we are to succeed in motivating the UK public
to play its part in reducing CO2 emissions, it is essential that
the public be engaged fully in the debate about how best to
secure a sustainable energy future for the UK. Decisions about
the UK�s energy future that will affect ultimately every man,
woman and child in the country, must not be taken in camera. 

We urgently recommend that, before any government decisions are
taken, a debate is held. The issue is of such widespread
national and international importance that any decisions about
the role of nuclear power in the UK�s long-term energy strategy
should only be taken on the basis of a national referendum. 
The UK has an opportunity to demonstrate how CO2 emissions can
be reduced by sustainable means. Let us not take that
responsibility lightly. 

KEITH BOXER
Innovation Director
Manchester: Knowledge Capital
DR BILL BORDASS
Principal
William Bordass Associates
ALLAN JONES
Chief Executive Officer
London Climate Change Agency
PROFESSOR SUE ROAF
Oxford Environmental
ALEX WRIGHT
Director of Studies, Department of Architecture and Civil
Engineering, University of Bath 


Sir, Mary Ann Sieghart (�Tories: we don&#146;t want power�, June
23) claims that nuclear supplies only 3.6 per cent of the UK�s
total energy. The figure is actually 8 per cent which, to put it
in perspective, saves the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide
that would be achieved by taking half the cars off our roads. 

KEITH PARKER
Chief Executive
Nuclear Industry Association
   	 		
Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. 

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 43 AFP: Yemen president to seek nuclear energy 

July 4, 12:57 PM 

  [Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh]   

SANAA (AFP) - Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has said he
would seek to produce nuclear energy in the impoverished Arabian
peninsula republic as he registered his candidacy for a new term
in office.

"My future tasks include the huge development file ... and that
of the energy production required to meet growing needs,
including producing electricity through nuclear energy," Saleh
said Tuesday, quoted by the state Saba news agency.

Speaking last month amid a standoff between Iran and the
international community over Tehran's nuclear program, Salah
defended "the right of Arab countries to produce nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes."

Saleh, who has been in power since 1978, announced on June 24 he
had reversed a decision made public in July 2005 not to seek a
new term, saying he was "responding to an appeal from the
masses."

He registered his candidacy in parliament Tuesday after the
week-long registration opened.

Yemen, with a population of some 20 million, is one of the
world's poorest countries. It is a small oil producer, pumping
around 380,000 barrels per day, but with a declining output due
to the depletion of reserves, according to officials.

Seven opposition parties have come together to nominate a rival
to Saleh, picking Islamist-leaning former oil minister Faisal
Shamlan as their presidential candidate.

The exact date of the presidential election has not been
announced but it is expected to take place in the second part of
September.

Saleh's reelection is seen as a foregone conclusion in Yemen.

The 64-year-old field marshal has been at the helm for nearly
three decades, first as president of the then North Yemen and
then as head of the unified state after the May 1990 merger of
north and south. 

AFP 

*****************************************************************
 44 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear task force releases issues paper - 

www.smh.com.au
 
font July 4, 2006 - 8:05PM
 	 	
A prime ministerial task force on nuclear energy has released an
issues paper outlining more than 100 points it will consider. 

The taskforce, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski,
will not look at possible locations for uranium processing or
nuclear power plants. 

But it will evaluate whether there is a business case for
Australia to take radioactive waste from overseas. 

However, it does not expect to make any firm recommendations
when it reports to the government in December. 

"Our role will be to establish the fact base and help with some
findings but not necessarily (make) recommendations in terms of
our feedback to the government," Dr Switkowski told ABC radio. 

"I expect that we will not (make recommendations). Our taskforce
is very much around establishing the facts, laying out
scenarios, framing the debate." 

Prime Minister John Howard established the taskforce last month
to broaden the debate on nuclear issues. 

It will take submissions from the public but will not hold any
public hearings and some submissions may be kept secret. 

Of the discussion points released on Tuesday, only nine are on
environmental issues and 15 are on health and safety and nuclear
proliferation. 

More than 80 are on economic issues, but Dr Switkowski denied
that the taskforce was skewed towards making an economic case
for nuclear power or uranium enrichment. 

"There is no question in my mind that the panel is determined to
cover the full spectrum of issues, consistent with the terms of
reference," he said. 

"There will be considerable attention upon the environmental
consequences of uranium mining or an expansion of uranium
mining, should that be an outcome that we would support, as well
as health and safety and proliferation matters. I think the
balance will be appropriate." 

The taskforce did not plan to look at potential locations but
that would presume the outcome of the inquiry, he said. 

"The debate around location of reactors etc can only really
happen once the policy makers of the government form a view that
nuclear energy is to be a part of the energy equation for
Australia in the generations ahead," he said. 

"We are well away from that conclusion having been drawn." 	
� 2006 	AAP

*****************************************************************
 45 AU The Age: Nuclear group 'arrogant' - 

www.theage.com.au

July 6, 2006

LABOR and green groups have criticised a decision by Prime
Minister John Howard's nuclear taskforce to examine
controversial ideas such as importing nuclear waste, and for
focusing too heavily on economics rather than the environment. 

Labor's science spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, said yesterday the
nuclear inquiry, led by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski,
underscored the Government's "arrogance" by proposing to examine
taking the world's waste without identifying where future dumps
might be. 

Ms Macklin referred to a question in the taskforce's issues
paper which asks whether there is a "business case" for managing
radioactive byproducts generated outside Australia. 

"This is code for importing foreign nuclear waste. We cannot
allow Australia to become the world's dumping ground for nuclear
waste," Ms Macklin said. 

Dr Switkowski told The Age on Tuesday that his inquiry will not
present recommendations to the Government, nor will it name
possible nuclear sites or enter the broader energy debate, for
example considering future carbon taxes. 

KATHARINE MURPHY 

uThe Age

2006-07-06

*****************************************************************
 46 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice
 
                         FR Doc 06-5998 
[Federal Register: July 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 128)] 
[Notices] [Page 38180] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05jy06-78]                         
 
Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Date: Weeks of July 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, August 7, 2006.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and closed.
 
Matters To Be Considered: Week of July 3, 2006 There are no 
meetings scheduled for the Week of July 3, 2006.
 
Week of July 10, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the Week of July 10, 2006.
 
Week of July 17, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the Week of July 17, 2006.
 
Week of July 24, 2006--Tentative Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:30 
a.m. Briefing on Office of International Programs (OIP) Programs, 
Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Karen 
Henderson, 301-415-0202.) This meeting will be Webcast live at 
the Web address http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Programs 
(Public Meeting). (Contact: Barbara Williams, 301-415-7388.) This 
meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address 
http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of July 31, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the Week of July 31, 2006.
 
Week of August 7, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:30 
a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (closed--ex. 1) Tentative.
 
Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues 
(closed--ex. 1 & 3) Tentative.
 
* * * * * *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to 
change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call 
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more 
information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
 
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. The 
NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at 
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers, if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: June 29, 2006.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 06-5998 Filed 6-30-06; 10:25 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 47 Philadelphia Inquirer: Exelon bid must be rejected

07/05/2006 | 

The unreliable firm's planned takeover of PSEG would raise rates
and risk safety.

 By Suzanne Leta 

A coalition of consumer, environmental and business
organizations has joined a bipartisan group of state legislators
in calling on the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to reject
Exelon Corp.'s proposed takeover of Public Service Enterprise
Group Inc. 

Now that nearly a year and a half of discovery, evidentiary
hearings and testimony on the takeover are complete, the BPU
should follow the opponents' lead and tell Exelon to go back to
Chicago. 

If Exelon is allowed to take over PSEG, it will become an energy
giant whose size and scope will give it enough market power to
raise electricity rates across the state at a time when
consumers are struggling to pay their energy bills. 

According to testimony by Harvard University economist Judah
Rose, Exelon's control of the regional electricity market could
cost New Jersey consumers as much as $2.3 billion annually, an
increase of $45 a month or $540 a year on the typical electric
bill for residential ratepayers. 

Exelon's desire for market power comes as no surprise. The
company is the primary lobbying force behind regulatory changes
in Illinois that would allow Exelon to bypass state oversight in
establishing electric rates. If Exelon gets its way, the company
will be able to set rates without needing to provide evidence
that rate increases are necessary to deliver quality service. 

Exelon and PSEG are also refusing to pay New Jersey ratepayers
back an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion for power-plant
purchases due to deregulation in 1999. Ratepayers, whose
electric bills have increased every year since rate caps were
lifted in 2003, have yet to see any return on their investment
in terms of lower prices. Considering that PSEG and Exelon have
made billions since deregulation, it is high time ratepayers get
what they are owed. 

In addition, Exelon's reliability and quality-of-service record
in Illinois and Pennsylvania do not bode well for New Jersey
consumers. According to the Illinois Commerce Commission,
Exelon's subsidiary ComEd operated the "worst-performing
circuit" for reliability in 2002, and in 2003 the company
received the lowest customer satisfaction rating of all
utilities in the state. 

After Exelon took over Peco Energy Co. in 2000, it reduced
transmission maintenance by one-third. In 2003, Peco had the
worst overall customer satisfaction rating out of seven
Pennsylvania electric utilities, with its number of justified
customer complaints 90 percent higher than the average
utility's. 

New Jerseyans should also be concerned about public safety and
the environment if Exelon comes to town. In Illinois, Exelon's
refusal to comply stopped the state from adopting clean-energy
regulations similar to the standard that just became law in New
Jersey. 

And "The Exelon Way" of operating nuclear power plants - cutting
on-site staff, delaying necessary repairs, and applying to
extend the life of aging nuclear power plants such as Oyster
Creek, the oldest operating nuclear plant in the country -
leaves a much smaller margin for error when it comes to safety. 

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has sued Exelon for
releasing radioactive tritium from the Braidwood nuclear plant
into drinking-water sources in 1996 and not notifying the public
until 2005. 

A Pennsylvania administrative law judge ruled in March that
Exelon engaged in illegal union-busting tactics against the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers at the Limerick
and Peach Bottom nuclear plants. 

Fortunately, the BPU is the final decision-maker and has a
better standard of review than any other state or federal agency
considering this deal, including the U.S. Department of Justice,
which recently released a woefully inadequate settlement
agreement with Exelon. 

By law, the BPU must reject the deal unless the deal would
provide positive benefits to New Jersey in terms of rates,
competition, jobs, and the provision of safe, adequate and
proper service. It is strikingly clear that Exelon's takeover of
PSEG fails that test. 

BPU president Jeanne Fox and her fellow commissioners don't have
a difficult decision to make. The BPU should reject this
takeover, plain and simple. 

Contact Suzanne Leta, energy advocate for the New Jersey Public
Interest Research Group, 

*****************************************************************
 48 RIA Novosti: Putin talks nuclear power, alternative energy with NGOs
 
04/ 07/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, July 4 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin
discussed nuclear power and alternative energy sources with
representatives of international nongovernmental organizations
Tuesday at a Moscow forum where he was also unusually subjected
to heckling.

 When Putin was speaking about proposals from NGOs to the Group
of Eight industrialized nations to close their nuclear power
plants, a number of young people wearing black t-shirts
emblazoned with the slogan "No to NPPs" stood up.

 The Russian leader said he did not fully support a complete end
to nuclear power, but did say that alternative sources of energy
should be developed and made available.

 Putin said he backed a demand made by NGOs that G8 leaders
allocate funds to develop alternative energy sources. He said
governments should provide money to achieve this objective, but
without increasing taxes for producer companies.

 "Increasing the tax burden is not always the best way because
even I cannot be sure that the funds will be spent to accomplish
these goals," he said.

 The organizers of the two-day international NGO forum said
earlier that the Civil G8 - 2006 would discuss matters of
concern for the international community ahead of the July 15-17
summit of G8 leaders, adding that NGOs could draft proposals to
be considered when setting out agendas for further summits.

 Russia is presiding over the club of rich nations this year and
the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan,
Canada, France, Germany and Italy will be joining Putin in St.
Petersburg for Russia's debut summit on July 15-17.

 Over 700 people representing prominent rights organizations,
including the International Helsinki Group, Greenpeace, Amnesty
International, Charities Aid Foundation, and others, are
attending the NGO forum in the Russian capital.

 A Kremlin source said earlier Tuesday that a new Russian law on
public organizations, effective from April, would be the focus
of the forum's discussion. The law set more stringent and
complicated financial reporting requirements for NGOs and has
been criticized in the West and liberal groups in Russia as
being too restrictive.

 Lawmakers and political scientists in Russia have claimed that
NGOs helped "color revolutions" in neighboring ex-Soviet
countries, particularly Ukraine and Georgia, which swept away
the ruling elite in favor of West-leaning authorities in 2004
and 2003. 

But Russia has been consistently defending the new legislation
saying that it had been prepared with recommendations of
European legal experts and had been thoroughly studied by the
Council of Europe's officials.

� 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 49 BBC: Blair 'changed mind' on nuclear
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 4 July 2006
 
[Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk] 
                                
Tony Blair says older plants will have to be replaced                   
			   		
Tony Blair has told MPs he has changed his mind in the last three 
years on the need for new nuclear power stations. 

An Energy White Paper in 2003 was sceptical about building new 
nuclear plants, but left the option open. 

A government energy review, due this month, is expected to call 
for additional nuclear power stations. 

Mr Blair said he believed new nuclear stations were needed to 
tackle climate change but wanted the review to decide whether he 
was right or not. 

No other cure? 

Appearing before the Commons liaison committee, the prime 
minister denied suggestions that he had prejudged the energy 
review. 

"If the review had come out with evidence that this was a bad 
idea, then of course my mind would have been differently made 
up," he said. 

Unless someone can show throu energy efficiency and renewables 
you're going to be able to cure the whole of this problem then I 
think that nuclear power goes back on the agenda Tony Blair Key 
points: Blair grilled                                                                       

Blair: I'm no dictator                                

Mr Blair said he had come to view that it was difficult to see 
how Britain could have secure energy supplies without new nuclear 
power stations to replace the older plants when they are 
decommissioned. 

