*****************************************************************
07/09/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.161
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 IRNA: Iran, Germany meet to discuss issues of mutual concern
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Asks IAEA to Remove Chief Inspector
3 IRNA: Polenz stresses Berlin's "constructive role" in solving Iran n
4 IRNA: Iran wants nothing more than its rights - Larijani
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran to top G8 summit agenda - Russia
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran, Germany discuss bilateral ties
7 AFP: Iran to reply to nuclear offer in August
8 AFP: US to dangle nuclear deal in exchange for Russia's help on Iran
9 Guardian Unlimited: Dealing With North Korea May Prove Tricky
10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Pushes for United Front on N. Korea
11 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Crisis Hurts Unity on Iran Nukes
12 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Pledges to Talk Soon With North
13 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy Rejects N.Korea's Demands
14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Knows How to Get Attention
15 BBC: US spurns N Korean talks demands
16 IRNA: Any immature decision by G-8 on Iran to disturb N-talks - Mott
17 Hamilton Spectator: North Korea's a crazy neighbour, but so is the U
18 AFP: US, Japan press for unity to punish North Korea
19 AFP: NKorea braced for 'all-out war' as tensions mount
20 AFP: China should have 'one voice' with US on NKorea - Hill
21 AFP: China in tight spot as UN set to vote on NKorea sanctions -
22 Japan Times: Tokyo snubs Pyongyang threat over sanctions
23 Nuclear WMDs: 10th Anniversary Of ICJ Opinion Against Legality Of Nu
24 Guardian Unlimited: India Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile
25 Guardian Unlimited: Critics See G-8 Summit As Cold-War Relic
26 Guardian Unlimited: Bush to Pursue Nuclear Deal With Russia
27 Guardian Unlimited: Defence minister backs nuclear arms
28 Guardian Unlimited: Leader: Nuclear weapons
29 Times of India: India, IAEA meet on Safeguards Agreement
30 Navhind Times: India, IAEA hold talks on nuke safeguards pact
31 AFP: India tests nuclear-capable missile
32 AFP: India, IAEA discuss nuclear safeguards agreement
NUCLEAR REACTORS
33 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power 'to expand across G8'
34 The Observer: Energy review 'a sham' to back Blair on nuclear
35 Guardian Unlimited: Obsession with nuclear power is wrong for Britai
36 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, U.S. Eye Nuke Power Cooperation
37 The Observer: Gas on high heat as Western power takes on Russia's en
38 Guardian Unlimited: Revealed: Blair's energy blueprint
39 London Times: Tough choices on energy -
40 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Injunction sought against Diablo projec
41 BBC: UK sees nuclear power as 'viable'
42 Sunday Herald: Politcal consensus on power is overdue -
43 Sunday Herald: Lower grade uranium could hasten climate change pace
44 Sunday Herald: Conveniently clouding over the lessons of Britains nu
45 US: APP.COM - Roads the reason to ditch plan
46 US: APP.COM: Public gets say on new Oyster Creek report
47 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point plant returns to full power
48 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3 back online
49 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Vernon weighs appeal of VY plant valuation
50 Reuters: U.S., Russia to pursue civilian nuclear pact
51 US: tulsaworld.com: Nuclear power
52 Scotsman.com News: SNP vows 'no more nuclear power plants' if
53 AFP: Bush to allow US civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia - rep
NUCLEAR SECURITY
54 US: New York Times: Bush Says Korean Missile Shows Need for Shield -
NUCLEAR SAFETY
55 Japan Times: Shipboard reactors pose radiation leak risk if attacked
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
56 Sydney Morning Herald: Govt must consider nuclear dump - Libs MP -
57 Las Vegas SUN: Brian Greenspun remembers Clinton's advice about Reid
58 reviewjournal.com: MIT geologist finds fault with Yucca assessment
59 AP: Nuclear waste a challenge in Asia
60 AP: Geologist says Yucca lacks geological input
61 US: The Dispatch: Olin Corporation's Solution: More Monitoring
62 This Is Essex: Radioactive Waste Will Be Burnt
63 New York Times: U.S. to Negotiate Russian Storage of Atomic Waste -
64 US: Lockport Union-Sun & Journal: A challenging process
65 MNT: Accidents And Incidents Involving The Transport Of Radioactive
66 AU ABC: Nuclear waste fact-finding tour useful, says Minister.
67 The Australian: Minister defies PM's promise on nuclear dump
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
68 SF New Mexican: LANL: Groundbreaking highlights group’s success
69 Knox News: Reactor used for backup taken apart in ORNL Lab
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IRNA: Iran, Germany meet to discuss issues of mutual concern
Berlin, July 8, IRNA
Iran-Germany-Parliament
Iranian Ambassador to Germany Mohammad-Mehdi Akhoundzadeh
discussed bilateral ties with the German Parliament's Foreign
Policy Commission Chairman Ruprecht Polenz.
Both sides examined latest international developments and
Iran's peaceful nuclear activities on Friday while stressing the
necessity of adopting a strategy to resolve the Iran nuclear
issue.
Pointing out the Iranians' strong determination to achieve
economic development as shown in the government's 2025 Vision
Plan, Akhoundzadeh highlighted the constructive role played by
the country in international affairs.
"Having access to nuclear power for peaceful purposes is the
inanianable right of Iranians whose government is seriously
pursuing their rights," he said.
Polenz said his country was trying to play a part in resolving
the Iran nuclear issue.
Referring to Iran as a major power in the region and in the
international arena, he expressed concern over the resurgence of
insecurity and increase in production of narcotics in
Afghanistan.
He called for Iran-Germany cooperation in improving the
situation in Afghanistan.
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Asks IAEA to Remove Chief Inspector
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday July 9, 2006 3:16 PM
AP Photo VAH101
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
BETINA, Croatia (AP) - Iran has asked the International Atomic
Energy Agency to remove the head of the inspection team probing
Tehran's nuclear program, U.N. officials said Sunday.
The inspector, Chris Charlier, has not been back to Iran since
April because of Iranian displeasure with his work, the
officials said.
However, Charlier remains the head of the team, they said,
speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue was
confidential.
The German newspaper Welt am Sonntag reported Sunday that
Charlier had been removed from his post and assigned to other
duties. It quoted him as saying he believes Iran is operating a
clandestine nuclear program and suggested it was linked to
weapons.
IAEA spokespeople in Vienna, Austria, declined comment Sunday.
Charlier, 61, has previously complained publicly that Iranian
constraints made inspection work there difficult.
Tehran denies it is interested in nuclear weapons but
revelations of past clandestine activities and finds of
documents linked to warheads, along with its insistence on
carrying out uranium enrichment, have heightened international
suspicions.
Meanwhile, Tehran warned the Group of Eight Sunday against
making any decisions on Iran's nuclear program without
consulting it first.
``Any (G-8) summit decision on Iran - if premature and
incomplete - could harm the current positive trend of
negotiations,'' Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
said, referring to talks with the European Union about an
incentives package offered to Iran to end the impasse over its
nuclear program.
``The G-8 summit won't be comprehensive without Iran's
participation and opinion,'' Mottaki said of the gathering by
the leaders of the world's largest economies that is scheduled
to open Saturday in St. Petersburg, Russia.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and top Iran nuclear envoy
Ali Larijani met in Brussels, Belgium, last week. A formal
meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.
On Sunday, Mottaki reiterated that Iran would give a formal
response to the offer by the five permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council and Germany next month. He hinted that Tehran
planned to negotiate some aspects of the package first.
The West wants Iran to respond to the incentives before the G-8
summit.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 IRNA: Polenz stresses Berlin's "constructive role" in solving Iran nuclear row -
Berlin, July 8, IRNA
Germany-Iran-Polenz
The influential chairman of the foreign policy committee of the
German Parliament, Ruprecht Polenz stressed Berlin's
"constructive role" in resolving the ongoing dispute over Iran's
nuclear program.
He made the remark following his meeting with Iran's Ambassador
to Germany, Mohammad Mehdi Akhoundzadeh in Berlin on Friday.
Both sides urged a "constructive approach based on dialogue and
cooperation" to settle the Iranian nuclear case.
Akhoundzadeh reiterated Iran's determined stance on the
peaceful use of civilian nuclear energy.
The top diplomat reaffirmed the Iranian nation's inalienable
right to have peaceful nuclear power.
Polenz, a senior lawmaker of the ruling Christian Democratic
Union, has repeatedly called for a diplomatic settlement of
Iran's nuclear dossier.
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: Iran wants nothing more than its rights - Larijani
Madrid, July 8, IRNA
Spain-Nuclear-Larijani
Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali
Larijani here on Friday stressed that the Islamic Republic of
Iran desires nothing beyond its legitimate rights under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Talking to reporters, he said Iran is a signatory to the NPT
and wants only recognition of its rights.
"If we are dealt with according to international rules, we will
accept the proposal," he added. He was referring to the nuclear
package handed by EU foreign policy chief Jaiver Solana to Iran
on June 6 offering economic and other incentives in exchange for
suspension of uranium enrichment.
Asked whether Iran was optimistic with regard to the new
European offer, Larijani said "there is no reason for being
pessimistic." On his scheduled meeting with Solana on Tuesday,
Larijani said:
"We believe Iran's N-case can be settled through negotiations
because the issue is not that complicated that it cannot be
settled through talks."
On the issue of Iran taking further confidence-building
measures, Larijani said the matter will be decided when Europe
changes its attitude towards Iran. He said realization of this
issue is "possible only through practical means and not by
words."
"Iran is ready to take joint steps with Europe on the basis of
mutual interest but only when the ground is suitable," he added.
He cited lifting of the ban on the sale of modern equipment to
Iran by Europe as one of the conditions for Iran to take more
confidence-building measures, saying this is an obstacle to
Iran-Europe relations.
Larijani said that Iran and the European Union had many common
interests in the region, adding that Iran was capable of
providing energy security to Europe through continued supply of
gas to European states.
He said the issue is among "several issues" confronting states
and suggested that the two sides work on these "common
interests." As to the change of attitude noted in the Europeans
toward Iran's N-case, Larijani said that Tehran, from the very
beginning, believed sending of Iran's case to the United Nations
Security Council was a mistake.
"We believe that the language of force is not effective today,"
he added.
Iran has repeatedly said that the nuclear issue ought to be
settled through negotiations, he said, and added that"in the
field of peaceful nuclear technology, we, as a member of the
NPT, do not want anything more than our rights."
"Iran, as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and a signatory to the NPT, has accepted supervision and
sees no problem in observing international rules and, therefore,
problems regarding its nuclear activities should be settled
through negotiations," Iran's chief negotiator said.