That was why he had asked for the energy review. 

He promised that the review would be "every bit as radical" in 
its proposals for improving energy efficiency and increasing 
renewable sources of energy. 

Mr Blair said his changing attitude to nuclear power since the 
2003 White Paper had been the result of energy prices doubling or 
trebling amid worries about security of supplies, and the issue 
of climate change. 

He said the whole issue had risen up the agenda globally, with it 
discussed at every European Council meeting, as well as the 
forthcoming G8 gathering. 

'Big solutions' 

"Unless someone can show through energy efficiency and renewables 
you're going to be able to cure the whole of this problem then I 
think that nuclear power goes back on the agenda," he said. 

But Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne said Mr 
Blair's "prejudgement" of the energy review underlined "his 
infatuation with big solutions rather than pragmatic ones". 

"Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology," he said. 

"Not a single nuclear plant has been built anywhere in the world 
by private investors without lashings of government subsidy since 
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. 

"Other countries like Germany and Sweden have opted for a 
non-nuclear future and are making good progress with energy 
saving and renewables." 
*****************************************************************
 50 BBC: Reactor crack fears played down
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 5 July 2006
 
[Hinkley Point B]                               

Hinkley Point B houses two of British Energy's 14 AGRs                                                                

The government's nuclear inspectors have played down reports of 
"major cracks" in the reactor cores of some UK atomic power 
stations. 

The Guardian reported that safety assessments from April by 
inspectors had raised "serious questions". 

British Energy was reportedly criticised over cracks in its 
reactors. 

But it says cracks are "known about and anticipated". Inspectors 
say "matters have moved on" since April and they are confident of 
safety at British Energy. 

The Guardian reported that the inspectors' documents, obtained 
under the Freedom of Information Act, said the company was 
unaware of the extent of the damage to its advanced gas-cooled 
nuclear reactor cores (AGRs), did not fully understand why 
cracking occurred, and was unable to monitor deterioration. 

There is an increas likelihood of increased risk should we agree 
to continued operation Nuclear Safety Directorate on Hinkley 
April           

In the documents, inspectors reportedly say the risk of an 
accident at Hinkley Point B in Somerset - home to two of British 
Energy's 14 AGRs - is likely to increase with time. 

An inspector was quoted as saying: "While I do not believe that a 
large release [of radiation] is a likely scenario, some lesser 
event ... is, I believe, inevitable at some stage if a vigilant 
precautionary approach is not adopted. 

"There is an increased likelihood of increased risk should we 
agree to continued operation." 

'Known phenomenon' 

A spokesman for British Energy said AGR reactor cores were made 
up of graphite bricks arranged in layers. 

It was accepted by inspectors and the industry in general that 
"cracks will occur in some of the bricks as part of the normal 
ageing process within the graphite reactor core", he added. 

"This is a phenomenon known about, and anticipated for, within 
the safety case." 

He said the documents seen by the Guardian were "only a fragment 
of the ongoing dialogue that British Energy has with its 
regulator". 

If HSE were not confident the safety of the reactor cores we 
would not allow the reactors to operate HSE     

Inspections of AGRs take place during "outages" - statutory 
shutdowns which take place every three years. 

"We announced in 2004 that increased inspections will be, and 
have been, undertaken during appropriate statutory outages," the 
spokesman said. 

A statement from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said: 
"Matters have moved on since April and British Energy has 
provided new evidence in support of the reactor core safety 
case." 

The HSE praised British Energy for "working on methods to monitor 
the cores while the reactors are in service". 

The statement added: "If HSE were not confident in the safety of 
the reactor cores we would not allow the reactors to operate." 
*****************************************************************
 51 FT.com: New laws to deliver nuclear stations in Britain

Financial Times FT.com

By Christopher Adams, Political Correspondent 

Published: July 5 2006 22:01 | Last updated: July 5 2006 22:01

New powers to make it easier for government to drive through the
building of the next generation of nuclear power stations and
other contentious energy projects are to be made under plans to
be outlined by Tony Blair, the prime minister, in the next week.

The government’s energy review, due to be published next week,
will include proposals to force local planning authorities to
accept plants that are decreed to be essential. The measures, if
carried through, knock years off the time taken to build new
atomic power plants.

Confirming that the government would give the green light to
massive investment in civil nuclear power, Alistair Darling,
trade and industry secretary, said he wanted to “make it
easier for people to replace power plants that are going out of
commission and to meet our energy needs.” 

He told the Financial Times that he favoured publishing the
equivalent of “a statement of need” that would mark out
projects to be of national importance at an early stage. 

The government was also considering imposing “rigorous” time
limits on planning inquiries, an option he favoured.

The new regime would cover nuclear, gas and coal-fired plants as
well as large wind farms and electricity transmission lines.
Planning inquiries could change the appearance and precise
siting of plants, but would be unable to block them on the
grounds that they were not needed, a factor that slowed
construction of Sizewell B, the last nuclear plant to be built
in the UK.

Mr Darling defended what he conceded would be “controversial” 
steps, arguing that some wind farm projects had been held up for 
up to four years.

“Given the fact that we may need to replace a third of our
electricity generation, there is a serious risk that one day
we’ll switch on the lights and there won’t be gas or
electricity unless we deal with this planning problem,” he
said.

But there will also be a series of recommendations that give the 
review a “greener” than expected emphasis. Big electricity 
suppliers will be incentivised to change household behaviour and 
cut energy use

Next week’s report, which will take the form of an energy green 
paper, would sanction the re-placement of Britain’s ageing 
fleet of nuclear plants, all but one of which is due to be 
decommissioned by 2025. The government would also back the 
recommendations of an independent committee that radioactive 
waste be stored and then buried deep underground.

Mr Darling said nuclear energy should remain part of the 
country’s energy mix, but ruled out any state subsidies or 
financial incentives to rig the market in its favour. Private 
investors would be expected to cover all costs, from the 
construction and operation of plants to their decommissioning and 
the disposal of waste. 

CopyrightThe Financial Times Limited 2006

  + © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd2006. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
Recruiter: American Express 

Director of Internal Controls 
Recruiter: Investigo Ltd. 
Business services directory
Select your region:Select your region/category:UKUS
[Powered by Directory M]  

Search US

Search UK
RELATED SERVICES

  + Free annual reports
  + Analyst reports
  + Market research
  + Growth companies
  + FT diaries <img
src="http://ads.ft.com/image.ng/site=ftcom&amp;pos=oob&amp;sec=1h
om&amp;artid=1homuka" border="0" alt="Advertisement" /><img
src="http://ads.ft.com/image.ng/site=ftcom&amp;pos=pop&amp;sec=1h
om&amp;artid=1homuka" border="0" alt="Advertisement" />
*****************************************************************
 52 iafrica.com: sa news Feedback on Koeberg bolt soon
 
PRETORIA 
 
Tue, 04 Jul 2006

 Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin will in August brief
Members of Parliament about the bolt which caused one of the
reactors at the Koeberg nuclear power plant to shut down.

 "I will make a statement on the famous bolt when Parliament
reconvenes in August," the minister told reporters at the Union
Buildings, Pretoria, on Tuesday. Erwin was briefing the media
about the outcome of a meeting of the economic and investment
cluster.

 The investigation into the Western Cape's Koeberg incident was
almost completed, he said. On December 25, Koeberg Unit 1 had
generator problems caused by the loose bolt that had damaged the
rotor and the stator � the stationary part of the motor. This
had resulted in an extended and unplanned outage in the Western
Cape.

 In February there were further blackouts due to high pollution
levels, misty conditions and multiple line faults. Erwin
received a report on the Koeberg failure in May. He has
insinuated that sabotage may have been involved. Eskom planned
to spend R84 billion over five years to increase its
electricity-generating capacity. 

Meanwhile, Erwin thanked Cape Town residents for their
energy-saving measures. The campaign to cut electricity usage
had proved to be successful, he said. 

Sapa 

Copyright � 2002-2005 iafrica.com, a division of
*****************************************************************
 53 Platts: Lithuania to import electricity from Russia when Ignalina-2 down
 
London (Platts)--3Jul2006
 
Lithuania will import electricity from Russia when Ignalina-2 
goes down for maintenance later this summer, officials at 
national utility Lietuvos Energija said June 30, because it is 
cheaper than producing power in the Baltic country's conventional 
power plants. 

The 1,500-MW reactor supplies most of Lithuania's electricity. 
But the officials said that importing large quantities of power 
is not expected to be economic once the unit is shut down, which 
is scheduled for the end of 2009, because Russian supplier Inter 
RAO UES is likely to raise its prices when its current contract 
with Lithuania expires in that year. 

The RBMK is to be shut as part of Lithuania's accession agreement 
with the European Union. For more news, request a free trial to 
Platts Nucleonics Week at
 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 54 Platts: UK PM says energy prices, environment changed his nuclear stance
 
London (Platts)--4Jul2006
 
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has changed his mind in favor of 
nuclear power since the government's Energy White Paper was 
published in 2003, amid soaring energy prices and increasing 
environmental concerns, he told a Commons committee Tuesday.

     Blair said that while his stance had shifted in favor of 
nuclear power, the government's upcoming energy review would be 
every bit as "radical" in its stance on renewables and energy 
efficiency as it was with nuclear power.

     But he denied that he had already made up his mind to push 
ahead with a new generation of nuclear power plants before 
commissioning the government's new energy review in early 2006, 
the findings of which are to be published later this month. 

     "I believe that, because of the way that the changes have 
happened, I couldn't see how we were going to be able to meet our 
targets both on energy security and on climate change without 
going back to the nuclear option," he said. "But of course if the 
review were to prove that that would be the wrong thing to do 
then that wouldn't be the thing that we do."

     "In the end, people have to make their minds up. I know 
people always want to take refuge in decision making in the 
process... Its the answers that you have to come up with at some 
point, when you are sitting in my seat anyway."

     There are two things that have pushed energy policy to the 
top of the agenda of every single major western country, he told 
the committee. "One is the fact that energy prices have something 
like doubled or trebled in the last few years. And, if you see 
what is happening in China and the Chinese economy, then this is 
going to become an even bigger issue in the years to come. And 
the second thing is climate change."

     "Unless someone can show through energy efficiency and 
renewables you're going to be able to cure the whole of this 
problem then I think that nuclear power goes back on the agenda," 
he said. 

     Blair rejected one MP's suggestion that the government's new 
energy review, expected this month, was really just a nuclear 
power review and would ignore energy efficiency and renewables.

     "I think people will be quite surprised at some of its 
conclusions on energy efficiency and renewables and will deal 
with them every bit as radically as anything to do with nuclear." 

     Energy has surged to the top of the agenda in most major 
western economies as a result of soaring prices and security of 
supply concerns, the UK premier said. "It will dominate the G8 
that we are going to have in a few days time," he said. "The 
reason for that is that things have changed."

For similar stories, take a trial to Platts Power UK  at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 55 Platts: Swiss funds for safe end of nuclear power total $3.26 billion
 
Freiburg (Platts)--5Jul2006
 
The operators of Swiss nuclear power plants have a total of 
SF4.014 billion ($3.26 billion) in their common fund for the 
disposal of nuclear power plants, the Swiss federal office for 
energy BFE said Wednesday. The country has one fund for waste 
disposal and another for decommissioning.

     The waste disposal fund was created in 2000 and the four 
operators of the five nuclear units started to contribute to it 
in 2001. The amount an operator pays depends on their expected 
costs of disposal. At the end of 2005, the amount in the fund 
came to SFr2.762 billion, up from SFr2.092 billion at the end of 
2004.

     The fund for decommissioning was founded in January 1984. It 
covers the cost of decommissioning, demolition and the disposal 
of waste produced from that process. At the end of 2005, it 
totaled SFr1.252 billion, up from SFr1.055 billion at the end of 
2004.

For more news, request a free trial to Platts Power in Europe at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Privacy Notice Terms & Conditions Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All 
Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 56 Platts: UK BE says nuke safety questions 'essentially not news'
 
London (Platts)--5Jul2006
 
Reports Wednesday that government nuclear inspectors have raised 
serious questions over the safety of UK's nuclear power plants 
are "essentially not news," British Energy spokesman Martin 
Pearce said.

     Pearce said BE had already published the issues raised in 
the reports in its shareholder report in 2004, and that the 
company had always anticipated that it would see cracks in the 
graphite bricks that form the reactor cores at its Advanced 
Gas-cooled Reactors. The cracks in the cores were the subject of 
press reports over nuclear safety concerns.

     The "Guardian" newspaper said that documents obtained by 
Greenpeace under Freedom of Information legislation "show the 
Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) has issued warnings over the 
deterioration of reactor cores at Hinkley Point B in Somerset and 
other British nuclear plants."

     But BE said that the documents "reflect are only a fragment 
of the on-going dialog that British Energy has with its regulator 
the NII." The UK's nuclear industry is regulated by the Nuclear 
Industries Inspectorate, while safety issues are under the 
purview of the Health and Safety Executive's NSD.

Pearce said "The bottom line is that we can't run a reactor 
unless the NII approves the safety case."

     The papers are from an HSE safety assessment of Hinkley 
completed in April. But in a statement released Wednesday, the 
HSE said:

"Matters have moved on since April and British Energy has 
provided new evidence in support of the reactor core safety case. 
If HSE were not confident in the safety of the reactor cores we 
would not allow the reactors to operate."

     Greenpeace published a report Wednesday by engineering 
consultant John Large, who analyzed the documents. He said it was 
"quite clear that the graphite cores of Hinkley Point and at 
least a further 6 reactors, possibly all 14 AGR reactors, have 
developed and continue to develop structural damage to individual 
bricks in the fueled section of the reactor." Large added that 
the damage was "not fully understood by both NSD and BE." 