On that logic, "Iran has noticed a change in the attitude of
Western countries and welcomes the change," he told reporters.
*****************************************************************
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran to top G8 summit agenda - Russia
2006/07/08
The leader of Russia's Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov, said
in Moscow on Saturday that Iran's nuclear case would top the
agenda of the summit of the world's leading industrialized
countries (G8) slated to be held in the eastern Russian port
city of St Petersburg on July 15-17.
Zyuganov's remarks were made during an exclusive interview with
IRNA in which he highlighted Iran's key role and position in the
region and its ancient civilization.
He stressed that a fair settlement of Iran's nuclear case could
only be achieved through negotiations.
He warned that America and western adventurism in Iranian
affairs would lead to instability of the entire region.
Pointing to American strategies in the region, including
rallying other advanced states and international organizations
to support its plans to manipulate affairs of independent
states, he urged Russia and other countries keen on defending
international stability to act more responsibly.
The representative of Russia's state Duma, who criticized the
America's attitude towards Iran's nuclear case, said G-8 member
states should act in such a way that "the mistake committed in
Iraq would not see a repeat in Iran."
He expressed his opposition to Russian participation in any
American move to dictate its policies on independent states.
mk
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran, Germany discuss bilateral ties
2006/07/08
Iranian Ambassador to Germany Mohammad-Mehdi Akhoundzadeh
discussed bilateral ties with the German Parliament's Foreign
Policy Commission Chairman Ruprecht Polenz.
Both sides examined latest international developments and
Iran's peaceful nuclear activities on Friday while stressing the
necessity of adopting a strategy to resolve the Iran nuclear
issue.
Pointing out the Iranians' strong determination to achieve
economic development as shown in the government's 2025 vision
plan, Akhoundzadeh highlighted the constructive role played by
the country in international affairs.
"Having access to nuclear power for peaceful purposes is the
inalienable right of Iranians whose government is seriously
pursuing their rights," he said.
Polenz said his country was trying to play a part in resolving
the Iran nuclear issue. Referring to Iran as a major power in
the region and in the international arena, he expressed concern
over the resurgence of insecurity and increase in production of
narcotics in Afghanistan.
He called for Iran-Germany cooperation in improving the
situation in Afghanistan.
M.H.Z
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: Iran to reply to nuclear offer in August
Sun Jul 9, 6:57 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran " /> Iranhas said it will take until the
second half of August to respond to an international offer of
incentives in return for the suspension of sensitive nuclear
work.
"They need to respond to the ambiguities we have identified,"
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said of the offer, drawn up
by the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany and
presented to Iran on June 6.
"These questions must be answered by the decision-makers. It is
not Mr Solana who can answer," he said of EU foreign policy
chief Javier Solana, who is due to meet Iran's top nuclear
negotiator Ali Larijani on Tuesday.
"We will respond in the last week of Mordad," Mottaki added,
referring to the Iranian month which ends on August 22.
Tehran is facing mounting international pressure to show before
the Group of Eight (G8) summit from July 15-17 that it is ready
to accept the offer from the six powers.
But Mottaki warned world leaders not to rush to take any
decision in the absence of a reply.
"We won't be attending the G8 meeting, so any decision taken
without us being present, if half-baked, could hurt the positive
atmosphere that has been created," Mottaki told reporters.
The Islamic republic has insisted it is serious about defusing
the nuclear standoff, but has so far indicated that it is
unwilling to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
Iran says it wants to enrich uranium only to make civilian
reactor fuel, although the process can be extended to make
nuclear weapons.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: US to dangle nuclear deal in exchange for Russia's help on Iran
by Maxim Kniazkov Sun Jul 9, 4:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said it is beginning
negotiations with Russia on a potentially lucrative nuclear
energy accord, but made clear any deal would be conditional on
Moscow's full cooperation in US attempts to block Iranian nuclear
ambitions.
Russia and China have been a key impediment to efforts by the
United States to rally members of the UN Security Council behind
its plan to slap international sanctions on Tehran in order to
force it to halt uranium enrichment.
The issue is expected to be front and center in negotiations
between President George W. Bush " /> President George W. Bushand
his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin " /> Vladimir Putin, at a
Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg next weekend.
Although details of the proposed deal have not been released, it
is seen as an attempt by the Bush administration to soften
Russia's recalcitrance ahead of the Bush-Putin talks and bring
Moscow firmly into the US camp.
"We are initiating negotiations on a peaceful nuclear
cooperation agreement with Russia," White House spokesman Peter
Watkins told AFP on Saturday. "Such an agreement would benefit
both the United States and Russia and indeed the world by
enabling advances in greater use of nuclear energy."
He did not say when the talks would formally begin, but another
official speaking on condition of anonymity said a formal
announcement could be expected at the G8 summit.
The White House official, however, was adamant in linking the
deal to Russia's approach to Iran " /> Iranand its readiness to
cooperate with the Bush administration in halting what it sees as
Iran's secret nuclear weapons program.
"We have made clear to Russia that for an agreement on peaceful
nuclear cooperation with the United States to go forward, we will
need Russia's active cooperation in blocking Iran's attempts to
obtain nuclear weapons," Watkins said.
"Our policy on assistance to Iran's nuclear program has not
changed," he added.
Under the proposed deal, Russia could become a key international
repository of spent nuclear fuel, including from countries that
use US-supplied nuclear reactors, a lucrative arrangement that
may also pave the way for it becoming a leading supplier of
nuclear technology and fuel around the world, US media reports
said.
The US government had opposed such cooperation up to now in part
because of Russia's assistance to Iran in building a nuclear
power plant in Bushehr, a project opposed by the United States.
A change in procedures for handling nuclear waste coming from
US-built reactors operating overseas will require congressional
approval, and there were indications Saturday it may not come
easy.
Democratic Representative Edward Markey (news, bio, voting
record), who co-chairs the Bipartisan Task Force on
Nonproliferation, was quoted by The New York Times as saying
turning Russia into a nuclear waste dump would create "one-stop
shopping for nuclear terrorists and would-be proliferators."
Nevertheless, Watkins indicated the deal would be in line with
Bush vision for expanded reliance on peaceful nuclear power
around the world, provided all the safeguards required by the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty were strictly observed.
"The president has said that states that comply with their
obligations under the NPT have a right to peacefully use their
nuclear energy," he said.
The proposed deal, experts said, was also aimed at allaying
concerns in Russia that economic sanctions against Iran, a major
trading partner, would boomerang against it.
Bush hinted at his willingness to address the issue Friday when
he told reporters in Chicago that he was determined to bring
doubters to America's side.
"Some nations are more comfortable with sanctions than other
nations, and part of the issue we face in some of these
countries is that they've got economic interests," he said. "And
part of our objective is to make sure that national security
interests, security of the world interests trump economic
interests."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: Dealing With North Korea May Prove Tricky
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday July 8, 2006 6:46 PM
AP Photo XUN304
By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - China is North Korea's No. 1 ally and
trading partner. South Korea and Japan are key economic players.
The United States offers the isolated Communist state diplomatic
recognition and security guarantees.
And Russia - which has worked in recent years to re-establish
Soviet-era ties with Pyongyang - also brings political and
economic clout.
Yet North Korea brushed aside warnings from these friends and
foes when it launched a barrage of ballistic missiles. Then,
ignoring near universal condemnation, it threatened new missile
tests and retaliation against anyone trying to stop them.
All parties agree that a peaceful solution depends on
Pyongyang's rejoining stalled six-party talks on its nuclear
program.
But who, if anyone, has the leverage to get them back to the
table?
U.N. and other diplomatic efforts are intensifying to try to
pressure Pyongyang. China is sending an envoy to the North, and
South Korea is holding high-level talks with Pyongyang next
week.
Japan, a possible target of North Korean missiles, is sponsoring
a Security Council resolution calling for sanctions against
Pyongyang, which China and Russia oppose. It unilaterally
imposed limited sanctions this week, including banning a North
Korean ferry from Japanese ports.
The North has said it would consider sanctions a declaration of
war, and a North Korean envoy responded Friday by threatening
retaliation against Japan if the measures aren't lifted.
Beijing and Moscow are clearly concerned that sanctions and
putting a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter - which
allows military enforcement - could lead North Korea to launch
more missiles and to withdraw completely from the six-party
talks, thereby closing the main arena for diplomatic exchange.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said countries with influence,
clearly referring to China, have the responsibility to bring the
North Koreans back into compliance with a moratorium on missile
launches and back into dialogue. The talks involving the United
States, Russia, China, the two Koreas and Japan have been
stalled since September.
``It's a question of when and under what circumstances North
Korea will come to its senses and proceed back into the talks,''
Bolton said.
Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador, Konstantin Dolgov, urged all
countries involved in the six-party talks to continue diplomatic
efforts ``to prevent any further escalation.''
For now, the international community should do nothing rash and
remain united, because North Korea ``always seeks to split
alliances,'' said Michael Levi, a fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations in New York.
Levi, an arms-control expert, said the greatest leverage the
United States has is its ability to offer North Korea security
guarantees, possibly leading it to curb or halt its nuclear
ambitions.
``If the U.S. were to immediately offer incentives to North
Korea, it would send the wrong message,'' he said. ``But in the
long term, that's exactly what it's going to have to do.''
Balbina Hwang, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think tank, and editor of the
quarterly magazine U.S. Korea Tomorrow, said six-party talks are
``the way to go'' but sanctions should also be pursued to
isolate Pyongyang.
``If people think a (U.N.) resolution or condemnation will get
North Korea to stop its behavior, it won't,'' she said. ``It's a
minimum and not sufficient.''
So what would work?
Hwang advocates a calibrated mix of diplomacy and pressure. She
believes that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il launched the
missiles partly to test the resolve of China and South Korea and
gauge the reactions of the United States and Japan.
``Unfortunately, the reactions showed that the North can keep
going,'' she said.
The missile tests revealed that China and South Korea are
unwilling to use their limited influence, that the United States
had no plans to launch a retaliatory attack, and that Japan -
despite its tough talk - will take only limited steps, Hwang
said. China, whose trade with North Korea hit a record $1.58
billion last year, has imposed no restrictions on Pyongyang.
According to Levi, Beijing does not want to see a collapse in
the North leading to a massive influx of refugees.
South Korea, whose trade with the North reached an all-time high
of $1.05 billion last year, has delayed food and fertilizer
shipments until the missile crisis is resolved. Yet Levi said it
was unclear if there was political will in the South to get
tougher.
``In theory,'' he said, ``both South Korea and China have
significant leverage because of their roles in keeping the North
Korean economy afloat. But realistically, they are unlikely to
use those levers.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Pushes for United Front on N. Korea
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday July 9, 2006 6:46 PM
AP Photo TOK102
By HANS GREIMEL Associated Press Writer
TOKYO (AP) - A top U.S. envoy pushed for a united international
front against North Korea's recent missile tests Sunday, but
divisions widened over a U.S.-backed Japanese proposal for
sanctions against Pyongyang.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill was in Tokyo
ahead of a possible vote in the U.N. Security Council on the
resolution. Despite resistance from China and Russia, Japanese
Foreign Minister Taro Aso vowed Sunday not to compromise on the
measure's tough wording.
South Korea has not publicly taken a position on the resolution
but on Sunday issued a harsh rebuke of Japan's outspoken
criticism of the North Korean missile launches last week.
``There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn
like Japan, but every reason to do the opposite,'' a statement
from President Roh Moo-hyun's office said, suggesting that Tokyo
was helping to heighten tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea also issued fresh threats. The North's state-run
Korean Central Broadcasting Station, monitored by South Korea's
Yonhap news agency, cited a previous statement by leader Kim
Jong Il vowing ``to answer to an enemy's retaliation with
retaliation and to an all-out war with an all-out war.''
China and Russia, two of North Korea's traditional allies,
remained the two veto-wielding permanent members of the Security
Council who have voiced opposition to the resolution, which
Japan hopes to put to a vote on Monday.
Despite the divisions, a top U.S. diplomat voiced optimism about
forming a common strategy and urged China to put pressure on
North Korea to end its launches and to return to international
nuclear disarmament talks.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, on CNN's Late Edition,
said Sunday the United States hopes Beijing will ``exert some
pressure on the North Korean regime to get it to come back to
the six-party talks and end these missile tests.''
Hill, who arrived in Japan after stops in Beijing and Seoul,
denied any deep split over North Korea or the Japanese
resolution.
``I don't see any splintering. On the contrary, I see a very
clear message,'' Hill said in Tokyo, where he was expected to
hold talks with Aso on Monday. ``All countries are showing
resolve in the ways that they can.''
Song Min-soon, South Korea's presidential security adviser,
however, told The Associated Press that Seoul was not convinced
sanctions would stop North Korea's missile efforts, adding more
work was needed to see whether that was the best step to take.
Roh's office followed that up with a statement defending its
calm approach and suggesting that Japan's reaction was too
shrill.
``It is not any good to heighten tensions on the Korean
Peninsula or aggravate the South-North relations and neither
does it help to solve the nuclear issue or the missile issue,''
the statement said.
Amid the divisions over sanctions, China's idea for an informal
gathering of the countries involved in the six-party talks
appeared to be gaining traction. North Korea has been boycotting
the formal six-nation talks to protest a U.S. crackdown on its
alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes.
An informal gathering could allow Pyongyang to technically stand
by its boycott, but at the same time meet with the other five
parties - South Korea, China, the U.S., Japan and Russia. Hill
backed the proposal on Saturday, and said Washington could meet
with the North on the sidelines of such a meeting.
Japan, which sits within easy range of North Korean missiles,
said Sunday it won't compromise on the U.N. resolution, which
prohibits nations from procuring missiles or missile-related
``items, materials goods and technology'' from North Korea, or
from transferring financial resources connected to the North's
program.
``To compromise because of one country which has veto power,
even though most other countries support us, sends the wrong
message,'' Aso told national broadcaster NHK. ``We can't alter
our stance.''
Aso said there is a possibility that Russia will abstain,
leaving China as a possible sole veto. Nine of 15 votes on the
Security Council are needed to pass the resolution. The United
States, Britain and France have expressed support for the
resolution.
As behind-the-scenes negotiations gathered pace, North Korea's
ambassador to Australia warned in a newspaper article that
international attempts to halt his nation's missile tests could
trigger war.
Ambassador Chon Jae Hong, writing in Melbourne's Sunday Herald
Sun, defended Pyongyang's missile launches as routine military
drills.
``It is a lesson taught by history and a stark reality of
international relations, proven by the Iraqi crisis, that the
upsetting of the balance of force is bound to create instability
and spark even a war,'' Chon said.
Also Sunday, Aso and Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing held a
35-minute telephone call to discuss the U.N. Security Council
response, Kyodo News agency said. Aso was believed to have asked
China not to use its veto power to shoot down the North Korea
resolution, the report said.
South Korea has taken a mixed approach toward the North. It
condemned the tests and cut off some aid, but has also called
for ``patient dialogue'' and plans to go ahead with bilateral
talks with Pyongyang later this week.
A South Korean delegation still plans to host meetings from
Tuesday to Friday in the southern port city of Busan. The
Cabinet-level talks are the highest-level regular contacts
between the two Koreas, started after a North-South summit in
2000.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Crisis Hurts Unity on Iran Nukes
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday July 9, 2006 7:01 PM
AP Photo VAH103
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
With the uproar over North Korea's missile tests, America and
its allies are fretting that all the attention could hurt their
effort to curb Iran's suspect nuclear program.
Some diplomats involved in both issues fear international focus
is shifting too much to Pyongyang, which test-fired seven
missiles Wednesday. The U.N. Security Council is working on a
resolution on North Korea as the U.S. and other nations seek
ways to engage the regime in talks.
Publicly, senior officials say Washington and other big powers
can keep both balls in the air.
``I don't agree that one issue distracts from the other,'' John
Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told The
Associated Press in a phone call from New York. ``I think we are
very focused on both of them and fully capable of dealing with
both of them.''
But privately, diplomats based in Europe said over the past few
days that the North Korean crisis could push talks with Iran
further down the international agenda.
Iranian officials, who insist they are wrongly suspected of
trying to develop atomic weapons, have said they will not
respond before mid-August to an incentives offer extended by six
nations seeking to get Iran to stop enriching uranium.
The six countries - the five permanent U.N. Security Council
nations and Germany - want an answer by Wednesday, when their
foreign ministers consult in Paris. But a diplomat said Iran is
trying to delay its response past next weekend's Group of Eight
summit hosted by Russia.
Before the summit, the U.S. and its allies on the Security
Council - all G-8 members - ``can apply pressure on Russia'' to
stand with the West in dealing with Iran, the diplomat said.
That lever will be weaker after the St. Petersburg meeting, he
said.
Like others interviewed, the diplomat agreed to discuss the
Iranian and North Korean standoffs only if granted anonymity
because of the sensitive nature of negotiations among all the
parties.
The North Korean crisis is, in some ways, similar to
international concerns about Iran's nuclear program - and that
worries diplomats and European officials involved in trying to
entice Tehran into negotiations because both involve the same
major players.
``We are trying to negotiate two sanctions resolutions with the
same countries involved in both cases,'' said a U.N. diplomat
familiar with Security Council efforts to pressure both Tehran
and Pyongyang to compromise. ``This will be a very complicated
challenge.''
The United States, France and Britain support U.N. sanctions for
both countries if they don't back down, while that is opposed by
Russia and China, the council's other two permanent members that
have the power to veto its actions.
As they did previously for Iran, both Moscow and Beijing suggest
that pushing for sanctions quickly against North Korea could
inflame tensions. And a sharp dispute over how to deal with
Pyongyang could in turn exacerbate the differences over Iran.
Even before the North Korean crisis, Washington was frustrated
with the slow pace of multinational diplomacy on Iran.
A second U.N. diplomat told AP that the Americans considered
Thursday's informal meeting between European Union envoy Javier
Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani a flop that
failed to advance the six-nation effort to get Tehran to freeze
uranium enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear
program.
Revealing his impatience, President Bush said Friday that
diplomacy is ``kind of painful in a way for some to watch
because it takes a while to get people on the same page.''
A European official said that while the Americans remained
interested in a negotiated solution to the Iran issue, including
joining in multilateral talks, ``the negotiating mode is
suddenly less valued'' in Washington because of the unexpected
North Korean developments.
And with the North Korean crisis now suddenly also on the G-8
agenda, some diplomats said Iran could be moved to the back
burner, just days after being the main international focus of
concern.
Iran's government warned Sunday that the G-8 nations should not
make any decisions on its nuclear program without consulting it
first.
``Any summit decision on Iran - if premature and incomplete -
could harm the current positive trend of negotiations,'' Iranian
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, referring to talks
with the European Union about the incentives package.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Pledges to Talk Soon With North
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday July 8, 2006 3:01 AM
AP Photo TOK201
By JOSEPH COLEMAN
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea said Friday it would
withhold food and fertilizer shipments to impoverished North
Korea until the missile crisis is resolved, even as it pledged
to hold high-level talks with the communist regime next week.
Meanwhile, a top U.S. envoy agreed with China to coordinate
strategy on the North.
It remained unclear whether North Korea was planning to fire
more missiles. South Korean officials said another long-range
missile may be at a launch site, but the latest intelligence
showed no signs the reclusive regime was getting ready for more
tests.
Pyongyang triggered an international furor Wednesday when it
test-fired seven missiles that plunged into the Sea of Japan
without causing damage or injury.
Japan and the United States have led an effort for the U.N. to
impose sanctions, but China and Russia have called for softer
measures. On Friday, Japan circulated a draft resolution that
would order countries to ``take those steps necessary'' to keep
the North from acquiring items that could be used for its
missile program. Diplomats said it could be put to a vote
Saturday.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, dispatched
to the region in the wake of the missile barrage, met with
Chinese officials and won agreement to work together to restore
regional calm. Hill said the Chinese, the North's top allies,
were plainly displeased by the missile tests.
``They were very clear in their views of the North Korean
missile launches, very clear that they have no interest in
seeing this happen and do not regard this in any way
positively,'' Hill said before leaving Beijing for South Korea.
He was also expected to visit Japan.
South Korea, which has worked for warmer ties with Pyongyang
since a 2000 North-South summit, attempted to take a middle
path, withholding aid shipments and rejecting a Northern request
for military talks, but also announcing it would hold
Cabinet-level meetings with the North next week.
Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said Seoul would hold off on
plans to send 500,000 tons of rice and 100,000 tons of
fertilizer to North Korea.
``This will continue until there is an exit out of the missile
problem,'' Lee's spokesman, Yang Chang-seok, quoted him as
saying, without explaining what would constitute an exit.
The North had requested 450,000 tons of fertilizer this year, of
which the South has already shipped 350,000 tons. Pyongyang,
which is largely dependent on handouts of food and other
supplies to maintain its poverty-stricken population, has also
asked for 500,000 tons of rice.
South Korea also turned down a North Korean proposal to hold
military talks this week, saying the time was not right. But
Cabinet-level talks originally scheduled to start next Tuesday
in the southern city of Busan were to go ahead, officials said.
``The government judged that it's necessary to continue with
dialogue efforts to resolve the current situation over the
North's missile launch,'' said Lee Kwan-se, a Unification
Ministry official.