     But BE said "It is accepted by the NII and the industry in 
general that cracks will occur in some of the bricks as part of 
the normal ageing process within the graphite reactor core. This 
is a phenomenon known about and anticipated for within the safety 
case." 

     The nuclear operator said that reactor cares are "tolerant 
to such cracking" and added that the cracks had not changed "the 
fuel and control rod channel profiles" at Hinkley Point B. It 
said "This is after 30 years of safe, reliable generation."

     Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace called for 
the reactors to be shut down. "It is clear that Tony Blair should 
shut these dangerous reactors down," he said "Yet it's almost as 
if he feels that having to turn off AGR nuclear plants to prevent 
a nuclear accident might be problematic just before he formally 
announces his staggeringly irresponsible plan to build even more 
nuclear plants."

     Greenpeace cited John Large's report as evidence of the need 
to shut down the plants. In his conclusion, Large said: "In view 
of the increased risk presented by continued operation of these 
nuclear plants, the reactors should be immediately shut down and 
remain so until a robust nuclear safety case free of such 
uncertainties has been established."

     But when asked about this claim by Platts, BE's Pearce said 
"He is absolutely right, which is why we have a robust safety 
case in place, which has already been approved by the NII."

     HSE spokesman Martin Wheeler said "We do not gamble with 
public safety." He added that HSE refutes Greenpeace's claims 
that there were any political moves to reduce scrutiny, and said 
that the executive is an independent body. 

     "We take a great deal of regulatory scrutiny ... It is 
incorrect to say that no one is doing anything about it. We have 
put pressure on BE to review the safety issue," he said. 

     Wheeler said that HSE inspector's views, as given in the 
safety assessments, had been "taken out of context." "The point 
the inspector was trying to make is that the longer the reactors 
operate without confirmatory inspections, the less certainty 
there is in what the rate of cracking is," he added. 

     But BE has taken actions to improve the safety situation 
further since April, Wheeler said. The nuclear operator is now 
doing "online monitoring" of its reactor cores, meaning that the 
cores were being checked even while plants were in operation. 

     The risks involved are not as great as might be thought, 
either. Wheeler said: "The potential event is not a meltdown, but 
impairment of a single control rod or increased heat in the 
fuel." For similar stories, take a trial to Platts Power UK at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright � 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 57 Independent: PM's change of heart on nuclear power issue 

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor 

Published: 05 July 2006 

Tony Blair admitted yesterday he had changed his mind about the
benefits of nuclear power since the Government ruled out a new
generation of nuclear stations three years ago. 

The Prime Minister denied he had pre-empted the findings of the
Government's energy review to be published this month - by
signalling his personal support for an extension of nuclear
power. 

He promised the review would also recommend radical options on
energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind power. 

Asked why the Government had ruled out the nuclear option in a
2003 White Paper, Mr Blair replied: "Whereas we left the
question open and were very sceptical at that point, I'll be
totally honest with you, I've changed my mind." 

He said it was due to the "urgency" of climate change and the
need to secure energy supplies. 

In other exchanges during two-and-a-half hours of questioning by
the Liaison Committee of senior MPs, Mr Blair denied his style
of governing was dictatorial and defended what critics have
called his "headline-grabbing" legislation on law and order.
"Legislation is not the whole of the answer, but it is part of
the answer," he argued. 

The Prime Minister came under pressure to extol the positive
benefits of the Human Rights Act and he was also asked if the
Government had a population policy. He said "no" but said it did
have a migration policy. 

The real debate was about how to control migration, he argued.
"Most people in the country are not racist and just think there
ought to be some rules," he said. 

*****************************************************************
 58 China Daily: Timescale laid out for first inland nuke plant 

 By Wang Ying (China Daily)

 Updated: 2006-07-04 08:27

The nation's biggest nuclear reactor builder, China National
Nuclear Corp, expects to start building the country's first
inland nuclear power facility within three to five years in the
central province of Hunan.

The Beijing-based nuclear power firm has selected Taohuajiang,
about 100 kilometres from the province's capital Changsha, to
construct rectors with a single capacity of about 600 MW
(megawatts), a China Nuclear official told China Daily yesterday.

"We expect to complete the preliminary work as soon as possible,
but the final timetable is to be set by the State Council and
the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)," said the
company official, who declined to be named.

China Nuclear last Thursday set up an office in Hunan to conduct
preparatory work for the nuclear plant.

The official said it was technically viable to build a 600-MW
reactor in land-locked regions.

Nuclear reactors set up in coastal areas have a bigger capacity,
of about 1,000 MW.
The Hunan plant will draw water from a branch of the Yangtze
River, the nation's biggest river, China Nuclear said.

By using home-grown rather than overseas technology, it will
cost less in terms of unit capacity to build the 600-MW reactors
than the 1,000-MW ones, the official said. 
China now has 10 nuclear electricity generators in commercial
operation, with a total capacity of about 8,000 MW. 

These are all located in coastal regions, such as Guangdong, 
Zhejiang and Jiangsu.
In an aim to diversify its energy mix and reduce the nation's 
reliance on coal and oil, China has vowed to have a combined 
nuclear power capacity of 40,000 MW by 2020.

That means about two 1,000-MW reactors need to be built annually 
over the next 15 years.

The China Nuclear official said that in order to meet that 
ambitious target, the State-owned company was looking at a number 
of other sites in the land-locked provinces of Sichuan, Hubei and 
Hunan.

"The multi-billion-dollar nuclear project will also fuel the 
economy of inland regions, where development lags behind the 
east," he said.

Currently only two companies, China Nuclear and China Guangdong 
Nuclear Power Group, are authorized to build nuclear reactors. 
Other power firms can participate only by taking a stake in these 
firms.

Both nuclear firms are competing to build plants in North China's 
Hebei Province, with both setting up offices in the province.

Officials from the two companies said they had not come up with a 
definite timetable for the Hebei project and were still selecting 
candidate sites.

Qiao Junping, Beijing representative of Guangdong Nuclear, told 
China Daily that the firm had obtained the initial go-ahead from 
the NDRC to build two 1,080-MW reactors in Northeast China's 
Liaoning Province.

The two units will be at Hongyanhe, 104 kilometres north of the 
port city Dalian, and are expected to come on stream by 2011, 
Qiao said at the end of last year. It will involve an investment 
of US$2.8 billion.

*****************************************************************
 59 FT.com: Debate tilts in nuclear power’s favour 

By Christopher Adams, Political Correspondent 

Published: July 5 2006 22:01 | Last updated: July 5 2006 22:01

When Tony Blair launched a review of energy needs last autumn,
his support for nuclear power was never in doubt. The big
question was how, after rejecting nuclear energy as uneconomic
three years ago, the government could justify investment in a
new generation of plants and make it a reality.
[Advertisement] 

In an interview on Wednesday with the Financial Times, Alistair
Darling, trade and industry secretary, explained that soaring
oil and gas prices and the need to tackle climate change had
tilted the argument in nuclear power’s favour.


Pointing to disruption last winter when Russian gas supplies to
Europe were cut because of a dispute with Ukraine over prices,
he argued Britain had to diversify away from imported gas if it
were to avoid over-reliance on any one supplier.


“I’ve always been clear that a mix of electricity generation
is good for two reasons. One is it means your eggs are not all
in one basket and, in relation to security of supply, that is
very important. Also, of course, nuclear generation of itself
does reduce carbon emissions.”


Nuclear energy provided a stable and ever-ready source of
baseload electricity that gave it the edge over “greener”
forms of power generation. “Renewables have many strengths.
But, on present technology on a day like this, when it’s
absolutely still and it’s very hot and the demand for energy
is high, if the windmills are not going round, there’s no
electricity being generated.”


Nuclear power had become commercially attractive because of the
surge in oil and gas prices, which were expected to remain
higher than in the past, and the introduction of a carbon
pricing regime in Europe that would become tougher in coming
years.


The UK relies on nuclear power for 19 per cent of its
electricity generation needs, a share of the mix that is
projected to diminish to about 6 per cent over the next 20 years
as ageing reactors are decommissioned.


In making the case for new power stations, next week’s report
will include estimates of the projected cut in carbon emissions
from replacing existing capacity. But, Mr Darling said, the
government would not set a target for how many plants should be
built.


Any decision to invest would be left to the market. It would be
for industry operators, which have argued that nuclear power
does not need subsidies to be competitive, to make a
“commercial decision” on whether to build and manage plants.


There would be no fiscal incentives and the government had ruled
out extending the renewables obligation, under which high energy
users must source some of their power from alternative energy
sources, to nuclear.


“If somebody’s coming along saying, ‘I want to build a
nuclear power station’, they’ve got to factor in all the
usual costs, construction and the rest of it, including
decommissioning and disposing of the waste.”


However, Mr Darling said the government would act to accelerate
the building of plants and cut upfront in-vestment costs for the
industry by simplifying the planning and licensing regime. The
industry has lobbied for these changes, arguing they would
reduce risk.


“We need to streamline the planning laws for big
infrastructure projects . . . we need to move to the
stage where, basically, the government needs to publish a
statement of need, saying this is a project that’s of national
importance.”


Too many big power projects, wind farms and transmission lines
had become bogged down in long inquiries or blocked, he said.


A white paper would consult on making it impossible for councils
to reject large power plants, whether nuclear, coal, gas or wind
farms, on the grounds that they were not needed.


He was in favour of imposing time limits on inquiries. There
would be a pre-licensing system for approving a
one-size-fits-all design for new nuclear plants. “You would
have thought that most issues can actually be covered in a
matter of weeks or maybe months.”.


Mr Darling, conscious that nuclear power has dominated public
debate, wants to give the review a “greener” feel. Next
week’s report, while sanctioning new nuclear plants, would
recommend moves to cut electricity use. Power companies should
be given incentives to encourage consumers to install mini wind
turbines or loft insulation.


There would be a “big push” on renewable energy and steps to
encourage micro-generation projects that made use of heat
generated by power plants. “We are at a very low level at the
moment. We could do more.”


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

  + © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd2006. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 60 Greenpeace: UK nuclear reactors are defective, say government inspectors                                              

Choose Clean Energy - Stop Climate Change

[A huge Kapow is projected onto the side of Torness nuclear power 
station]                                                           

05-07-2006

A nuclear expert has called for nuclear reactors in the UK to be
"immediately shut down" after secret documents written by
government inspectors reveal they contain structural defects. 

The documents - which were passed to Greenpeace days before Tony
Blair is expected to give the go-ahead to a new generation of
nuclear power stations - show that the government's Nuclear
Safety Directorate (NSD) has identified cracks in the cores of
up to 14 UK reactors, rendering them at increased risk of a
radiological accident. 

Reactor cores - where nuclear reactions take place and are
controlled - contain graphite bricks. The inspectors have found
that not only are the bricks in the reactors extensively and
unpredictably cracked, but the reactor operator, British Energy,
doesn't know the full extent of the damage, nor how much
cracking the cores can sustain before safety functions are
compromised. 

Jim Duffy, who lives in the shadow of Hinkley Point (which
appears to be the worst affected nuclear power station), said:
"I was appalled to read these documents. It is clear that
Hinkley is unsafe and should be shut immediately... I'm
extremely worried that Tony Blair seems hell-bent on leaving my
children, and future generations, exposed to the legacy of our
highly dangerous nuclear industry." 

After analysing the documents, independent nuclear engineer John
Large has concluded that the reactors should be shut down
immediately. "The nuclear safety case for these reactors centres
around the core remaining structurally sound during operation,"
he says. 

Or, in the government inspectors' words: "there is significant
uncertainty in the likelihood and consequences for core safety
functionality posed by graphite component and core damage". 

Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace has also
called for the dangerous reactors to be shut down. "These
documents don't just show the structural damage to nuclear
reactors in the UK," he says. "They show the incompetence of the
government and BE, who have known about these significant cracks
yet have refused to do anything about it." 

He continues: "It is clear that Tony Blair should shut these
dangerous reactors down. Yet it's almost as if he feels that
having to turn off AGR nuclear plants to prevent a nuclear
accident might be problematic just before he formally announces
his staggeringly irresponsible plan to build even more nuclear
plants." 

Tony Blair's energy review is due to end in a couple of weeks.
Just yesterday, Blair told MPs that he now believes nuclear
power stations are needed to tackle climate change. "Unless
someone can show through energy efficiency and renewables you're
going to be able to cure the whole of this problem," he said,
"then I think that nuclear power goes back on the agenda." 

Over recent months, Greenpeace has released several in-depth
studies, reports and even a short film laying out exactly how
the use of efficiency and renewables in a decentralised system
can slash the UK's carbon emissions. In the face of today's
frightening revelations about the state of the UK's AGR
reactors, we call on Mr Blair to join David Cameron, Ming
Campbell and Ken Livingstone in committing to urgently
developing a decentralised energy system for a clean and safe
energy future. 

Download the documents:
 September 2003
 June 2005
 November 2005
 April 2006
 Nuclear expert John Large's review of the leaked documents
 
Find out more

 An introduction to the energy review
 Check out our interactive map of the UK's nuclear reactors,
nuclear transport routes and potential dump sites
 The real solution to climate change
 Nuclear power vs decentralised energy
 
Get active! 

Tony Blair's energy review is almost over and he wants a new
generation of nuclear power stations. But a cleaner, safer,
cheaper alternative exists - and you still have time to make
your voice heard. Write to your MP to say no to nuclear and yes
to efficiency and renewables.

 Send an ecard: how many generations does it take for nuclear
waste to become safe? 

The government must take bold and effective action to combat
climate change, but nuclear power is not the answer. Nuclear
power is expensive, unreliable, commercially unviable and
vulnerable to terrorist attack. Most importantly, it will still
fail to significantly cut CO2 emissions within the necessary
time frame. 

Make your voice heard now. 
Write to your MP to state your opposition to nuclear power and
support for renewable energy and energy efficiency as the
cheapest, safest, most effective solution to climate change. 

Do you live near a nuclear waste transport route? 
Check our map of waste routes in the UK and print posters to
alert your neighbours. You might be closer than you think... 

Watch the film that shows how easy a terrorist attack on a
nuclear facility could be, and warn your friends about the
dangers nuclear power poses. 

Support the solution
 Learn more about decentralised energy, a real answer to the
problems of climate change and the enrgy gap.

*****************************************************************
 61 GREENPEACE UK: Blair obsessed with nuclear legacy
               
[Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria] 
 		
04-07-2006 		

Former New Labour advisor says Blair lied to Commons committee 

Reacting to Tony Blair's comments this morning in support of new 
nuclear power stations, Greenpeace executive director Stephen 
Tindale said: 

"Tony Blair wants his legacy to be new nuclear power stations, 
but his obsession threatens to scupper this country's renewable 
energy industry. He wants to tie the country into a centralised 
energy generation system that relies on huge, inefficient, 
polluting power stations instead of pushing money towards clean 
cutting edge technologies." 

Mr Tindale, a former New Labour environment adviser, added: 

"Mr Blair claims he's only just changed his mind about nuclear 
power, but I know for a fact he's being dishonest. He's been 
pro-nuclear for at least ten years. I know because I used to be 
his party's adviser on green issues. His casual misleading of MPs 
in symptomatic of his campaign to foist new nuclear stations on 
Britain. The facts simply don't seem to matter to this Prime 
Minister. 

"Germany is phasing out nuclear power and installing more wind
power every year than Britain's total capacity. The UK
government has a chance to follow this lead, but it seems sense
will only prevail once Blair leaves Downing Street. The energy
debate is too important to be decided by a lame duck." 

Commenting on the soon to be published energy review, the Prime
Minister this morning told the Commons Liaison Committee he had
changed his mind since the last White Paper on energy policy in
2003. "Whereas we left the question open and we were very
sceptical at that point, certainly, I'll be totally honest with
you, I've changed my mind," he said. 

ENDS 

Greenpeace press office - 0207 865 8255 		
 		
*****************************************************************
 62 Dallas Morning News: Unit at nuclear power plant restarted after shutdown 

| News for Dallas, Texas | Texas/Southwest
 
07/04/2006 

Associated Press 

A reactor at the nation's largest nuclear power plant has been
restarted after a loss-of-pressure incident last weekend,
officials said. 

Unit 3 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station was shut
down Saturday after a small piece of glass shattered within a
system that converts steam into water. 

That triggered a loss of suction pressure in a feedwater pump,
said spokesman Jim McDonald of Arizona Public Service Co., which
operates the triple-reactor facility outside Phoenix. 

Crews replaced the "sight glass" and restarted the reactor
Monday but APS said it typically takes two to three days for a
reactor to regain full power if all goes well after a shutdown. 

Palo Verde, located in Wintersburg about 50 miles west of
downtown Phoenix, supplies electricity to about 4 million
customers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. 

APS owns 29.5 percent of the plant and operates it for a
consortium of utility companies in the four states. 

___ 

Information from: The Arizona Republic, http://www.azcentral.com 

� 2006 The Dallas Morning News Co. 	 	   
*****************************************************************
 63 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10423 
[Federal Register: July 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 128)] 
[Notices] [Page 38179-38180] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05jy06-77]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. 
The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 40, Domestic 
Licensing of Source Material; and NRC Form 484, Detection 
Monitoring Data Report.
 
3. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 484. 4. How often the 
collection is required: On occasion. Reports required under 10 
CFR Part 40 are collected and evaluated on a continuing basis as 
events occur. There is a one-time submittal of information to 
receive a license. Renewal applications need to be submitted 
every 5 to 10 years. Information in previous applications may be 
referenced without being resubmitted. In addition, recordkeeping 
must be performed on an on-going basis. NRC Form 484 is submitted 
biannually to report ground-water data necessary to implement EPA 
ground-water standards.
 
5. Who will be required or asked to report: 10 CFR Part 40: 
Applicants for and holders of NRC licenses authorizing the 
receipt, possession, use, or transfer of radioactive source and 
byproduct material.
 
NRC Form 484: Uranium recovery facility licensees reporting 
ground- water monitoring data pursuant to 10 CFR 40.64. 6. An 
estimate of the number of annual responses: 894 (273 NRC 
Licensees [68 NRC responses + 205 NRC Recordkeepers] + 621 
Agreement State Licensees [349 Agreement State responses + 272 
Agreement State recordkeepers]).
 
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 340 licensees (68 
for NRC
 
[[Page 38180]] licensees and 272 for Agreement State licensees).
 
8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to 
complete the requirement or request: 65,418 total hours [20,769 
for NRC Licensees (16,067 hours for reporting and 4,702 hours for 
recordkeeping) and 44,649 for Agreement State Licensees (26,923 
hours for reporting and 17,726 hours for recordkeeping)].
 
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 40 establishes requirements for 
licenses for the receipt, possession, use and transfer of 
radioactive source and byproduct material. NRC Form 484 is used 
to report certain groundwater monitoring data required by 10 CFR 
Part 40 for uranium recovery licensees. The application, 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements are necessary to permit 
the NRC to make a determination on whether the possession, use, 
and transfer of source and byproduct material is in conformance 
with the Commission's regulations for protection of public health 
and safety.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve /doc-comment/omb/index.html. 
The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 
days after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by August 4, 2006. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (3150- 0020), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or 
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10423 Filed 7-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 64 Australian: Nuke task force outlines plans 

This story is from our network Source: AAP 

 July 04, 2006 

A PRIME ministerial task force on nuclear energy has released an
issues paper outlining more than 100 points it will consider.

 

The task force, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski,
will not look at possible locations for uranium processing or
nuclear power plants. 


But it will evaluate whether there is a business case for
Australia to take radioactive waste from overseas. 


However, it does not expect to make any firm recommendations
when it reports to the Government in December. 


"Our role will be to establish the fact base and help with some
findings but not necessarily (make) recommendations in terms of
our feedback to the Government," Dr Switkowski told ABC radio. 

"I expect that we will not (make recommendations). Our task
force is very much around establishing the facts, laying out
scenarios, framing the debate." 


Prime Minister John Howard established the task force last month
to broaden the debate on nuclear issues. 


It will take submissions from the public but will not hold any
public hearings and some submissions may be kept secret. 


Of the discussion points released today, only nine are on
environmental issues and 15 are on health and safety and nuclear
proliferation. 


More than 80 are on economic issues, but Dr Switkowski denied
that the task force was skewed towards making an economic case
for nuclear power or uranium enrichment. 


"There is no question in my mind that the panel is determined to
cover the full spectrum of issues, consistent with the terms of
reference," he said. 


"There will be considerable attention upon the environmental
consequences of uranium mining or an expansion of uranium
mining, should that be an outcome that we would support, as well
as health and safety and proliferation matters. I think the
balance will be appropriate." 


The task force did not plan to look at potential locations but
that would presume the outcome of the inquiry, he said. 


"The debate around location of reactors etc can only really
happen once the policy makers of the government form a view that
nuclear energy is to be a part of the energy equation for
Australia in the generations ahead," he said. 


"We are well away from that conclusion having been drawn." 

*****************************************************************
 65 EA: Chornobyl radiation ups risk of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents
 
EurekAlert!  Public release date: 4-Jul-2006

 Contact: Ariel Whitworth jncimedia@oxfordjournals.org 
301-841-1287

 Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Exposure to radioactive iodine increases the risk of thyroid
cancer in children and adolescents, a study of thyroid cancer
prevalence after the Chornobyl accident shows. The study is
published in the July 5 issue of the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute. 	 	

In 1986, an accident at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant
exposed large numbers of people in Belarus, Ukraine, and the
Russian Federation to radioactive material high in isotopes of
iodine and cesium. Numerous studies have shown that exposure to
certain types of radiation increases the incidence of thyroid
cancer in children and teens. However, few studies have examined
the effects of exposure to radioactive iodines, and only three
studies have examined cancer risk from the Chornobyl-related
exposures. 	 	

Geoffrey R. Howe, Ph.D., of Columbia University in New York, and
colleagues screened 13,127 people for thyroid cancer who at the
time of the Chornobyl accident were under 18 and lived in highly
contaminated areas of Ukraine. The researchers estimated each
participant's individual radiation dose using thyroid
radioactivity measurements made shortly after the accident and
interview data obtained during screening. 	 	

The researchers found 45 cases of thyroid cancer in the screened
group in comparison with the 11.2 cases expected without the
accident. Subjects had a tendency toward lower risk of thyroid
cancer with increasing age at the time of the exposure. The
authors suggest that exposure to radioactive fallout from the
Chornobyl accident increased thyroid cancer in those exposed as
children and adolescents. 	 	

The authors write, "We estimate that 75% of the thyroid cancer
cases would have been avoided in the absence of radiation. With
appropriate adjustment for dose, this estimate demonstrates a
substantial contribution of radioactive iodines to the excess of
thyroid cancer that followed the Chornobyl accident." 	

### 	

Contact:
 
  + Stephanie Berger, Associate Director of Communications,
212-305-1372, sb2247@columbia.edu	 	

Citation:
 
  + Tronko MD, Howe GR, Bogdanova TI, Bouville AC, Epstein OV,
Brill AB, et al. A Cohort Study of Thyroid Cancer and Other
Thyroid Diseases After the Chornobyl Accident: Thyroid Cancer in
Ukraine Detected During First Screening. J Natl Cancer Inst
2006; 98: 896-903. 	 	 

Note: Chornobyl is the Ukrainian spelling of the more common
Chernobyl. 	

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is published by
Oxford University Press and is not affiliated with the National
Cancer Institute. Attribution to the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute is requested in all news coverage. Visit the
Journal online at http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/. 

EurekAlert!   
*****************************************************************
 66 Telegraph: On nuclear power: 'Changed my mind'
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]

By George Jones, Political Editor

(Filed: 05/07/2006)
   
Tony Blair admitted he had made up his mind that Britain needed
a new generation of nuclear power stations before the
Government's own energy review is published later this month. 

He told the liaison committee that energy, security and climate
change targets could not be achieved without replacing the
country's existing nuclear power stations. 

"I'll be totally honest with you, I've changed my mind," he
said, when MPs accused him of pre-empting the energy review. 

Mr Blair indicated that the review, which is due to be published
before MPs leave for their summer break on July 25, will come
down firmly in favour of new nuclear power stations along with
generating more energy from renewable sources, such as wind
farms, and an increased energy efficiency. 

" A former Labour Party policy adviser, Stephen Tindale, now
executive director of Greenpeace, said Mr Blair wanted his
legacy to be nuclear power stations. 

"Mr Blair claims he's only just changed his mind about nuclear
power, but he's been pro-nuclear for at least 10 years. I used
to be his party's adviser on green issues," he said.   

 � Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 67 The Mercury: Consultant hired to help Limerick with nuclear power issues
 		 			 	 	 
Thursday 06 July, 2006

LIMERICK -- Township supervisors have decided to hire a 
specialist to advise them on nuclear power issues.                                                   

The hiring comes just as the supervisors will be asked to vote on 
a proposal to store spent nuclear fuel on the grounds of Exelon 
Nuclear�s Limerick Generating Station.

The consultant will have to work fast because the supervisors 
announced they intend to cast a crucial vote on the project at 
their July 13 meeting.

Township Manager Daniel Kerr said the person the supervisors 
hired, William Sherbin of Malvern, is a licensed engineer with 35 
years experience, 26 of them in the nuclear energy field with 
specific experience in design and inspections.

According to his resume, Sherbin, who has a masters in
engineering, has worked in about one half the nuclear power
plants in the country.

His clients have included plant owners, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy, Kerr said.

Sherbin will charge the township $113.30 per hour and, if he is
still working for the township after Oct. 30, his rate will
increase to $120 per hour.

In addition to Sherbin, the township has retained the services
of Michael Pincus, who will help to community outreach services
on the project. His fee of $120 per hour, will be "passed
through" to Exelon and will not be paid by taxpayers, according
to Supervisor Renee Chesler.

The project Sherbin and Pincus will help the township evaluate
is a proposal by Exelon to erect 24 steel and concrete canisters
to hold spent nuclear fuel that has been accumulating in storage
pools inside the plant since it was constructed.

Each canister can hold 61 bundles of fuel rods. Each bundle
holds as many as 64 to 289 rods of uranium pellets that will
remain radioactive for thousands of years.

Exelon, like other nuclear plants across the country, has been
forced to construct these "temporary" storage facilities because
of the federal government�s failure to make good on its promise
to provide a national depository for the fuel.

The depository, beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is decades
behind schedule and is mired in scientific and political
controversy.

Kevin Carrabine, Exelon�s project manager, said last month that
each year, the Limerick plant plans to fill four canisters.

Although plans only call for 24 canisters, the approximately
three-foot thick concrete pad on which the canisters will rest
will be big enough to house about 90 canisters, said Carrabine.

"We hope never to have to use more than 25 or 30 casks," said
Carrabine.

However, the plan to build the pad for those canisters, as well
as several outbuildings, hit a snag when earlier this month, the
township�s planning commission voted unanimously to reject
Exelon�s land development proposal for the project.

However, they are a recommending body only and the final
decision rests with the supervisors.

The township�s engineer, Khaled R. Hassan, P.E., of Pennoni
Associates Inc., told the board Tuesday he has since visited the
Exelon site and has had a look at the area where the project is
proposed and that he expects further paperwork later this week.

The planners had complained they had not received enough
information, some of which, Exelon officials argued, they could
not provide for security reasons.

Security, particularly the potential for a terrorist attack, was
the basis for a June 2 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco which set aside the permit granted by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the Diablo Canyon nuclear
power plant in California.

In the 3-0 decision, the court said the NRC�s argument that the
threat of a terrorist attack was too remote to include in
environmental planning for the California project, was
undermined by the Bush administration�s post-Sept. 11 statements
and actions about the terrorist threat against those self-same
plants, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the appeals court concluded
it was unreasonable for the NRC to declare that "the possibility
of a terrorist attack ..is speculative .. at the same time the
government is spending time, effort and taxpayer money to combat
the threat of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants.