Uncertainty surrounded North Korea's next step. South Korea's
defense agency said an additional long-range Taepodong-2 missile
could be at the North's launch site, but that a further test was
not imminent.
The North, however, said it had the right to test missiles.
Han Song Ryol, deputy chief of North Korea's mission to the
United Nations in New York, reiterated a long-standing demand
this week, saying his country would return to nuclear talks if
the U.S. eases financial restrictions against the North, South
Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Saturday.
Yonhap on Friday quoted Choe Myong Nam, councilor at the North's
U.N. mission in Geneva, as saying the launches were successful
and could be continued, echoing an earlier statement by North
Korea's Foreign Ministry.
``It's an unfair logic to say that somebody can do something and
others cannot. The same logic applies to nuclear possession,''
Choe said. The missile launches are ``not intended to strike
anyone and it's the North position that missile launches could
be continued,'' he said.
South Korea ordered two South Korean airlines to avoid a flight
route near the path of the missiles fired this week. The Civil
Aviation Safety Authority told the two airlines, Asiana Airlines
and Korean Air, not to use a flight route over the sea between
the Korean peninsula and Japan starting Friday until Tuesday.
The United States kept up its diplomatic drive to forge a common
strategy among the main players in the region. On Thursday, the
United States said the world must speak with one voice in
pressing North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons and return
to multinational talks.
Much of the focus is on China, which provides oil and other
economic assistance to North Korea and is seen as a critical
player in diplomacy with Pyongyang. The U.S. has urged Beijing
to exert leverage on North Korea, though so far Chinese efforts
have been largely limited to diplomatic appeals.
China, North Korea's closest ally, and Russia, which has been
trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with the Stalinist state,
showed little interest in sanctions, saying diplomacy remains
the only way to resolve the dispute.
---
Associated Press writers Audra Ang in Beijing and Kwang-tae Kim
and Jae-soon Chang in Seoul contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
13 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy Rejects N.Korea's Demands
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday July 8, 2006 7:31 AM
AP Photo TOK201
By JOSEPH COLEMAN Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - A top U.S. envoy on Saturday rejected
North Korea's demand that Washington lift financial measures
against the regime as a condition for returning to six-party
talks on its nuclear program.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill spoke after a
meeting with Chun Young-woo, South Korea's top negotiator in
international nuclear talks. He was on a tour of the region to
coordinate the response to North Korea's test of seven missiles
on Wednesday.
``This is not a time for so-called gestures of that kind,'' Hill
said when asked by reporters for reaction to the North Korean
demand. ``We have a country that has fired off missiles in a
truly reckless way that affects ... regional security.''
North Korea's missile tests caused an international furor, and a
draft U.N. resolution on sanctions against the reclusive regime
could be put to a vote Saturday. The missiles plunged into the
Sea of Japan without causing damage or injury.
South Korea said Friday it would withhold food and fertilizer
shipments to impoverished North Korea until the missile crisis
is resolved, even as it pledged to hold high-level talks with
the communist regime next week.
It remained unclear whether North Korea was planning to fire
more missiles. South Korea's defense agency said an additional
long-range Taepodong-2 missile could be at the North's launch
site, but the latest intelligence showed no signs the reclusive
regime was getting ready for more tests.
The North, however, said it had the right to test missiles.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency on Friday quoted Choe Myong
Nam, councilor at the North's U.N. mission in Geneva, as saying
the launches were successful and could be continued, echoing an
earlier statement by North Korea's Foreign Ministry.
Another North Korean diplomat said North Korea was willing to
return to the six-nation nuclear talks if it is allowed to
withdraw its money frozen in accounts of a bank blacklisted by
the United States, Yonhap reported.
Han Song Ryol, deputy chief of North Korea's mission to the
United Nations in New York, made the remark, renewing the
North's long-standing demand that the U.S. lift financial
restrictions imposed on a Macau bank for allegedly aiding the
North's illicit activities.
``Removing the freeze on Macau funds is the minimum threshold to
resumption of talks,'' Han said. ``If there is such a will, then
how we talk, whether bilaterally or through six-party talks, is
not important.''
Officials have said the North may have launched the missiles to
draw Washington into direct talks, something the U.S. has
refused. Hill, however, said he backed a Chinese proposal for an
informal meeting of countries involved in the nuclear talks. The
two Koreas, China, Russia, Japan and the U.S are the six
countries involved.
Japan and the United States have led an effort for the U.N. to
impose sanctions, but China and Russia have called for softer
measures. On Friday, Japan circulated a draft resolution that
would order countries to ``take those steps necessary'' to keep
the North from acquiring items that could be used for its
missile program. Diplomats said it could be put to a vote
Saturday.
South Korea, which has worked for warmer ties with Pyongyang
since a 2000 North-South summit, attempted to take a middle
path, withholding aid shipments and rejecting a Northern request
for military talks, but also announcing it would hold
Cabinet-level meetings with the North next week.
Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said Seoul would hold off on
plans to send 500,000 tons of rice and 100,000 tons of
fertilizer to North Korea.
The North had requested 450,000 tons of fertilizer this year, of
which the South has already shipped 350,000 tons. Pyongyang,
which is largely dependent on handouts of food and other
supplies to maintain its poverty-stricken population, has also
asked for 500,000 tons of rice.
South Korea also turned down a North Korean proposal to hold
military talks this week, saying the time was not right. But
Cabinet-level talks originally scheduled to start next Tuesday
in the southern city of Busan were to go ahead, officials said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Knows How to Get Attention
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday July 8, 2006 5:16 PM
AP Photo WX105
By CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea is well practiced in getting some
of what it wants through provocation. Bullying through a
bullhorn has worked time and again for a small nation with an
outsized military force and an even bigger capacity for bluster
and threat.
It's called coercive diplomacy. North Korean-style, it has
involved antagonizing everyone on and over the horizon, foes and
allies alike, and then pulling back. Sometimes just in the nick
of time.
While few would call the North Korean leadership predictable,
certain things are expected of it. That's the case now, in the
storm of condemnation and diplomatic maneuvering set off by
North Korea's in-your-face missile tests.
``When diplomacy is stalled, North Korea escalates tension to
break the deadlock,'' Wonhyuk Lim, a Brookings Institution
fellow for northeast Asian studies, says in an analysis for the
think tank.
``In sum, as twisted as the North Koreans' logic may be, it is
based on their negotiating experience with the Americans. North
Korea's brinkmanship is the evil twin of America's halfhearted
engagement.''
The risk is that North Korea's attention-grabbing actions may
bring bombs in reprisal instead of diplomacy, as almost happened
in the Clinton administration.
In 2003, North Korea pulled out of a nuclear arms treaty, vowing
to bring ``defeat and ruin'' on the United States, warning of
World War III and declaring, ``Let us see who will win and who
will be defeated in the fire-to-fire standoff.''
This was followed by the first substantive talks between the two
nations since President Bush came to office.
As a propaganda gambit, the missile tests that North Korea put
on during America's Independence Day were hardly a smashing
success. On a day when the space shuttle arced into the heavens
on a mission of science and international cooperation, North
Korea's star long-range missile is said to have failed like a
bum firecracker on its mission of defiance and military
advancement.
A half-dozen tests of shorter range missiles were conducted to
uncertain effect, but no failures as far as known. The results,
in short, spoke to North Korea's apparent ability to wreak havoc
in its region and its inability any time soon to reach the U.S.
mainland with a nuclear missile.
For the United States, ``the main risk seems to be that North
Korea is beginning early testing of a missile that could throw
the equivalent of a rock at Alaska,'' said Anthony Cordesman of
the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Yet North Korea has massive combat forces on the border with
South Korea; long-range artillery capable of reaching Japan and
destroying up to 40 percent of the South Korean economy; and
huge stocks of chemical weapons as well as its rising nuclear
weapons capability.
An impoverished country of some 23 million people, it fields the
world's fifth largest army, behind China, the U.S., Russia and
India. It is considered no match in any protracted fight with
South Korea's lethal modern forces, America's unmatched power or
a devastating combination of both.
Still, any conflict could bring horrific consequences to both
sides and risk pitting China against the United States.
Like many students of the region, Cordesman protests the
tendency to regard Kim Jong II as a reckless poseur without a
purpose.
``North Korea may or may not face a few hard weeks or months of
reprisal, but it has reminded everyone of just how serious a
threat North Korea can be, how limited most military options
are, and how serious the risks of any major war would be,''
Cordesman said.
North Korea's declaration back in 1993 that it would pull out of
the nuclear weapons nonproliferation treaty brought the
peninsula close to war and isolated the country through
international censure, in the process leading to breakthrough
negotiations with Washington that produced an agreement to
freeze North Korea's nuclear activities in exchange for U.S.
energy assistance.
North Korea's first test of a multistage rocket in 1998, also a
flop, spurred bilateral talks. The current framework of
six-nation negotiations was set up after North Korea resumed its
plutonium program in 2002 and expelled international inspectors.
That pattern of edging toward confrontation, then edging back,
has persisted, always accompanied by tough words. More are being
heard now. ``Catastrophic effects will arise,'' North Korean
envoy Song Il Ho warned last week after Japan took steps to
punish North Korea for firing the missiles.
``We're certainly not going to overreact ... to these wild
statements,'' Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said.
``We've seen them before.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
15 BBC: US spurns N Korean talks demands
Last Updated: Saturday, 8 July 2006
[2002 picture of Taepodong-type missile]
Pyongyang test-fired seven missiles on Wednesday
The US has dismissed demands from North Korea to have
sanctions against it lifted as a precondition for returning to
the talks on its nuclear programme.
US envoy Christopher Hill accused the North of trying to divert
attention from its "reckless" missile tests.
But he said he supported a Chinese plan for informal six-party
discussions to try to re-engage the North Koreans.
Mr Hill is on a tour of the region to co-ordinate a response to
the missile tests held by North Korea on Wednesday.
The country drew worldwide condemnation for test-firing seven
missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2 - believed to be
capable of reaching Alaska.
Map of North Korean missile ranges
The missiles failed and fell into the Sea of Japan.
On Saturday, a new American warship reached its base in Japan.
The guided missile destroyer USS Mustin will be based in
Yokosuka. Its radar can track ballistic missiles like North
Korea's Taepodong.
Informal talks?
Speaking after meetings in Seoul with South Korean officials on
Saturday, Mr Hill said the US would not lift financial sanctions
to bring the North back to negotiations.
We have a country that h fired off missiles in a truly reckless
way Christopher Hill US envoy for North Korea Send us your
comments
"This is not a time for so-called gestures of that
kind," he said.