Whether that ruling will have an effect on this project remains
unknown.

The Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage project had a "site
specific" permit from the NRC, while the Limerick project is
being carried out by a contractor who holds a "general license"
to do the work.

The NRC has not yet responded to the decision and Exelon
officials say their lawyers are aware of the decision, but will
move ahead with their plans unless told otherwise by the NRC.

That leaves the supervisors will little to say about the
project, other than the land development aspects, Supervisors
Chairman David Kane said recently.

"Our jurisdiction is over some issues and not others," Kane
said. "What we can vote on is land development, and on land
development, we don�t have much leeway on what we can rule on."

Resident Bill Miller also questioned why the township is not
planning a "public hearing" on the project.

He said the "open house" meeting Exelon has planned for July 11
from 4 to 7 p.m. in the township building is inadequate for the
purposes of public discussion.

"The kind of thing they�re planning is only good for one-on-one.
The only interaction you get is with the person at the table,"
said Miller. "It is a public display, not a public hearing."

Beth Rapczynski, an Exelon spokeswoman, said the open house will
be "specific to the dry cask storage project" and that her
company views it as "an opportunity for folks to get their
questions answered."

She said representatives from the company erecting the casks
will be on hand and that the NRC has been invited, but she does
not know if NRC official will accept.

Kane suggested that the township begin the July 13 meeting at 6
p.m., one hour earlier than normal, and will ask Exelon
officials to attend to answer questions in a more public format.

"I understand what you�re saying," Kane said to Miller. "You
want to see questions and concerns heard before the entire
board." 

�The Mercury 2006                                       
*****************************************************************
 68 Guardian Unlimited: Why cracks at the cores of ageing AGRs 
worried safety inspector
 
Ian Sample, science correspondent

Wednesday July 5, 2006 The Guardian             

No one knows when the cracks first started to appear, but as long 
ago as 2004, British Energy voiced concerns about fractures in 
the cores of its 14 reactors.

The cracks were spotted in graphite bricks in the cores of all 
the company's advanced gas-cooled reactors, or AGRs. 
Collectively, they provide the country with nearly one fifth of 
its electricity. But the extent of the potential damage, and the 
consequences that might flow from it, were uncertain.

However, the latest report by the government's Nuclear Safety 
Directorate (NSD), obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, 
makes clear that nuclear inspectors have raised repeated concerns 
about the dangers of continuing to operate Hinkley Point B 
nuclear power station in Somerset and other nuclear plants 
weakened by cracks. British Energy, they say, knows too little 
about the cracks to be confident they can operate without 
incident.

According to the NSD report, British Energy does not fully
understand why the bricks are cracking; how many are damaged;
and the number of cracks that would make the reactor unsafe.

Graphite bricks are used to build the heart of a reactor core.
They work by slowing down fast-moving neutrons in the nuclear
reaction, making them more likely to split uranium atoms when
they slam into the reactor's fuel rods. From the top, a reactor
core resembles a giant pepper pot. Thousands of graphite bricks
are stacked up to make a cylinder 12 metres high and nearly as
wide, with holes running down through it. Hundreds of the holes
- fuel channels - are designed to receive fuel rods, which are
lowered in when the plant is running. A further 60 or so holes
are used to trim the station's power - or in emergencies, shut
it down completely - by lowering in control rods that mop up
neutrons and halt the nuclear reaction immediately.

The NSD report raises fears that cracks in bricks at Hinkley
Point and other nuclear plants at Hunterston B in Ayrshire,
Heysham 1 in Lancashire, and Hartlepool in Co Durham could send
the precision holes in the reactor out of alignment. That
possibility, it says, increases the risks of an accident
significantly: fuel rods could become jammed in the reactor, and
misalignment could make it hard, if not impossible, to lower in
control rods to close the power plant down.

The report, compiled by a nuclear installations inspector for
the NSD, states: "Whilst I do not believe that a large release
due to failure to shut down on demand is a likely scenario, some
lesser event (such as impairment of control rod insertion or
fuel movement) is I believe inevitable at some stage if a
vigilant precautionary approach is not adopted."

Jammed fuel or control rods could stop cooling gas circulating
around the core properly, potentially causing fuel rods to
overheat, cladding to melt and a release of radiation into the
immediate enclosure surrounding the reactor core. The leak would
be contained, but would still lead to the shutdown of the plant.

John Large, an independent nuclear consultant who has reviewed
the documents, believes the NSD is downplaying the potential
dangers. British Energy has no way of knowing how strong the
reactor core at Hinkley Point is, and an otherwise minor
accident at the plant might trigger a dangerous and widespread
release of radioactivity, he said.

"If the bricks are weakened, and they are, you run the risk of
having an accident giving you a reactor that you can't close
down, which has a big hole in the side, and that is when you get
a major release of radioactivity," said Dr Large. "The NSD is
saying they are going to have a gamble here by allowing these to
operate, that they're not going to have an accident in the
remaining life of these reactors, and you cannot say that."

Dr Large believes the NSD has held off calling for the ageing
nuclear plants to be shut down because of Tony Blair's renewed
interest in nuclear power in the forthcoming energy review.

"If the NSD called for the closure of Hinkley, they would also
have to close Hunterston, Hartlepool and Heysham I, which have
cracks and are of a similar age. But what nuclear installations
inspector is going to close down a plant at such an incredibly
critical time?" he said.

Footnotes 

Graphite bricks
 Graphite bricks slow down fast-moving neutrons that drive
nuclear reactions, boosting efficiency. Radiation ages bricks,
but because levels of radiation vary, predicting which bricks
are most damaged is difficult.

Advanced gas-cooled reactors
 Second generation of British nuclear reactors built in 1970s.
Fuelled by enriched uranium oxide pellets and cooled by carbon
dioxide, pumped at pressure around reactor core

Nuclear Safety Directorate
 Arm of government's Health and Safety Executive. Regulates
industry in attempt to prevent major accidents.

Fuel rods
 Fuel is added to reactor by lowering fuel "stringers" into
holes in core. Fuel is enriched to 2.5% to 3.5% uranium 235.

Control rods
 Lowered into holes in reactor to slow nuclear reaction, but can
be dropped in rapidly to shut it down. Made of boron alloy,
which absorbs neutrons needed to sustain chain reaction.
 
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 69 AZ Republic: Two Palo Verde reactors shut down over weekend 

[azcentral.com]

Ken Alltucker 
The Arizona Republic 

Jul. 3, 2006 06:13 PM                                            

Arizona Public Service Co. survived the sweltering weekend with 
just one of three reactors working at the Palo Verde Nuclear 
Generating Station west of Phoenix.

 Unit 3 shut down on Saturday after a loss-of-pressure incident 
that spilled thousands of gallons of non-radioactive water into 
the reactor's turbine building and elsewhere. 

The problem was caused by a small piece of glass that shattered, 
triggering a loss of suction pressure in a feedwater pump, APS 
spokesman Jim McDonald said. 

The incident occurred within Palo Verde's condensate system,
which converts steam into water. 

Crews replaced the "sight glass" and restarted the reactor
Monday. It typically takes two to three days for a reactor to
regain full power if all goes well after a shutdown.

 The other out-of-service reactor, Unit 1, could restart soon,
too. Unit 1 operated at reduced power from late December to
mid-March, when APS decided to shut it down to repair a
vibrating pipe.

 APS repaired the reactor by relocating a valve to dampen the
vibrations, and the utility anticipates the reactor will restart
within a week or so. 

The Palo Verde nuclear plant, in Wintersburg about 50 miles west
of downtown Phoenix, is Arizona's largest single source of
electricity. APS operates the plant on behalf of seven owners,
including Salt River Project.

 Nuclear-generated electricity typically is less expensive than
electricity produced by coal or natural-gas power plants.

 When Unit 1 shut down in March, APS estimated that it would
cost $46 million after taxes to buy fuel and power to replace
the lost electricity. 

The Phoenix-based utility is allowed to recover 90 percent of
its fuel costs from ratepayers. The one caveat is that state
regulators must agree that the costs were prudently incurred.

 That's been a matter of debate. The commission hired a
consultant to investigate Palo Verde's numerous outages over the
past two years to determine whether lack of maintenance or other
factors have led to any of Palo Verde's problems. 

If the state decides that APS is responsible for the outages, it
could reject the utility's request to pass along Palo
Verde-related costs to ratepayers. 

Copyright � 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 70 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry lays out key issues
 
PM - Tuesday, 4 July , 2006  18:18:00
 
Reporter: Natasha Simpson

 MARK COLVIN: The prime ministerial taskforce reviewing nuclear
energy and uranium mining and processing in Australia has
started its inquiry with an issues paper laying out what it will
consider.

The taskforce will look at whether there's a business case for
Australia to take radioactive waste from overseas, but it's
confirmed that it will not be looking at possible locations for
uranium processing or nuclear power stations.

The taskforce is already taking submissions, some of which will
be kept secret, and there'll be no public hearings.

The inquiry prefers selective meetings with organisations and
individuals.

Natasha Simpson reports.

NATASHA SIMPSON: It's been almost a month since the Prime
Minister announced his review into uranium mining and
processing, and the potential future of nuclear energy in
Australia. 

Now the taskforce has released an issues paper, highlighting
more than 100 points it will consider from public submissions on
the issue. 

More than 80 of the topics are based on economic issues, nine on
environmental, and 15 relate to health and safety and nuclear
proliferation. 

The taskforce chairman, former Telstra boss and nuclear
scientist Ziggy Switkowski, says that doesn't mean the inquiry
is heavily weighted towards economic issues. 

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: There is no question in my mind, that the
panel is determined to cover the full spectrum of issues,
consistent with the terms of reference, and there will be
considerable attention upon the environmental consequences of
uranium mining, or expansion of uranium mining, should that be
an outcome that we would support, as well as healthy and safety
and proliferation matters. 

I think the balance will be appropriate. 

NATASHA SIMPSON: Now will your considerations look at potential
locations for new uranium mines, or uranium processing plants,
or nuclear power plants?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: No that's not the plan at this stage. I mean,
that sort of almost presumes what the outcome might be, and I
think the debate around location of reactors et cetera can only
happen once, really, the policy makers, the Government form a
view that nuclear energy is to be a part of the energy equation
for Australia and the generations ahead.

And we are well away from that conclusion having been drawn. 

NATASHA SIMPSON: Another thing that's not up for discussion is a
tax on carbon produced by other energy sources, particularly
coal.

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: The decision about the role of nuclear energy
in the future balance for Australia will require comparison of
the costs between nuclear and coal, solar, wind et cetera. 

And the costs of all these alternative forms of energy depend
upon a number of things, including the impact of policy and
regulation, a part of which may well be something to do with
carbon taxes and emissions trading.

But that is not within the remit of this particular taskforce. 

NATASHA SIMPSON: But the taskforce will be considering the
outlook for new uranium reserves to be found in Australia, and
the likely costs of mining them, along with the case against
further uranium mining in Australia. 

Issues ranging from the domestic and international security
implications of expanding Australia's nuclear role and nuclear
proliferation will also be discussed. 

Dr Switkowski says the taskforce will also consider whether
there's a business case for Australia to take radioactive waste
from overseas. 

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: It's a very sensitive, properly sensitive and
difficult subject. 

Again our taskforce will wrestle with that topic, with the view
to establishing the facts, and being guided by the submissions
that we receive. 

NATASHA SIMPSON: A draft of the taskforce report is expected to
be made public in November, and could be refined before being
handed to the Government in December.

But Ziggy Switkowski says it's unlikely there will be any firm
recommendations. 

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Our role will be to establish the fact base
and help with some findings, but not necessarily recommendations
in terms of our feedback to the Government. 

NATASHA SIMPSON: So you won't be making recommendations to the
Government at the end of this process?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: I expect that we will not. Our taskforce is
very much around establishing the facts, laying out scenarios,
framing the debate.

MARK COLVIN: Dr Ziggy Switkowski, the Chairman of the Prime
Minister's taskforce on uranium and nuclear issues, with Natasha
Simpson.   

*****************************************************************
 71 AU ABC: Nuclear task force won't make recommendations. 

04/07/2006. ABC News Online

The nuclear energy task force has
begun taking evidence as it investigates the case for nuclear
power and uranium enrichment in Australia."

Nuclear task force won't make recommendations
 
The head of the Prime Minister's nuclear energy task force says
he will not make recommendations at the completion of the
inquiry.

 The task force has begun taking evidence as it investigates the
case for nuclear power and uranium enrichment in Australia.

 The task force chairman, former Telstra boss and nuclear
scientist Dr Ziggy Switkowski, has confirmed the inquiry will
consider whether Australia should take nuclear waste from
overseas, but he says it is unlikely to recommend future action.

 "I expect that we will not, our task force is very much around
establishing the facts, laying out scenarios, framing the
debate," he said.

 The task force has released an issues paper, highlighting more
than 100 points it will consider from public submissions on the
issue. 

More than 80 of the topics are based on economic issues, nine on
environmental and 15 relate to health and safety and nuclear
proliferation. 

Dr Switkowski says that does not mean the inquiry is heavily
weighted towards economic issues. 

"There is no question in my mind, that the panel is determined
to cover the full spectrum of issues, consistent with the terms
of reference," he said.

 "There will be considerable attention upon the environmental
consequences of uranium mining, or expansion of uranium mining,
should that be an outcome that we would support, as well as
healthy and safety, and proliferation matters.

 "I think the balance will be appropriate." 
He says locations for new uranium processing plants or nuclear
power plants will not be considered, neither will a tax on
carbon produced by energy sources, particularly coal.

 "The decision about the role of nuclear energy in the future
balance for Australia will require comparison of the costs
between nuclear and coal, solar, wind," he said.

 "And the costs of all these alternative forms of energy depend
upon a number of things, including the impact of policy and
regulation, a part of which may well be something to do with
carbon taxes and emissions trading.

 "But that is not within the remit of this particular task
force." 

But the task force will be considering the outlook for new
uranium reserves to be found in Australia and the likely costs
of mining them, along with the case against further uranium
mining in Australia. 

Issues ranging from the domestic and international security
implications of expanding Australia's nuclear role and nuclear
proliferation will also be discussed. 

A draft of the task force report is expected to be made public
in November and could be refined before being handed to the
Government in December. 

[Audio] Related Audio
 
The task force reviewing nuclear energy and uranium mining and
processing in Australia has started its inquiry into whether
there is a business case to take radioactive waste from
overseas. [RealMedia 28k+] [WinMedia 28k+] [MP3] 
 
*****************************************************************
 72 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry ignoring environment - Opposition. 

04/07/2006. ABC News Online

The Opposition says the nuclear task force is too concerned with
economic matters. (File photo) (ABC)   		  [ border=]    	 

Nuclear inquiry ignoring environment: Opposition
 
The Federal Opposition has attacked the Prime Minister's nuclear
power inquiry for focusing on economic matters and ignoring the
environmental concerns about the industry.

 Task force chairman Ziggy Switkowski has released an issues
paper for the investigation into nuclear power and uranium
enrichment.

 Of the more than 100 issues to be considered, 80 relate to
economic matters, while the rest deal with safety, nuclear
proliferation and the environment.

 The inquiry will consider whether Australia should take nuclear
waste from overseas, but it will not examine possible sites for
nuclear power stations or waste dumps.

 Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese says the
environment will be ignored. 

"It's extraordinary that 80 of the 100 issues to be considered
are allegedly economic and yet they won't consider the big two
issues," he said.

 "That is, where John Howard's nuclear reactors will be sited
and where the waste repositories will be sited.

 "This is a process that's gone from the farcical to the absurd
- it's not surprising that nuclear proponents are discounting
the importance of environmental issues."

 But Dr Switkowski dismisses the criticism. 
"I think the balance will be appropriate," he said.

 He says the task force is unlikely to make recommendations to
the Government. 

*****************************************************************
 73 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry urged to consider thorium reactors. 

06/07/2006. ABC News Online

Update: Thursday, July 6, 2006. 10:05am (AEST) 	 

Accelerator-driven reactors using thorium could provide one
solution to nuclear waste. (ABC TV)             

Australia's only expert in accelerator-driven nuclear reactors
says the Federal Government's nuclear inquiry needs to examine
their use. 

Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad argues the reactors will be important for
waste management.

 The doctor of physics says accelerator-driven reactors, using
the less radioactive thorium, produce power but not plutonium. 
However the inquiry is only examining the economics of uranium
reactors, and of mining and selling thorium. 

Dr Hashemi-Nezhad says the prototype reactor can provide one
solution to nuclear waste. 

"Only these systems are capable of incinerating nuclear waste,
both from these accelerators themselves and also from the
conventional nuclear reactors," he said.

 Dr Hashemi-Nezhad says the eventual waste is not as long-lived
as waste from conventional reactors, and thorium is plentiful in
Australia. 

*****************************************************************
 74 Scotsman.com: PM decided on nuclear power before starting review

Wed 5 Jul 2006         

JAMES KIRKUP 

TONY Blair yesterday admitted that he had already concluded
Britain needs new nuclear power stations even before his
government's review of energy policy began. 

The Prime Minister's admission to MPs confirmed the suspicions
of green groups about the review, which will report later this
month and, Mr Blair said, confirm the government wants to
replace the existing generation of reactors. 

Speaking to a committee of MPs at Westminster, Mr Blair accepted
that even before he started the policy review last year, he had
already been convinced of the need for new reactors. 

"I won't hide from you that my thought was, things are changing
so fast in terms of energy security and carbon emissions, it's
time to rethink this," Mr Blair said. "I believed that because
of the way the changes had happened, I couldn't see how we were
going to meet our targets without going back to the nuclear
option. 

Throughout the review process, government spokesmen have
insisted that no decision had been taken about nuclear power,
even though Mr Blair has been dropping ever heavier hints about
his intentions. 

The Prime Minister insisted that the review had not been a
foregone conclusion, and if it had found evidence of flaws in
the nuclear case, he would "of course" have listened. 

But opponents of nuclear power last night said Mr Blair's
admission suggested he had been dishonest about his energy
policy. "His casual misleading of MPs is symptomatic of his
campaign to foist new nuclear stations on Britain, said Stephen
Tindale, the director of Greenpeace and a former Labour energy
adviser. "The facts simply don't seem to matter to this Prime
Minister." 

Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrats' Scotland spokeswoman said Mr
Blair's admission was "quite shocking". 


*****************************************************************
 75 UPI: Chernobyl increased thyroid cancer
     
    United Press International - Consumer Health - 

7/5/2006 6:30:00 PM -0400                               
							
Consumer Health
			 
CHERNOBYL, Ukraine, July 5 (UPI) -- Exposure to radioactive
iodine increases the risk of thyroid cancer in children and
adolescents, finds a study of those living in Ukraine near
Chernobyl. 

Geoffrey R. Howe of Columbia University in New York and
colleagues screened 13,127 people for thyroid cancer who at the
time of the Chernobyl accident were under 18 and lived in highly
contaminated areas of Ukraine. 

The researchers estimated each participant's individual
radiation dose using thyroid radioactivity measurements made
shortly after the accident in 1986 and interview data obtained
during screening. 

The researchers found 45 cases of thyroid cancer in the screened
group in comparison with the 11.2 cases expected without the
accident, according to the study published in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute. 

Subjects had a tendency toward lower risk of thyroid cancer with
increasing age at the time of the exposure. The authors suggest
that exposure to radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident
increased thyroid cancer in those exposed as children and
adolescents.

� Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
		 									advertisement
*****************************************************************
 76 UPI: NTPC to enter nuclear power sector
     
   United Press International - Energy - 

7/5/2006 11:56:00 AM -0400                              

NEW DELHI, July 5 (UPI) -- India's National Thermal Power Corp.
has planned to set up a nuclear power generation plant with a
capacity of 2,000 MW. 

NTPC could be the first company to begin nuclear power
generation capacities of up to 2,000 MW, The Financial Express
newspaper said Wednesday. A recent opinion sought by the Power
Ministry from nuclear expert and former department of atomic
energy secretary S. Rajagopal said that the Atomic Energy Act
did not come in the way of public sector power major's entry
into nuclear power sector. 

"NTPC being a public sector company, with over 51 percent
government holding, could enter nuclear power generation,"
Rajagopal said, adding there was, however, a need to secure
government clearance for construction and operation of nuclear
power stations. 

On the basis of this opinion, the Power Ministry has sought a
formal clearance from the DAE to allow the NTPC to build nuclear
power stations. 

"In the context of the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal, which
will provide global access to nuclear technology, this is the
best time to revive NTPC's nuclear power proposal," said Power
Secretary R.V. Sahi in a letter to the DEA. 

"The power major has high potential to set up nuclear power
generation capacity quickly," he said. 

Sahi said the NTPC has already engaged experts from Nuclear
Power Corp. and Atomic Energy Commission to procure technology
based on long-term fuel supply.

 														
� Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
		 									advertisement
*****************************************************************
 77 Guardian Unlimited: Trident convoys carry risk of nuclear blast
 
James Randerson, science correspondent

Thursday July 6, 2006 The Guardian             

An accident involving Trident nuclear warheads being moved on 
Britain's roads could lead to a partial nuclear blast, an 
internal Ministry of Defence report admits.

The document, obtained by New Scientist magazine, says such an 
explosion could potentially deliver a lethal radiation dose to 
the surrounding area. The MoD describes the risk as significant 
enough for drawing up contingency plans to deal with such an 
event.

The warheads are regularly transported by road convoy between 
military facilities in the UK. The weapons are moved between 
submarine bases in Scotland and repair and maintenance facilities 
at the Berkshire sites of Aldermaston and Burghfield. One convoy 
round trip happens roughly every two to three months.

The January 2005 report, by the MoD's defence logistics 
organisation, which has its headquarters in Bath, assessed the 
risks posed by the transportation of the weapons at 2.4 in a 
billion.

The 36-page declassified summary is entitled Operational Safety
Case for Transport of Nuclear Weapons. Large chunks of the text
had been censored before release under the Freedom of
Information Act. Publicly the MoD has always insisted that
transportation is safe because a plutonium core must be
compressed symmetrically for a nuclear explosion to occur; a
knock from one side, through a collision, would not set off a
warhead, it says. The MoD also told New Scientist that each
warhead was moved with "vital parts of its final configuration
removed".

But according to the report a large accident, for example a
plane landing on a convoy, could trigger a partial detonation
which would have "potentially high off-site consequences". It
says radiation doses from such a blast could range from one to
10 sieverts. Exposure to four sieverts would kill 50% of exposed
people through acute radiation poisoning, while six sieverts
would kill everyone exposed.

The document concludes that "adequate safeguards exist to
restrict the risk from such hazards to a level that is as low as
reasonably practicable".

Jane Tallents, an anti-nuclear campaigner with Nuke Watch, said:
"They might think that's a risk worth taking [for having a
nuclear deterrent] but have they asked all the people on the
route?"

Richard Stokes, leader of Slough borough council, said the
weapons convoys were "easy targets for terrorists".

Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist who has worked on the UK's
nuclear weapons programme, told New Scientist: "A Trident
warhead exploded in a densely populated area could kill hundreds
of thousands of people. However small the risk, that is too
horrifying to contemplate."
 

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 78 Las Vegas SUN: New wildfire reported in Nevada Test Site north

Today: July 05, 2006 at 14:6:48 PDT 

New wildfire reported in Nevada Test Site north of Las Vegas 

By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - A new wildfire was reported Wednesday in a vast
U.S. nuclear weapons testing range in Nevada, while firefighters
reported progress containing a separate fire in a nature refuge
about 25 miles north of the Las Vegas Strip. 

Dubbed the Mid-Valley Fire, the Nevada Test Site blaze covered
some 12 square miles and was burning away from test site
administration facilities in Mercury and Yucca Mountain, the
site the government has picked to entomb the nation's nuclear
waste. 

The fire did not threaten structures or sites left contaminated
following above- and below-ground nuclear testing from 1951 to
1992, said National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman
Kevin Rohrer in North Las Vegas. 

"The fire has not burned through any posted radiological areas,
nor is it threatening any surface-contaminated areas at this
time," Rohrer said. "Fires can be erratic and they can change,
but right now there is no threat to any structures or
facilities." 

About 60 test site and federal Bureau of Land Management
firefighters were working to contain the fire, aided by two
single-engine air tankers and a spotter plane working from a
test site airstrip. 

The fire was estimated at 8,000 to 10,000 acres, and was
believed to have been ignited Tuesday morning by a lightning
strike about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Rohrer said the fire was about 15 miles from Mercury and 10
miles from Yucca Mountain, the Energy Department facility
designated in 2002 as the collecting point and repository for
highly radioactive waste now stored at sites in 39 states. 

Energy Department plans to begin entombing waste at the site
have been postponed by legal, administrative and budget battles. 

The test site fire was 80 miles northwest of another large fire,
dubbed the Gass Complex, burning since Friday in the Desert
National Wildlife Refuge. 

Some 325 firefighters from states including Minnesota, North
Carolina, Oregon and Montana were battling flames by hand in
crackling-dry grasses, creosote and mesquite bushes, and pinon,
juniper and Joshua trees in steep terrain. 

Lisa Ortega, a Nevada Division of Forestry spokeswoman fires,
said officials hoped favorable weather would help contain the
irregular 26-square-mile fire area, which cast smoke over Gass
Peak that was visible in Las Vegas. 

"Mother Nature has a bag of tricks. You never know what she's
going to give," Ortega said Wednesday, noting that thunderstorms
forecast for the area could bring rain to help quell flames, but
also pack lightning to start more fires. 

Fire managers estimated containment at about 20 percent, but
expected to be able to encircle the 16,800-acre fire by Friday,
Ortega said. Several fires merged over the weekend after being
sparked by multiple lightning strikes. 

The fire was about seven miles west of the largest power plant
serving Las Vegas. But no structures, including the electricity
plant, were immediately threatened, officials said. No injuries
were reported. 

Adding the Mid-Valley Fire to several large fires that have been
contained in southern and northern Nevada in recent days, some
160,000 acres have burned in Nevada since June 23. To date, no
major injuries or structure damage have been reported. 

--- 

On the Net: 

National Interagency Fire Center Incident Management Report:
http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/sitreprt.pdf 

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 79 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Public's right to know 

July 04, 2006 

Study shows Freedom of Information Act isn't aging gracefully 

As the Freedom of Information Act turns 40 today, a new study
shows that the federal government is taking longer to respond to
requests for information and that when it does respond, more
than half of the requests still are being denied. 

The Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, an
organization of nine media outlets, examined the public
information requests made of 13 Cabinet departments and nine
agencies and discovered that a third of all queries were
unprocessed in 2005. The number of requests for information made
by citizens, private groups and corporations decreased, the
report shows, and 63 percent of all requests made were declined. 

The Freedom of Information Act allows people to check what the
federal government is doing by requesting access to public
documents and data. But results of this recent study illustrate
what seems to be a lax attitude toward the importance of timely
responses on the part the Bush administration's agencies and
departments. 

The Associated Press reports that the coalition, of which AP is
a member, notes that the number of employees working on
information act requests in the 22 agencies studied had dropped
from 4,288 before Bush won office in 2000 to 3,315 in 2005. And
the response-time delays have grown significantly. There are 261
federal workdays a year, but the median wait for information
request responses from some areas of the Agriculture Department
was 1,277 workdays - 4.8 federal years. 