"We have a country that has fired off missiles in a truly
reckless way, that affect the regional tranquillity and indeed
affect regional security."
Mr Hill also urged the north to "come to the six-party process".
Negotiations involving the two Koreas, Russia, China, Japan and
the US have been stalled since November.
Mr Hill, however, said he supported China's offer of hosting
informal six-way talks.
He added that if the round was arranged, he would be willing to
meet North-Koreans bilaterally on the sidelines.
Meanwhile Japan has presented a draft resolution to the UN
Security Council, calling for sanctions against North Korea.
It urges North Korea to immediately stop developing, deploying
and testing ballistic missiles and to return to talks on its
nuclear programme.
Japan, with co-sponsors the US, Britain and France, want the
council to decide on Monday when a vote will take place.
Sanctions are opposed by Russia and China, which have veto powers
in the security council.
North Korea's deputy envoy to the UN, Han Song-ryol, has
reportedly said any UN sanctions would be "an act of war".
South Korea has suspended its shipments of food aid to the North
until the situation over the missile-testing is resolved,
officials said.
South Korea is the North's biggest food aid donor, helping the
impoverished North feed its people.
However, Seoul says it still intends to go ahead with
cabinet-level talks scheduled for next week.
*****************************************************************
16 IRNA: Any immature decision by G-8 on Iran to disturb N-talks - Mottaki
Tehran, July 9, IRNA
Iran-FM-G 8
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here Sunday cautioned that
any immature decision which may be taken on Iran during the
upcoming summit of the Group of Eight leading industrial nations
would inflict damage to positive trend of nuclear talks.
Mottaki made the remark while speaking to reporters at the end
of the 9th meeting of foreign ministers of Iraqi neighboring
states in reference to the G-8 summit, slated to be held in St
Petersburg, Russia, on July 15.
"We will not be present in the G-8 summit. Any decision to be
made during the summit which may be immature or not be
comprehensive can harm the positive trend of talks," he said.
Asked whether Secretary of Supreme National Security Council
Ali Larijani would raise ambiguous points in a package of
incentives offered by Group 5+1, during his Tuesday meeting with
the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana or Iran would offer a
new proposal, he said during previous meetings held between the
two sides, they discussed general topics including different
ambiguities and questions which should be responded.
"Talks should be comprehensive. All sides should participate in
negotiations," he said.
On June 6, Solana handed Iran a package of incentives approved
by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --
Russia, China, Britain, France and the United States -- plus
Germany (Group 5+1) for it to suspend uranium enrichment and
resume talks to settle the dispute over its nuclear program.
"Response to certain questions and ambiguities requires that
some decisions should be made," Mottaki said.
He added based on an agreement reached between the two sides,
he could not speak of content of such issues, saying Solana
cannot give reply to all ambiguities to be raised by Iran.
"Our general view is that a positive atmosphere seems to have
been established based on goodwill.
"Different sides stress that such a positive atmosphere should
be used (in a way) to reach an all-out understanding which will
meet both sides' interests.
"The sides should not take steps that may disturb current
positive atmosphere."
Mottaki added, "All sides should help in reaching an
understanding through a positive atmosphere which has been
created and through continuation of talks."
He noted that Iran would give its response to the Group 5+1
offer by late August.
The foreign ministers of countries neighboring Iraq including
Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Turkey plus those
of Egypt and Bahrain along with that of Iraq attended the
meeting.
Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Arab League Secretary-General Amr
Moussa and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special
representative for Iraq, Ashraf Qazi were also present in the
two-day meeting.
*****************************************************************
17 Hamilton Spectator: North Korea's a crazy neighbour, but so is the U.S.
By Bill Prestwich, Dundas
(Jul 8, 2006)
Re: 'A job for the UN' (Editorial, July 6)
Your editorial regarding the North Korean missile tests asks
what do you do with a crazy neighbour who throws rocks.
Well, what do you do with a crazy neighbour who throws napalm,
cluster and bunker buster bombs, cruise missiles, carcinogenic
and environmentally destructive Agent Orange, depleted uranium
and nuclear weapons?
Unlike the missiles in question, which have harmed no one, these
have killed and maimed millions of innocent people around the
world who have never lifted a finger against the United States.
And what do you do with a crazy neighbour whose interference in
neutral Cambodia unleashed the worst holocaust since the Second
World War?
What do you do with a crazy neighbour who armed and helped
organize the very Taliban now fighting young Canadians, and who
encouraged Islamic terrorism when it suited its purposes?
With the United States' track record, any nation would be crazy
not to try to develop a nuclear deterrent. I now await the
inevitable cries of "anti-Americanism" by those colonial
Canadians who pledge allegiance to Washington.
information send email to helliott@thespec.com.
*****************************************************************
18 AFP: US, Japan press for unity to punish North Korea
by Park Chan-Kyong Sat Jul 8, 3:20 PM ET
SEOUL (AFP) - The United States and Japan vowed to punish North
Korea " /> North Koreafor its missile tests, despite Chinese and
Russian resistance to their push for tough UN sanctions on
Pyongyang.
The United States, however, also reached out to North Korea,
saying it was ready to sit down one-on-one if the communist state
returned to multinational talks on its nuclear and missile
programs.
US envoy Christopher Hill, on a whirlwind tour after the missile
launches, called for China to close ranks with Washington after
receiving a lukewarm response in Beijing on Friday.
"We had very good discussions with the Chinese and made very
clear our very deep concerns about what is going on in the DPRK,
and I called upon the Chinese to understand that we will be much
more effective if we speak with one voice," Hill told reporters
in Seoul, his second stop.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso was more blunt, pledging not
to give in to Russian and Chinese opposition to Japan's draft
Security Council resolution that condemns the tests and invokes
Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which could clear the way for
sanctions or even military action.
The Washington-backed Tokyo draft would block the transfer of
items to the North that could be used in missile and weapons of
mass destruction programs.
"We may amend the draft, but we are firm on the binding
resolution that includes sanctions," Aso said in a speech in
Osaka. "Japan will not compromise. We will go all the way."
"It is unreasonable if the moods of the veto powers dominate
diplomacy," he said of Moscow's and Beijing's Security Council
prerogatives.
US President George W. Bush
" /> President George W. Bush, however, did not publicly pitch
for sanctions in a press conference Friday, calling only for
unity to rebuke the North.
South Korea
" /> South Korea, which suspended crucial food aid to North
Korea in response to the missile tests, expressed caution over
the move to punish Pyongyang, saying the focus should be on
engaging the communist regime.
North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK), on Wednesday fired seven missiles,
including for the first time a long-range Taepodong-2 which
quickly crashed into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
China, North Korea's neighbor and main ally, and Russia have
both warned against further isolating Pyongyang, which is
already under a barrage of sanctions.
Han Song-Ryol, the North's deputy ambassador to the United
Nations
" /> United Nations, has warned that UN sanctions would be an
"act of war."
In an interview with South Korea's Yonhap news agency, Han said
Pyongyang would return to talks if Washington lifted separate
sanctions on a Macau bank accused of money laundering and
counterfeiting on its behalf.
The financial sanctions led North Korea in November to boycott
six-nation disarmament talks, just two months after it agreed in
general terms to give up its nuclear program in exchange for
security guarantees and aid.
The United States on Saturday rejected the demand.
"To be very frank, I think this is not a time for so-called
gestures of that kind," Hill said.
But he said he would be ready to meet North Korea separately if
it returned to the six-nation talks, including a potential
informal round Beijing is hoping to organize this month in the
city of Shenyang.
"I just can't do it when they are boycotting the six-party
talks," Hill said.
The United States has repeatedly met with the North bilaterally
on the sidelines of six-way talks but refused demands to
negotiate directly outside the multinational framework.
Chun Yung-Woo, Hill's South Korean counterpart in the stalled
talks, expressed hope that China's delegate, vice foreign
minister Wu Dawei, could arrange the Shenyang talks when he
travels to Pyongyang in the coming week.
"It's time to focus on diplomacy rather than coercive measures,"
Chun said.
Meanwhile, the USS Mustin guided-missile destroyer arrived in
Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, as Japanese officials rush to build a
new ballistic missile defense system with the United States.
A US Navy spokesman said the arrival of the high-tech destroyer
had been planned for months and was not a reaction to North
Korea's missile tests.
The USS Mustin -- equipped with the advanced Aegis technology,
which enables the tracking and possible shooting down of
ballistic missiles such as the Taepodong-2 -- arrived in
Yokosuka Saturday for a short "routine port visit" as part of
the vessel's long-term deployment to Japan, the spokesman said.
The destroyer would replace an older vessel, he added.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
19 AFP: NKorea braced for 'all-out war' as tensions mount
by Jun Kwanwoo Sun Jul 9, 8:26 AM ET
SEOUL (AFP) - North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il has vowed no
compromise and said he was braced for "all-out war" as tension
mounted ahead of a UN vote on whether to impose sanctions on
Pyongyang for its missile tests.
Japan, which with the United States has led the push to punish
the communist state, said it would not rule out a preemptive
strike on North Korea " /> North Koreain case of a direct nuclear
threat, leading Seoul to accuse Tokyo of aggravating the
situation.
As China and Russia held firm Sunday against the UN draft
resolution to put further sanctions on the impoverished North, a
US envoy stressed a diplomatic solution on disarmament and urged
Pyongyang to return to stalled talks on disarmament.
But Kim, in his first reported remarks since his regime test
fired seven missiles into the sea Wednesday, pledged not to give
up his weapons programs.
"The General has declared that not even a tiny concession will
be made to the imperialist US invaders, our arch enemy," said a
broadcast on North Korean state television, as monitored by
South Korea
" /> South Korea's Yonhap news agency.
Kim, who never speaks himself in public, said that if the United
States took "revenge," it would mean "all-out war."
"It is out of the General's conviction, desire and courage that
we should respond to the enemy's knife with a sword and to the
enemy's gun with a cannon," the television said.
North Korea, which declared last year it had nuclear weapons, in
November walked out of six-way talks on ending its nuclear
program, protesting a set of US financial sanctions.
Last week's missile launch included the new Taepodong-2, which
was believed to be capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii but
quickly crashed into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Tokyo had the right to
carry out a preemptive attack in the face of a serious threat
despite its pacifist post-World War II constitution.
"It is impossible for us to do nothing until we are attacked by
a country which says it has nuclear weapons and could fire
missiles against Japan," Aso, an outspoken hawk, told NHK public
television.
Aso stood firm on the UN resolution. The Security Council, where
Japan has tried in vain to win the same veto power as sanctions
opponents China and Russia, will decide Monday when to vote on
the draft.
"If we give in to just one veto power, then we will end up
sending a wrong message to the international community," Aso
said.