While it is sometimes thought of as a tool reserved for the news
media, the Freedom of Information Act actually is one of the
most important privileges that all Americans possess. At
minimum, it allows any citizen to track how his tax money is
being spent. 

Congress, which failed to enact a bipartisan proposal to
streamline the act's process, must revisit such a proposal and
correct the system. The government must ensure that the public
is not being denied access to information to which it is
entitled. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 80 NRC: State of Rhode Island Relinquishment of Sealed Source and Device 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10424 
[Federal Register: July 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 128)] 
[Notices] [Page 38189-38190] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05jy06-80]                         
 
Evaluation and Approval Authority and Assumption by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of assumption by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
of Sealed Source and Device Evaluation and approval authority 
from the State of Rhode Island.
 
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that effective July 1, 2006, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will assume regulatory authority 
for sealed source and device evaluations and approvals in the 
State of Rhode Island in response to a request from the Governor 
of the State of Rhode Island to relinquish this authority.
 
 
DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2006.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jennifer C. Tobin, Health 
Physicist, Office of State and Tribal Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 
415-2328, Internet: JCT1@NRC.GOV.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Currently, the State of Rhode Island 
has an Agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
which recognizes the State authority to regulate specific 
categories of radioactive materials formerly regulated by the 
NRC. This Agreement was entered into on January 1, 1980, pursuant 
to Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
 
Recently, the NRC received a letter from Rhode Island Governor 
Donald L. Carcieri (May 16, 2006) requesting relinquishment of 
the State's authority to evaluate and approve sealed source and 
devices, and assumption of this authority by NRC. The requested 
action would involve assumption of regulatory authority by NRC 
over activities currently regulated by Rhode Island pursuant to 
its Agreement with NRC.
 
The Governor of Rhode Island noted there is one manufacturer in 
the State and there has been no sealed source and device 
evaluations conducted since 2001. Governor Carcieri indicated 
that it would not be cost effective to fund and maintain staff to 
conduct sealed source and device evaluations.
 
The Commission has agreed to the request and has notified Rhode 
Island that effective July 1, 2006, the NRC will reassume 
authority to evaluate and approve sealed source and device
 
[[Page 38190]] applications within the State of Rhode Island. The 
State of Rhode Island will retain authority to regulate the 
manufacture and use of sealed sources and devices within the 
State in accordance with its Section 274b. Agreement with the 
NRC. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10424 Filed 7-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 81 MN: Exposure to radioactive iodine increases the risk of thyroid cancer
 	 	 	 
News-Medical.Net

[This article has an Article Impact Factor of 2/10]  		 

Medical Studies/Trials Published: Tuesday, 4-Jul-2006   
  
Exposure to radioactive iodine increases the risk of thyroid
cancer in children and adolescents, a study of thyroid cancer
prevalence after the Chornobyl accident shows. 


The study is published in the July 5 issue of the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute. 

In 1986, an accident at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant
exposed large numbers of people in Belarus, Ukraine, and the
Russian Federation to radioactive material high in isotopes of
iodine and cesium. Numerous studies have shown that exposure to
certain types of radiation increases the incidence of thyroid
cancer in children and teens. However, few studies have examined
the effects of exposure to radioactive iodines, and only three
studies have examined cancer risk from the Chornobyl-related
exposures. 

Geoffrey R. Howe, Ph.D., of Columbia University in New York, and
colleagues screened 13,127 people for thyroid cancer who at the
time of the Chornobyl accident were under 18 and lived in highly
contaminated areas of Ukraine. The researchers estimated each
participant's individual radiation dose using thyroid
radioactivity measurements made shortly after the accident and
interview data obtained during screening. 

The researchers found 45 cases of thyroid cancer in the screened
group in comparison with the 11.2 cases expected without the
accident. Subjects had a tendency toward lower risk of thyroid
cancer with increasing age at the time of the exposure. The
authors suggest that exposure to radioactive fallout from the
Chornobyl accident increased thyroid cancer in those exposed as
children and adolescents. 

The authors write, "We estimate that 75% of the thyroid cancer
cases would have been avoided in the absence of radiation. With
appropriate adjustment for dose, this estimate demonstrates a
substantial contribution of radioactive iodines to the excess of
thyroid cancer that followed the Chornobyl accident." 

http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org  

 �2006 News-Medical.Net    [Medical News]   
*****************************************************************
 82 PM: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Nuclear Testing Anniversary Memorial Inaugurated 

Pacific Magazine

Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific 

Tuesday: July 4, 2006 

(Tahitipresse) French Polynesia President Oscar Temaru led an
international gathering Sunday in the inauguration of a memorial
on the 40th anniversary of France's first atmospheric nuclear
test above the Tuamotu atoll of Moruroa. 

The memorial, dedicated to the "memory of nuclear tests" in
general, is located at Jacques Chirac Square, named by a
previous government after the French President. 

Sunday's ceremony involved the placing of five individual stone
monuments, each representing one of French Polynesia' s five
archipelagos. 

During his speech, President Temaru said his government's
objective is to push France and "force it to recognize its
errors and excuse itself in front of the (French) Polynesian
people". While countries like the U.S.A., England and Australia
have publicly recognized their implications in the
health-threatening contamination aspects of nuclear testing
radioactive fallout, France continues to deny any such fault for
its tests in French Polynesia, Temaru said. 

Pacific Magazine: 

- Publisher Floyd K. Takeuchi Tel: 808-534-7522 Fax: 808-537-9522 

EDITORIAL 

- Editor-in-Chief Samantha Magick Tel: (61) 2 9571-1595 Cell: 
(61) 439-485-179 

-Managing Editor, Web Richard F. Coleman Tel: 808-534-7509 Fax: 
808-537-9522 


Pacific Magazine is published monthly by PacificBasin 
Communications, Inc. Founder: Bruce Jensen. Copyright 2002, 2003 
PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Editorial, advertising offices 
at 1000 Bishop Street. Suite 405, Honolulu HI 96813. Telephone 
(808) 537-9500. Send all address changes to Pacific Magazine, 
P.O.Box 913, Honolulu HI 96808 or e-mail 

Pacificmagazine.net Copyright 2002 - 2004 PacificBasin
Communications Inc. For more information contact 
*****************************************************************
 83 KCPW: Nuclear Waste Storage Debate Rages On

On Air At Library Square
 
Jul 05, 2006 by Mariah McAfee 

Terrorist Attacks On Nuclear Waste Storage Sites Have Not Been
Considered

 (KCPW News) Many local citizens are upset that Utah has been
pegged as a main location for nuclear waste storage, but
according to Sue Martin, spokeswomen for Private Fuel Storage,
there is nothing for Utahns to worry about. 

"[PFS] looked at all sorts of different natural and man-made
disasters that could happen, and the facility is designed to
comply with all the federal regulations that define the safety
standards for nuclear facilities," says Martin. "So the
bottomline is that there would be no emissions in the air that
would harm the public". 

Although the proposed PFS facility for Skull Valley meets
current federal regulations, Jason Groenewold, director of the
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, says federal regulations
and the proposed facility do not take the possibility of
terrorist attacks into account. 

"I think Sue's comment of, just trust us,' when it comes to
protecting you from terrorist attacks is indicative of the
history Utahns have had with fallout, whether it has been with
nuclear weapons or nuclear power or nuclear waste in the past,"
Groenewold says, "that is, we have trusted people in the past
and we have been harmed because of that trust." 

The nuclear waste storage debate rages on but the very
controversial Divine Strake test, a massive explosives test
planned to take place in Nevada, has been indefinitely postponed.
 
Posted in KCPW Newsroom. Copyright 2006 KCPW 

 Comments: Name: Email Address: Website URL: Copyright � 2006
KCPW 
*****************************************************************
 84 Bradenton Herald Reports: Lockheed wrong on Tallevast

| 07/04/2006 | 

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - A third review found Lockheed Martin Corp.'s latest
assessment of the Tallevast plume failed to fully describe the
extent of the contamination as the defense giant claimed. 

Moreover, Lockheed was premature in its conclusion that risk of
human exposure to the contamination is not a concern, said
Michael Graves, a geologist and principal consultant for
Environmental Sciences and Technologies (EST) of Lakeland. 

The Tallevast contamination traced back to a former beryllium
plant Lockheed once owned that is now known to cover more than
200 acres. The contaminates include cancer-causing solvents and
degreasers used when the plant manufactured parts for nuclear
weapons and reactors from 1961 to 1996. 

While Lockheed never operated the plant formerly owned by Loral
American Beryllium Company, it owned the property when the
contamination was found in 2000 and therefore has the
responsibility for cleaning up the pollution under the oversight
of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Lockheed claimed to have fully defined the Tallevast plume in
its Site Assessment Report Addendum III, or SARA III, filed with
DEP on April 26. 

Graves was hired and paid by FOCUS - Family Oriented Community
United Strong, a resident advocacy group - to review Lockheed's
latest data. 

His critique, filed June 30 with DEP, detailed 35 areas where he
believes data was either lacking or was misinterpreted in the
Lockheed report. 

"We now have three reviews of Lockheed's data that all reach the
conclusion that there is still critical work to be done," said
Wanda Washington, vice president of FOCUS. "How much more time
will it take? Lockheed has been at it for so long. Time is
important. Our lives are at stake. The dangers don't go on hold
because of Lockheed's timing." 

Graves' criticism echoed two other reviews of the Sara III
report - a review by Tim Varney, the independent consultant
advising Tallevast residents, and a review by environmentalist
and chemist Wilma Subra, who analyzed the data for The Herald. 

All three reviewers said Lockheed's data failed to define the
vertical extent of the plume. Moreover, all three agreed that
Lockheed's data indicated the contamination has penetrated the
Floridan aquifer, a finding Lockheed's engineers dismiss because
the level of contamination, they say, is lower than the targeted
cleanup level required by environmental regulators. 

Overall, Graves said, Lockheed's data, prepared by the
engineering firm of Blasland Bouck and Lee Inc., failed to
support the defense giant's conclusion that the plume has been
defined and cleanup work can begin. 

Graves is no stranger to Tallevast. 

In 2005, he was selected by FOCUS and paid by Lockheed to run
independent tests on the community's private drinking water and
irrigation wells, some of which were previously found to be
contaminated. 

In 2004, Lockheed paid to have all Tallevast residents who
previously relied solely on private wells for their drinking
water switched to the county water system. 

But the damage had been done, Graves said in his SARA III
review. ". . . Previous exposure from ingestion of groundwater
withdrawn from private wells has undoubtedly occurred," Graves
wrote. "Stating that there is no concern is premature." 

The 2005 well study conducted by Graves found higher levels of
contamination in the private wells than Lockheed's data showed.
Graves also found more contaminated wells than identified in
Lockheed's reports, including the contaminated irrigation well
on Heidi Boothe's property near the Tallevast post office.
Graves' readings from the Boothe well indicated the plume may
have spread almost to U.S. 301. 

Lockheed disputed Graves' findings in SARA III. 

Graves, in turn, took issue with Lockheed's findings in SARA
III. 

He sited the disagreement in concentration levels of
contaminates between his tests and Lockheed's as a major concern
demanding further investigation. 

"Several private wells previously sampled by (our firm) were
found to contain excessively high levels of contaminants,
whereas data listed in the SARA III indicate nearby monitoring
wells contain little to no contamination," Graves wrote. "If the
differences are found to be correct, then each contaminated
private well must be considered as separate, isolated sources of
contamination and should be considered in the final remedial
action plan." 

Moreover, Lockheed failed to adequately explain the hydrology of
Tallevast or how water moves through the underground layers and
aquifers, Graves said. 

DEP spokeswoman Pamala Vazquez said Monday that DEP received
Graves' report, but had not begun to analyze the document. 

Vazquez said Graves' report would be carefully studied. 

"I think that Bill Kutash (who oversees the Tallevast cleanup)
has made it apparent that any information, regardless of who is
supplying, will be considered," Vazquez said. "He will take a
close look at it and try to incorporate as many comments from as
many sources as we can in our comments to Lockheed." 

DEP originally hoped to respond to SARA III by June 26, but
Kutash extended the review period estimate to make sure all data
is thoroughly analyzed, Vazquez said. 

Kutash and his staff are aware the level of concern and anxiety
among Tallevast residents, Vazquez said. 

Gail Rymer, Lockheed spokeswoman, had no comment on Graves'
report. 

In an e-mail response, she said she had not seen Graves' report
until the Herald provided a copy to her Monday afternoon. 

Ed Cottingham, lead attorney for more than 300 Tallevast
residents who have filed a lawsuit against Lockheed, said he had
not had a chance to study Graves' report. 

The Herald also sent a copy of Graves' report to Subra, who
responded via e-mail. 

"The comments prepared by Michael Graves correspond to the
comments I prepared," Subra wrote. "Graves focused primarily on
the lack of complete definition of the extent of contaminant
plumes in the various aquifer systems. He did not focus as much
on the lack of vertical extent of the ground water plumes while
focusing primarily on the lack of horizontal extent of the
plumes in the varying ground water zones." 

The one area where Subra felt Graves' report could have been
strengthened was his comparison of SARA III data on the private
wells to his own December report. He missed a vital report that
would have strengthen his case, Subra said. 

In May 2006, Lockheed Martin submitted to DEP a separate report
on a 2006 Private Well Survey. 

Graves told The Herald on Monday that he had not yet seen
Lockheed's separate well study, which is posted on the company's
Web site. 

"The data in that (May 2006) report would have added
tremendously in pointing out the inconsistencies and lacking of
horizontal extent of the contaminated ground water plumes,"
Subra said. "This points out the importance of examining all of
the data when evaluating the extend of environmental impacts
associated with the former ABC facility." 

Washington hopes DEP and Lockheed will hold public meetings to
address the SARA III report. 

She also hopes people take notice of the three reviews of
Lockheed's data. 

"How much more will it take for someone to step forward and say,
'Hey, these people are in trouble,' " Washington said. "The more
time passes, the more people could be harmed." 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. 

*****************************************************************
 85 AU ABC: Beef producer fears impact of nuclear dump
 
ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story 
 Wednesday, 5 July 2006. 14:31 (AEDT)Wednesday, 5 July 2006.

 One of the Northern Territory's largest pastoral companies
fears the image of its beef could be affected in overseas
markets if a nuclear waste facility is built in the Territory. 

S Kidman and Co, which runs over 50,000 cattle in the Barkly
region, says any transporting of waste material is likely to
pass near its Helen Springs station. 

General manager Greg Campbell says the company is worried by
potential contamination of local underground water systems and
this could affect the clean image of its meat. 

"One of our great prides as producers in Australia is that we
can produce a clean product, free of disease, free of pesticide
and chemical contamination," Mr Campbell said. 

"If we have even the threat or the taint of such risk attached
to our product it can have very serious consequences, or could
have very serious consequences." 

*****************************************************************
 86 New Vision Online: Govt studies uranium use
                 
Tuesday, 4th July, 2006     

THE Government is looking at mainly commercial interests from
the prospects of uranium, which exists in several parts of
Uganda, writes Jude Etyang.

�We are carrying out surveys to determine the commercial extent
of these minerals,� energy minister Daudi Migereko said
yesterday.

Migereko said an aerial survey was going to be carried out and
that it would be followed by exploratory work. The actual amount
of the radio-active, highly valuable mineral which is used for
making nuclear weaponry and communication gadgets, had not been
established.

He said Parliament was discussing the Atomic Energy Bill, which
will focus on the �peaceful aspects� of Uranium use, citing
medical use, X-ray technology and how radio-active material
should be disposed of.

A recent government report on the opportunities for mining
investment in Uganda showed that opportunities for discovering
radio-active minerals, including uranium, in commercial
quantities �appear good.�

Migereko said the energy ministry published the report as part
of government�s plan to exploit the mineral wealth.

�As government we are now saying we have all these minerals
under the ground, so we must take advantage of them,� he said.   

        
  [Mweya Safari Lodge]   
    
  � Copyright The New Vision 2000-2006. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 87 CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Radioactive waste moving through WNC, reports says
 
Asheville, NC   

by Angie Newsome, STAFF WRITER          

published July 5, 2006

ASHEVILLE � An Asheville-based coalition opposing the transport
of radioactive materials through Asheville released a report
last week calling for, among other things, more funding to help
emergency responders prepare for potential accidents in the area.

�We as a community have to do more than simply trust the federal
government to protect us,� coalition member Anne Craig told a
group of residents, officials and community leaders at the
release of �Asheville: At the Nuclear Crossroads,� written by
the Asheville coalition, Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads.

�It is time that our community begin an informed discussion and
we hope that this report may serve that effort,� she said.

Craig said the report was prompted in part by questions about
how much or what types of radioactive materials are shipped
through the area.

CITIZEN-TIMES.COM
*****************************************************************
 88 Post and Courier: 'Interim' dodge on nuclear waste

| Charleston.net | News | Charleston, SC
 
Wednesday, July 05, 2006 - Last Updated: 6:21 AM                       
 				
The nuclear waste storage plan incorporated in a Senate
appropriations bill takes the pressure off the government to
provide a timely permanent waste storage solution for commercial
radioactive waste, and removes state authority to veto the
presence of "interim" storage sites. In other words, South
Carolina, beware. 

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., would
open up interim storage sites at existing federal facilities,
presumably including the sprawling Savannah River Site near
Aiken. The sites would be used to take care of 50,000 tons of
highly radioactive waste now stored on site in 31 states by
commercial energy producers. 

The appropriations bill passed out of committee last week, and
will require both Senate and House approval. 

The provision for nuclear waste defines "interim" as 25 years.
SRS has been providing "temporary" storage of high-level
radioactive waste related to the production of nuclear weapons
for more than half a century. 

The federal government has been successfully sued by utilities
for failing to provide storage in a timely manner, as required
by law. Meanwhile, it has been unable to gain final approval of
a permanent repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev., largely because
of the determined opposition of that state. 

It is worth noting that Congress' major opponent to the Yucca
Mountain site, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., endorses the interim
storage plan. 

Sen. Domenici said that interim storage begins "to resolve the
nuclear waste problem," in comments to The Associated Press.
"This is an orderly way to do it." 

Mainly, it gets the federal government off the hotseat for
failing to complete a permanent storage site, despite the
expenditure of billions at Yucca Mountain. If approved, most of
the congressmen now in office will be given a breather on the
intransigent waste issue for the rest of their political lives.
Utilities presumably will be relieved of their storage
responsibilities and will stop suing the federal government.
Development of nuclear power will likely resume. 

And a few states would probably assume the waste storage burden
for the nation. If past is prelude, South Carolina would be
required to assume a major role, like it or not. Our congressmen
should oppose this plan. 			

*****************************************************************
 89 Knox News: Letters: workers frustrated

July 5, 2006                                                            

Article noted frustration by Oak Ridge workers Thanks to Frank
Munger for his front-page article, "Oak Ridge retirees let DOE
have it" in the News Sentinel, June 23. 

The article quite accurately noted the frustration level of the
standing-room-only crowd at the DOE presentation. The
presentation was unbelievably inadequate. 

As a 12-year retiree from the K-25 facility in Oak Ridge, I had a 
very difficult time with DOE's statements. 

For instance, they presented data indicating that DOE retiree
civil service benefits were inferior to those of DOE contractor
retirees: total nonsense. 

Civil service receives cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) yearly
whereas I, in 12 years of retirement, have had but one increase. 

In addition, the presentation indicated in several instances
that the market conditions had continually worsened: the Dow
Jones has never been better. 

They also mentioned that retirees should consider DOE's
operational considerations. 

Why should we? An unbelievable statement from the BWXT Y-12
representative indicated that one of the problems with the
pension plan is that the retirees are living too long - we
apologize for that. 

Chuck Sandguth summed up the situation quite adequately: 

DOE has no credibility among those present and probably with
others not present. 

WALTER D. HEDGE 
Lenoir City 

    � 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 90 Idaho Statesman: Buried plutonium

Letters to the Editor - The 

07-05-2006                

A recent Idaho Statesman editorial, on the buried plutonium
court case, incorrectly stated, "Lodge ruled that the feds must
dig up all plutonium-contaminated waste dumped at the Idaho
National Lab."

In actuality, Judge Lodge clearly notes that although the state
originally wanted "all" the plutonium particle waste removed,
they later agreed to leave half the plutonium, relabeled as
"alpha low-level," buried above the aquifer. On page 9, Lodge
said, "Late in the negotiations, the State ceded the point, and
alpha low-level waste was taken out of the final definition,
thereby removing any obligation upon the United States to remove
alpha low-level waste at INEL." 

Keep this in mind, because our delegation has volunteered us to
be the nuclear supersite, and do all the dirty work other states
rejected.

Why has Idaho opened a new plutonium particle dump onsite at
INL? The INL has proven it has no intention of upholding the
intent of agreements it already made to protect Idaho's water
and the health of our residents. 

The 1995 ad from our politicians and Lockheed claimed the deal
would "Say NO to leaving waste above the aquifer." Neither the
present politicians nor INL can be trusted.

Carol Sperry, Twin Falls

About IdahoStatesman.com


*****************************************************************
 91 Knox News: Munger: Politicians may decide DOE hot-button issues
					
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

July 5, 2006

Liar, liar, pants on fire. 

Well, I never actually heard anyone say that, but things got
pretty ugly June 22 when Oak Ridge retirees turned out in force
to tell the U.S. Department of Energy just what they thought of
proposed changes to contractor pension plans. 

In the course of an hour and a half, DOE was accused of poor
judgment, bad bookkeeping and general insensitivity. 

The forum at Pellissippi State Technical Community College was
intended for DOE to explain the changes - and reasons for them -
but most of those in attendance wanted to know one thing: When
were they going to see an increase in their monthly pension
checks? 

To her credit, Ingrid Kolb - an official from DOE headquarters
in Washington, D.C., who had the dubious distinction of being
the federal point person - didn't try to disguise her response
in some bumbling bureaucratese or evade the inevitable. 

In several ways and in so many words, she basically said: Ain't
gonna happen. 

That, of course, wasn't a popular response, and toward the end
of the meeting, Charlie Kuykendall, a former president of the
Oak Ridge retirees group, stood up and essentially told Kolb and
her colleagues: We've got news for you. We are gonna get a pay
raise. 

The underlying current was that the future of pension plans and
the determination on any increase in benefits for retirees will
probably be settled politically. 

DOE officials didn't want to postpone enactment of the new
pension plan for a year, but they did. And they didn't want to
hold the public forum on June 22, but they did. 

They did so because folks like U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.,
and U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., told them to do it. 

In much the same way, decisions on how to proceed on the pension
front will be heavily influenced by elected officials in
Washington. 

* * * 

Speaking of unpopular decisions, DOE also is getting hammered
for eliminating its Office of Environment, Safety and Health as
part of a reorganization. 

The Department of Energy said it will blend those functions and
duties into other parts of the agency, but the plan has drawn
criticism from elected officials, as well as environmental
groups and worker advocates. 

Glenn Bell, a longtime worker at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant,
raised his concerns in a July 1 letter to Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman. 

He said the environment and health group at DOE was one of the
more respected parts of the federal agency. 

"Despite the general distrust of DOE and the contractors, EH has
had unusually strong support from workers," said Bell, who has
chronic beryllium disease and heads the Y-12 beryllium support
group. 

"I have attended a number of DOE health-related conferences and
have seen improvements to worker health and safety programs and
communication. This momentum should not be lost in an unproven
and unnecessary organization. Identifying and repairing any
weaknesses in EH would be a much more rational approach." 

* * * 

The National Nuclear Security Administration last week announced
it had dismantled the last of the W-56 warheads, once deployed
on the Minuteman I and II intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

"The 1960s-era system has been safely and securely taken apart
and will never again be part of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile," the federal agency said in a statement distributed
to the news media. 

Sort of. 

The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant apparently hasn't finished its
part of the project. 

"The Y-12 National Security Complex has an ongoing dismantlement
campaign associated with the W-56," Steven Wyatt, a federal
spokesman at the Oak Ridge facility, said in response to
questions. "We cannot discuss specific details regarding this
effort." 

In its press release, the NNSA acknowledged there are four
stages of dismantlement, including the disposal or recycling of
warhead materials and components. That work traditionally takes
place at the site where parts were built originally, such as
Y-12, which specializes in so-called secondaries - the second
stage of nuclear warheads. 


Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion
section of knoxnews.com.

 					
� 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 92 lamonitor.com: Program said to have wasted millions on contractors 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor

Nuclear complex employees awaiting compensation for job-related
illnesses received a partial explanation for a frustrating
period that they went through during the first years of the
program. 
Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a
review that concluded the Department of Energy made improper and
questionable payments for nearly a third of the $92 million that
the department was given to administer a program that managed to
compensate only 31 sick workers during a period of four years.

By 2004, Congress was aware that there were problems with DOE's
handling of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000, and in October 2004,
they amended the act to transfer full administration to the
Department of Labor. 

The part of the program under review was set up to help nuclear
workers who did not qualify for a lump sum payment of $150,000.
Known as Subtitle D, this part of the program was supposed to
help DOE's employees file state workers compensation claims for
exposures to toxic substances other than the ones expressly
covered under the law.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Sen. Charles
Grassley, R, Iowa, chairman of the Committee on Finance and Sen.
Jim Bunning, R-Ky, asked the GAO to conduct the audit even
before the new law took effect. 
The senators found the results to be worse than they thought.

"It is hard to imagine that this program would be so badly
administered that nearly one-third of all payments it has made
have been improper or questionable," said Bingaman in a joint
release last week with the other two senators. 
The GAO report focuses on DOE's failure to monitor the contracts
and subcontracts, equipment inventories, travel and expense
ceilings. But the full scope of the affair remains to be counted.

One doctor under a contract with Westwood Group, Inc. with
little or no supervision, billed for 19 hours a day without
arousing suspicion; others routinely charged for nearly 80 hours
a week. Nurses were paid $180,000 a year. Bosses charged $200 an
hour, although they were only entitled to half that under the
contract; office assistants who completed travel related
paperwork were called "graphics illustrators," to qualify for a
$52/hour billing rate.

The largest piece of the program, amounting to $34 million went
to Science and Engineering Associates, Inc. (SEA). In an unusual
arrangement, that will be subject to further investigation, DOE
used an interagency agreement with the Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Center to award the contract to SEA under a blanket
purchase arrangement with the General Services Administration,
according to the GAO report.

In January 2004, it was purchased by Sidarus Inc., and in June
Sidaris was renamed Apogen Technologies. In September 2005,
Apogen became a wholly-owned subsidiary of QinetiQ North
America, a British defense and security firm, according to
QinetiQ's web site.

Apogen has an office in Albuquerque and a workplace in Los
Alamos, where it has a contract in the environmental stewardship
area.

The round-about contracting route employed by DOE virtually
assured diffused accountability and poor supervision, as well as
costly payment and reporting errors, the report found.

In response, the agencies largely concurred, but with some
qualifications.

DOE blamed the Navy department for a share of the problems and
the Navy department responded that it would reassess its
procedures, including its arrangements with GSA.

Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M. said in a press release on Thursday, "It
is regrettable that contractors were allowed to fleece the
government while at the same time claimants were left high and
dry."

In November, the Department of Justice reached a settlement
agreement with SEA, after an investigation of the $346 million
in labor charges they had charged the government from April 1999
to September 2005 under their overall contract with GSA.

"SEA paid $9.5 million," GAO reported. In turn, the Justice
Department released the company from any other claims, perhaps
including the questionable and improper claims identified in
GAO's subsequent report.

"I hope we can recover at least some of the taxpayer dollars
that are unaccounted for," Bingaman said in his announcement.

Printed 7/4/06   

  � 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************