South Korea, which has sour ties with Japan tied to its brutal
1910-1945 occupation of the Korean peninsula, criticized Tokyo
for its "shrill voice."
"There is nothing good in heightening tensions on the Korean
peninsula and worsening inter-Korean relations. This will not
help at all to settle the nuclear issue or the missile issue,"
said a statement from the office of President Roh Moo-Hyun
" /> Roh Moo-Hyun's spokesman.
Roh also rebuffed his conservative domestic critics who have
accused him of jeopardizing security through his policy of
seeking reconciliation with Pyongyang.
Both South Korea and China, the North's main ally and host of
the six-party talks, were left red-faced by the missile tests,
which Pyongyang carried out despite weeks of appeals.
Beijing is to send an envoy Monday to Pyongyang in hopes of
persuading the North to take part in an informal round of
six-nation talks this month in the northeastern Chinese city of
Shenyang.
Christopher Hill, the US delegate to the six-party nuclear
negotiations, has said he is ready to meet one-on-one with the
North if it takes part in the unofficial talks.
"What it needs to do is get back to the talks and implement what
we already agreed to do and to get out of this dirty nuclear
business it is in, to get on (with) its task with modernizing
the country," Hill told reporters in Seoul before heading on to
Tokyo.
Despite disagreements over sanctions, Hill said Unification
Minister Lee Jong-Seok promised to bring up the missile issue
during a scheduled meeting this week with his Northern
counterpart. Pyongyang has yet to confirm its attendance in the
talks.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
20 AFP: China should have 'one voice' with US on NKorea - Hill
Sat Jul 8, 12:33 AM ET
SEOUL (AFP) - US envoy Christopher Hill has called for China,
North Korea " /> North Korea's main ally, to "speak with one
voice" with Washington in pressuring Pyongyang after its missile
tests.
Hill began a whirlwind regional tour Friday in Beijing, which has
opposed a United Nations " /> United Nationsresolution backed by
Washington and Tokyo to impose further sanctions on North Korea.
"We had very good discussions with the Chinese and made very
clear our very deep concerns about what is going on in the DPRK,
and I called on the Chinese to understand that we will be much
more effective if we speak with one voice," Hill told reporters
at the start of talks in Seoul, his second stop.
North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, on Wednesday fired seven missiles, including
for the first time a long-range Taepodong-2 which quickly
crashed into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
China has criticised Pyongyang's missile tests and said the best
way forward is to resume stalled six-nation talks hosted by
Beijing that aim to end North Korea's nuclear program.
"The Chinese made it very clear that they have no interest
whatsoever in having the DPRK develop missiles and engaging in
missile launches. They want to get the six-party talks going,"
Hill said.
"I told them I am prepared to be at the six-party talks and I
hope that they will get that organized very soon because I think
we need to get the six-party process going very, very soon," he
said.
North Korea agreed in general terms in September during the
six-way talks to end its self-declared nuclear program in
exchange for security guarantees and aid.
But Pyongyang walked out of the dialogue two months later after
the United States slapped sanctions on a bank in the Chinese
territory of Macau accused of money-laundering and
counterfeiting on behalf of the impoverished regime.
Ambassador Chun Yung-Woo, Seoul's special representative for
Korean peninsula peace and security affairs, voiced hope that
the pressure after the missile launches would bring North Korea
back to the table.
"I think it may turn into a blessing in disguise" triggering a
resumption of six-way talks, Chun told reporters as he met Hill.
"I think it should return to the six-party talks because it is
unrealistic to expect the sanctions to be lifted," he said.
South Korea
" /> South Koreahas been trying to reconcile with its neighbor
but said Friday it would halt crucial food aid in response to
the missile tests.
The six-nation talks include the two Koreas, the United States,
China, Japan and Russia.
China and Russia, two of the five veto-wielding permanent
members of the UN Security Council, oppose a reference in the
draft resolution to punitive measures and to Chapter Seven of
the UN charter, which could open the way to sanctions or even
military action.
Russia and China want the council to adopt a weaker, non-binding
statement without any threat of sanctions.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
21 AFP: China in tight spot as UN set to vote on NKorea sanctions -
by Gerard Aziakou Sat Jul 8, 10:28 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The crisis over North Korea " /> North
Korea's missile tests hurtles toward a climax here this week with
China under intense pressure to allow binding UN sanctions
against its recalcitrant ally Pyongyang.
The Security Council was set to decide Monday when to schedule a
vote on a draft resolution that would slap sanctions against the
reclusive state after it test-fired seven missiles last week,
including a new long-range Taepodong-2, which could theoretically
reach US soil.
Friday, Japan called for an early vote on its binding text which
would block the transfer of items to North Korea that could be
used in missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.
Pyongyang, which is pushing for direct talks with Washington, has
warned that adoption of UN sanctions would be seen as an "act of
war."
As in other crises over Iran " /> Iran's nuclear program or
Sudan's Darfur conflict, China and Russia, two veto-wielding
members of the council, have made clear their distaste for
punitive action to resolve sensitive diplomatic issues.
The two countries are cool to any use of Chapter Seven of the UN
charter which can authorize sanctions or even military action in
cases of threats to international peace and security.
They oppose the Japanese draft, co-sponsored by the United
States and all other Western members of the council, and are
instead pressing for a milder, non-binding statement that would
censure North Korea for its tests but would not threaten
sanctions.
Beijing and Moscow argue that the document, which invokes
Chapter Seven, risks inflaming tension in the volatile northeast
Asian region and could further set back prospects for resuming
six-party talks on ending Pyongyang's nuclear program.
China has been the most vocal in resisting punitive action
against its impoverished neighbor, which it supplies with vital
energy and economic aid.
"If this resolution is put to vote, there will be no unity in
the Security Council," Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya warned
Friday. Asked whether he might use China's veto, Wang replied:
"all possibilities are open."
His Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin made no comment after
Friday's frantic Security Council consultations to seek a
consensus.
Diplomats said Moscow was taking a lower profile in the crisis
so as not to jeopardize its hosting of the Group of Eight summit
in Saint Petersburg July 15-17.
In order to pass, a resolution needs the support of at least
nine of the council's 15 members and no veto from any of the
five permanent members: Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States.
The push for an early vote appeared to be a bid to dare China to
veto the text, but Western diplomats said they were hopeful
Beijing would not do so.
Asked whether he expected such a move, French ambassador
Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, the president of the council for July,
said: "I hope not."
China last used its veto in 1999 to block the extension of the
mandate of a UN force in the former Yugoslav republic of
Macedonia.
Beijing could also abstain, which would allow the resolution to
stand but deprive it of much of its impact.
Washington meanwhile led frantic diplomatic efforts to head off
a Chinese veto and ensure that the world's major powers remain
united in dealing with Pyongyang.
US envoy Christopher Hill, on a whirlwind tour after the missile
launches, pressed China to close ranks with Washington after
receiving a lukewarm response in Beijing Friday.
"We had very good discussions with the Chinese and made very
clear our very deep concerns about what is going on in the DPRK,
and I called upon the Chinese to understand that we will be much
more effective if we speak with one voice," Hill told reporters
Saturday during talks in Seoul, his second stop.
The United States also reached out to North Korea, saying it was
ready to sit down one-on-one if the Pyonynag agreed to return to
the six-party talks on its nuclear and missile programs.
Japan, which is aspiring to become a permanent Security Council
member, however vowed not to give in to China and Russia on the
issue of sanctions.
"We may amend the draft but we are firm on the binding
resolution that includes sanctions," Japanese Foreign Minister
Taro Aso said in a speech in the western city of Osaka Saturday.
"Japan will not compromise. We will go all the way."
The draft urges member states to stop procurement of
missile-related goods and technology from North Korea and to
block financial transfers to suppliers of Pyongyang's missile or
weapons programs.
It also calls on North Korea to immediately stop developing,
deploying and testing ballistic missiles and to return to
six-party talks -- with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea
" /> South Koreaand the United States -- on its nuclear program.
Pyongyang said it was ready to return to the six-way talks if
Washington lifts sanctions on a bank in Macau accused of money
laundering and counterfeiting on behalf of Pyongyang.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
22 Japan Times: Tokyo snubs Pyongyang threat over sanctions
Saturday, July 8, 2006
By REIJI YOSHIDA Staff writer
Japan rejected North Korea's demand Friday to drop new economic
sanctions over the North's Wednesday missile launches, ignoring
Pyongyang's threat of "stronger measures" and "devastating
consequences" unless it reversed its decision.
[News photo]
Song Il Ho, North Korea's ambassador in charge of diplomatic
normalization talks with Japan, faces Japanese reporters here
Friday. KYODO PHOTO
Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, speaking at a a news
conference, expressed indignation at the threat, calling it
"very regrettable."
"We would like (the North) to think about who brought about the
current relationship. The abductions, the nuclear (arms) and the
missile issues -- North Korea has caused all of them," the top
government spokesman said, calling on the international
community to put more pressure on the reclusive state.
Abe's reaction came after Song Il Ho, North Korea's ambassador
in charge of diplomatic normalization talks with Japan, met
Japanese reporters Friday in Pyongyang. He strongly criticized
Tokyo's new sanctions, which were imposed in response to North
Korea's test firing of seven ballistic missiles Wednesday,
including a long-range Taepodong-2 apparently heading toward
Hawaii. The missiles all fell into the Sea of Japan.
According to Kyodo News, Song told the reporters the sanctions
"could bring about devastating consequences, the entire
responsibility for which would rest with Japan."
Tokyo slapped a number of unilateral sanctions on the North
Wednesday, including barring the North Korean ferry
Mangyongbong-92, in response to the launches.
Foreign Minister Taro Aso told a separate news conference that
Japan will continue to seek a resolution condemning the North's
actions at the U.N. Security Council, instead of a nonbinding
statement by the council president, as sought by China and
Russia.
Japan has circulated a draft resolution condemning the North and
barring any country from transferring funds, materials or
technology that could be used for Pyongyang's missile or nuclear
arms programs.
The U.S. and Japan have reacted strongly to the launches,
particularly that of the Taepodong-2, because its range,
estimated at between 3,500 km and 6,000 km, could put the U.S.
mainland in its reach.
A ranking government official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said Pyongyang may have aimed the Taepodong-2 toward
Hawaii, given the launch trajectory and its estimated range.
But another Defense Agency official said it will take time to
analyze the data and determine North Korea's intentions. The
missile came down in the Sea of Japan after traveling only a few
hundred kilometers in an apparent malfunction.
North Korea claims to have plutonium-based nuclear weapons, but
is not believed to have developed ICBM warheads, thus negating
the strategic function of such missiles, experts say.
Second Taepodong Staff report
Senior government officials said Friday Tokyo has obtained
information indicating two long-range Taepodong-2 missiles were
transported into the Musudanri base on North Korea's northeast
coast, leaving open the possibility of another launch following
the one fired from the same base Wednesday.
But the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, also said
there were no indications of an imminent launch Friday evening.
The missile is believed near the launchpad.
South Korea's Yonghap News Agency meanwhile quoted South Korean
Defense Minister Yoon Kwang Ung as denying Japanese media
reports about another missile being readied at the base.
The minister said the speculation may have been because two
Taepodong missiles were initially transported to the base.
"The (Taepodong) missile has yet to be identified around the
Musudanri launch site," Yonghap quoted the minister as saying.
Vandalism arrest
Police arrested a man late Thursday for intruding into Foreign
Ministry premises and splashing red paint around, apparently to
protest the government's stance on North Korea, police officials
said.
The man, only identified by police as a self-styled rightist, is
23 years old and from Fujisawa, Kanagawa Prefecture. He
criticized the ministry for not taking a tough stance against
Pyongyang's missile test-firings the day before.
The man climbed over a security fence in front of the ministry's
main gate in Tokyo's Chiyoda Ward at around 11:15 p.m. Thursday,
throwing dozens of leaflets and splashing paint around the site.
He was apprehended by riot police on the spot.
The leaflets contained messages that included "Weak-Kneed
Diplomacy," police said.
The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
23 Nuclear WMDs: 10th Anniversary Of ICJ Opinion Against Legality Of Nuclear Weapons
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:14:20 -0400
X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive
Where is the media?:
BOMBSPOTTING
a campaign by Bombspotting and Vredesactie
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
10 years after ICJ Advisory Opinion on nuclear
weapons: Bombspotting closes 10 sites because of
preparation of war crimes.
Today, 8 July 2006, Bombspotting closed 10 sites
in Belgium, which have a political, military or
economic role in the illegal NATO nuclear weapons
policy. One site for each year that
NATO-countries, including Belgium, have ignored
the ICJ Advisory Opinion on nuclear weapons.
10 years ago the ICJ delivered an Advisory Opinion
on the legality of nuclear weapons. Since 10 years
it is clear that the deployed nuclear weapons are
contrary to international humanitary law. But
still nuclear weapons are deployed in Belgium and
other NATO countries.
Bombspotting symbolically closed 10 sites in
Belgium, which have a political, military or
economic role in the illegal NATO nuclear weapons
policy. Citizens inspectors, including
politicians, entered the Kleine Brogel air force
base. Greenpeace Belgium supported the action by
closing the offices of Lockheed Martin in
Brussels.
The 10 Belgian sites of crime: NATO headquarters
and the Belgian ministries of defense and foreign
affairs are involved in the political decision
making concerning the NATO nuclear weapons policy.
The military base of Kleine Brogel still hosts US
B-61 nuclear weapons and the Belgian pilots are
trained to use them. The military NATO headquarter
SHAPE in Mons manages the actual deployment of
nuclear weapons in Europe and hosts the nuclear
war planning computer systems and target
databases. The Control and Reporting Centre (CRC)
of the Belgian Air Force in Glons (Liège) is in
command of air operations and essential for a
nuclear strike operation and for the exercises.
The NATO Satcom Center in Gooik assures the
communication between SHAPE and military units.
Nuclear strike orders would be passing through
this Satcom unit. And the planes in Kleine Brogel,
Volkel, Büchel and Ramstein can not fly without
the fuel passing through the NATO pipelines. Fuel
is delivered to the network in the Antwerp port,
where the pumping station was closed. The Belgian
part of pipeline system is controlled in the
Tarweschoof-barracks in Leuven. And also the
economic actors were not forgotten: the European
offices of Lockheed Martin in Brussels. This
company is directly involved in the modernisation
programs of the B-61 nuclear bombs, among other
nuclear programs.
All this sites are involved in the preparation of
war crimes. Our government has to take its
responsability: the nuclear weapons have to be
removed from Belgium and the illegal nuclear
weapon strategy of NATO must be questioned and
changed. 10 years was enough to start complying
with international law!
Pictures 8 July 2006:
http://gallery.bomspotting.be/main.php
Pictures of earlier actions:
http://www.bomspotting.be/en/photo_en.php
*****************************************************************
24 Guardian Unlimited: India Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday July 9, 2006 9:31 AM
AP Photo XDEL101
By GAVIN RABINOWITZ Associated Press Writer
NEW DELHI (AP) - India test-fired its nuclear-capable Agni III
missile Sunday for the first time, the Defense Ministry said.
The launch took place at India's main missile testing center in
the eastern state of Orissa, Defense Ministry spokesman Sitanshu
Kar told the Associated Press.
The launch of India's longest-range missile, able to fly 1,865
miles, has been viewed as a routine test - not saber-rattling
with the country's nuclear-armed archrival and neighbor,
Pakistan.
New Delhi and Islamabad regularly test-fire missiles, but
normally only give each other prior notice for long-range
launches. It was not immediately clear whether India informed
Pakistan ahead of Sunday's test.
The missile was launched at 11:03 Indian time and ``took off
successfully,'' Kar said. ``Details of the flight performance
are being analyzed by the mission team.''
The missile splashed down near the Nicobar islands in the Bay of
Bengal.
Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee was at the launch
complex, on Wheeler Island off Orissa, to witness the test, the
Press Trust of India news agency reported.
The Agni III further boosts India's homegrown missile arsenal,
which includes the short-range Prithvi ballistic missile, the
medium-range Akash, the anti-tank Nag and the supersonic Brahmos
missile, developed jointly with Russia.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
25 Guardian Unlimited: Critics See G-8 Summit As Cold-War Relic
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday July 8, 2006 5:31 PM
AP Photo MOSB102
By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The G-8 summit that President Bush and seven
other world leaders are attending next weekend in Russia is
often billed as a gathering of the world's leading economic
powers.
It is not.
Consider: China, now the world's fourth-largest economy and the
nation with the most influence over renegade North Korea, is not
a member.
Neither is India, the world's largest democracy and one of its
fastest-growing economies. Nor is South Korea, Brazil, Mexico or
Spain, each with a larger economy than G-8 member Russia's. In
fact, Spain recently inched past member Canada as the world's
No. 8 economy, according to a World Bank tabulation.
Often officials from developing nations are invited as observers
to the summit but have no formal roles. Among those invited to
this year's gathering is Chinese President Hu Jintao.
Critics view the annual economic summit as a Cold War relic that
needs to be reconstituted. It was formed in the 1970s, but
economic dynamics are far different three decades later. The
astonishing growth of some Asian nations and parts of Latin
America have altered the math.
Yet expanding or changing the membership is not on this year's
agenda, nor is it likely to be on next year's. Few officials
from member nations seem eager to talk about the subject.
White House aides insist the president is more focused on
substantive issues.
Igor Shuvalov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top summit
adviser, acknowledges that Russia lags behind the other seven
members in terms of current economic output. But stay tuned, he
says.
``We believe the importance of Russia in our global world will
change. We have very talented people and well-educated labor. We
have oil and gas,'' said Shuvalov in a telephone interview with
U.S. reporters. ``We will develop very quickly as one of the
major G-8 countries.''
Even now, Russia is economically ``stronger than some G-8
members,'' Shuvalov asserted without offering backup data. ``I
don't want to name those countries,'' he said.
What is now known as the G-8 was formed in 1975 as the Group of
Major Industrialized Democracies. At the time, it consisted of
the United States, Japan, Britain, France and Germany -
undisputedly the world's five biggest economic powers at the
time. Italy was added in 1976, Canada in 1977 and Russia in
1998.
The group holds annual summits. Economic themes are supposed to
prevail, but often are overshadowed by events of the day and
global politics.
Last year's summit in Scotland was jolted by multiple terrorist
bomb blasts on London's transit system. This year's session
probably will dwell on North Korea's recent barrage of missile
tests and the nuclear aspirations it shares with Iran.
Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International and
an expert on economic summitry, advocates expanding the G-8 to
include other modern economic powers, especially China.
``When this group was formed in the 1970s, the members were the
main influences on the globe. Now you've got a lot of other
countries that have a lot more influence than they did 30 years
ago and who are not in the process,'' said Hormats, who helped
Presidents Carter, Ford and Reagan prepare for economic summits.
China's membership could help the G-8 this year deal with North
Korea, Hormats said. He noted that last year, the summit
partners called on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries to produce more oil, yet neither Saudi Arabia nor any
other OPEC member are participants.
This year's summit is in Putin's hometown, St. Petersburg. It is
Russia's first time to hold the rotating G-8 presidency, a
controversy itself given Putin's moves to restrict political and
economic freedoms.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., and former
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have said Russia should be
excluded. A London-based think tank, the Foreign Policy Center,
issued a report saying Putin's record makes a mockery of G-8's
commitment to free markets and open societies.
But others want Russia to stay and for other nations to join,
including nondemocracies that are big economies.
Johannes Linn and Colin Bradford, both former World Bank
officials now with the Brookings Institution, have proposed
expanding the group to 19 to 20 members.
They would add Australia, Argentina, Brazil, China, India,
Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.
They also would add the country of the rotating presidency of
the European Union if it was not already a member.
``The problem in a sense for the G-8 is that it has set itself
up as a quasi-steering group for the world, but it cannot
effectively and cannot legitimately deal with many of the key
issues,'' Linn said.
And it will only get worse. ``Five years from now, I cannot
possibly see how a G-8 would still be relevant,'' he said.
Gee whiz.
But will the G-8 transform itself anytime soon? ``Probably
not,'' he said.
^---
On the Net:
G-8 site: http://en.g8russia.ru/
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited: Bush to Pursue Nuclear Deal With Russia
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday July 9, 2006 12:46 AM
AP Photo MOSB107
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush will pursue a nuclear
cooperation agreement when he meets Russian leader Vladimir
Putin next week during a summit of industrialized nations in St.
Petersburg, the White House said Saturday.
But any agreement would be conditioned on Russia helping to
pressure Iran to give up its alleged desire to develop nuclear
weapons, said Frederick Jones, spokesman for Bush's National
Security Council.
``We have made clear to the Russians that for an agreement on
peaceful nuclear cooperation to go forward, we will need
Russia's active cooperation in blocking Iran's attempt to obtain
nuclear weapons,'' Jones said.
The two presidents will announce the start of negotiations on
the agreement when they meet on the sidelines of the July 15-17
Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, the White House
confirmed.
Nuclear cooperation between the two countries has stalled for
more than a decade because of Washington's objections to
Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran, including construction
of an atomic power plant in Bushehr.
The Bush administration's willingness to reverse course and
pursue a nuclear cooperation agreement reflects the U.S. view
that Moscow is now a partner in the effort to persuade Tehran to
abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, rather than a hindrance
to it.
``Now that Russia has been more cooperative in putting pressure
on Iran to abandon its'' alleged nuclear weapons program, the
United States ``won't allow the Iran relationship to get in the
way of this particular activity,'' said Jon Wolfstahl, an
analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in Washington.
The White House sees an agreement with Russia as a win-win,
despite concerns that Putin is backtracking on democratic
advances, about the security of Russian nuclear material, and
that Moscow has so far opposed imposing sanctions on Iran if it
refuses to abandon suspected nuclear weapons development.
Bush wants the use of nuclear power increased, especially in
developing countries, to reduce the global demand for oil.
Russia, meanwhile, sees a lucrative market in playing a role in
providing such capabilities to other countries.
``Such an agreement would benefit both the United States and
Russia, and indeed the world, by enabling advances in and
greater use of nuclear energy,'' said Jones, the Security
Council spokesman.
The two leaders, who have been promoting nuclear energy as a
clean alternative, have made proposals on providing nuclear
power to developing countries while building in safeguards for
nonproliferation of weapons.
Rose Gottemoeller, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, said
the potential joint project was ``probably the biggest story
coming out of the Petersburg summit.''
``This is a field where Russia has a clear technological
advantage because over the past 30 years, the U.S. has
essentially abandoned nuclear power technology development'' in
the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in
Pennsylvania and the Chernobyl accident in 1986, Gottemoeller
said at a round table discussion on U.S.-Russian relations.
In January, Putin proposed establishing an international nuclear
center in Russia that would provide full fuel cycle services. He
said the center could be the start of a network of such centers
around the world.
At about the same time, Bush introduced his Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, which would provide fresh fuel to countries
that agree to use it only for power generation and would recover
spent fuel.
``President Bush is very anxious to move his nuclear energy
proposals forward and he sees his relationship with President
Putin as a natural way to add momentum,'' said Wolfstahl of the
Carnegie Endowment for Peace.
``The Russians have probably more modern nuclear reactor
technology than we do but they need our endorsement and our
cooperation if they are going to bring it to the international
market,'' he said.
Environmentalists have criticized Russia's efforts to develop
such a business, arguing it will turn the country into a dumping
ground for nuclear waste.
Russia has 31 reactors at 10 nuclear power plants, accounting
for about 16 percent of the country's electricity generation,
and Putin has called for raising the share to 25 percent.
Last month, Russia's atomic energy agency signed a contract with
a military shipbuilding plant to build the world's first
floating nuclear reactor near the Arctic port of Severodvinsk.
---
AP Writer Judith Ingram in Moscow contributed to this story
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
27 Guardian Unlimited: Defence minister backs nuclear arms
Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday July 8, 2006
The Guardian
The defence secretary, Des Browne, yesterday strongly hinted he
would join other senior ministers in supporting the retention of
a British independent nuclear deterrent. He highlighted "the
terrifying prospect" of a state with nuclear weapons linking up
with a terrorist group.
He promised an open debate but said: "There has been significant
leakage from the North Koreans' nuclear development. We will need
to look into what we know about non-state actors such as al-Qaida
who are playing a significant and dangerous role in the future of
our security."
He said the government would publish a white paper this
year setting out its views on the deterrent, but would not rule
in or out whether MPs would vote on the final decision. He
suggested that one possibility was to extend the life of the
existing system.
His comments came as a former Labour defence secretary, Denis
Healey, said there was no military justification for keeping
Britain's nuclear deterrent. Lord Healey, who played a key role
in maintaining the Polaris nuclear weapons systems in the 1960s,
said the only reason for maintaining the deterrent was
"political", to bolster Britain's influence abroad.
"Nuclear weapons are infinitely less important in our foreign
policy than they were in the days of the cold war. I don't think
we need nuclear weapons any longer," he told BBC News 24's
Straight Talk. "I think the military case now for nuclear
weapons has gone."
In answer to a parliamentary question yesterday Mr Browne made
clear that MPs would only be consulted on the future of
Britain's nuclear deterrent after ministers had come to a
decision. A decision would be taken before the end of the year.
However, he refused to disclose how much had been spent
developing new arming and firing systems for the Trident nuclear
warhead, on grounds of national security.
Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem spokesman who raised the question, said
Mr Browne's answers "make a mockery of the prime minister's
promise to hold the 'fullest possible parliamentary debate' on
Trident".
He added: "Refusal to comment on warhead design work at
Aldermaston appears to be further evidence of an intention to
suppress debate."
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
28 Guardian Unlimited: Leader: Nuclear weapons
Saturday July 8, 2006
The Guardian
"In every area relating to modern nuclear weaponry, our
activities are challenging frontiers," says the Atomic Weapons
Establishment at Aldermaston, which offers 181 vacancies related
to the development of British nuclear warheads. Officially, no
decision has been taken on what should happen when Britain's
existing Trident fleet becomes too old to continue its ceaseless
patrol under the sea. Des Browne, the defence minister, promises
a white paper on the subject, but the AWE's hunt for fallout
modellers and firing officers ("for explosive trials to support
the development of warhead related science") hints at a
different reality. There may be a Commons vote but the outcome
appears set: the Trident system will be upgraded and replaced,
to keep Britain's place at the table of nuclear players.
Article continues
The chancellor confirmed as much in a speech last month,
which extended Labour's manifesto commitment to keep a nuclear
force beyond the point at which work needs to start on a new
weapons system. Scalded by Labour's cold war battles of the
1980s, Mr Brown has closed off the possibility that a
post-Soviet world requires a more subtle and adaptable approach
than multi-megaton retaliation. Yet the case for renewing
Trident is eminently debatable. Even Denis Healey, a man who
sacrificed his chance to become Labour leader on the altar of
retaining Britain's nuclear arsenal, yesterday questioned the
need for a replacement. The decision rides on nothing more than
a series of guesses: that a future, unknown enemy will require
specifically British nuclear deterrence, that unilateral
disarmament would weaken Britain's status and national security,
and that the political price of giving up the bomb, even if
otherwise justified, is too high for Labour.
These suppositions are not being tested as they must be. The
promised white paper may supply answers to questions of the role
of Britain's nuclear force and the circumstances under which it
might be used, and an explanation of the decisions, costs and
timing required. But this month the Commons defence select
committee issued an interim report without evidence from the
Ministry of Defence, which refused to cooperate. This is not a
full debate as promised. The Liberal Democrats are edging
towards a sceptical policy but the Conservatives and the
government so far show few signs of doubt.
The legend is that British nuclear weapons make Britain safer.
Trident is less obviously a deterrent because there is no Soviet
Union to deter. It may be so in the future against North Korea,
China or even a renegade Russia - and that possibility must be
considered by those who wish to abandon it. But for now, the
principal threat to national security comes from stateless
terrorism and nuclear force is no protection against this, as
the prime minister himself told the House of Commons last
October.
Indeed, by diverting resources from conventional forces, nuclear
weapons have made Britain's military position more precarious.
An army short of helicopters and troops in Afghanistan does not
stand to gain from an unfunded £25bn commitment to a future
strategic nuclear delivery system, or from the £1bn spent
annually to keep Trident running. Other large European countries
- such as Italy and Germany - do not feel the need to protect
themselves with nuclear weapons. As the Guardian reported last
week, the storage and transport of warheads is not a safe
activity: accidental detonation or a terrorist attack are
unlikely, but not impossible. To argue against nuclear renewal
is an engagement with the world as it exists now, rather than as
cold war planners expected in the days of Breznhev and Gromyko.
Trident today is a giant and expensive prop, shoring up
Britain's claim to call itself a global power without offering
the adaptability and conventional power that this role demands.
Stepping away from nuclear weapons would release Britain from
its exhausted, imperial view of its place in the world. Even the
assumption that a state such North Korea needs to be deterred by
a specifically British weapon overstates our significance.
The nuclear force, described by the chancellor as independent in
his speech, is in fact derived from an alliance with the United
States that provides the technical resources to sustain it.
There are no British Trident missiles: they come from a common
pool. The decision to use the missiles rests with the prime
minister, but the continuation of Britain's nuclear force is
tied to the transatlantic alliance. While Trident and its
successors exist, Britain will be drawn into Washington's orbit
and feel the need to act as such. The Iraq war and Trident's
renewal are decisions cut from the same cloth. There should be
no downplaying either, of the impact a British decision to drop
out would have in the United States. Any move to a non-nuclear
policy would be met with surprising hostility in Washington.
Other forms of intelligence and cooperation would fall away.
Some will look for a third way (as many did when Trident
replaced Polaris), arguing for a reduction in British nuclear
capability, perhaps even attempting to mothball it while still
clinging to the impression that the country remains a nuclear
power. That could leave Britain with the ghost of a deterrent -
expensive, unconvincing and unusable. In the end the choice is
between some form of renewal or a controlled step into a
non-nuclear future, the brave and right thing to do.
This would bring with it a new right to speak on global
security, cleansed from the mess of Iraq. States on the brink of
acquiring nuclear capability may be unlikely to copy Britain's
example. But pulling back from the ownership of weapons which
carry with them the possibility of ending humanity would be a
glorious act, bringing a new moral imperative to international
affairs. It is also a policy that Britain is legally committed
to under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If the government
intends to break that commitment, it must be made to justify
itself. The moral, security and financial force of the argument
runs the other way.
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
29 Times of India: India, IAEA meet on Safeguards Agreement
[ Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:18:54 pmIANS ]
NEW DELHI: Officials of India and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) met here on Saturday to negotiate the
proposed Safeguards Agreement which is required to be put in
place to allow the international community to resume nuclear
trade with New Delhi.
The Indian side was headed by Joint Secretary (Disarmament) in
the External Affairs ministry Hamid Ali Rao.
Officials of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) also
participated in discussions with the IAEA delegation.
Under the Indo-US civil nuclear deal signed in March during the
visit of President George W Bush here, New Delhi and the IAEA
have to work out an 'India-specific Safeguards Agreement' for
supervision of civilian nuclear facilities of this country.
In the civil nuclear agreement, India had classified 14 of its
22 atomic reactors as civilian which will be covered under the
IAEA safeguards agreement.
After the signing of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, Atomic
Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar had travelled to Vienna
to hold preliminary discussions with IAEA officials on the
proposed Safeguards agreement.
India is expected to seek an early conclusion of the agreement
with IAEA in view of the US Congress' desire to see progress on
it before the American Parliament approves a change of law to
allow nuclear trade with New Delhi.
International Committees of both US House of Representatives and
the Senate recently approved two bills providing for a change of
law that will end India's nuclear apartheid.
Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
*****************************************************************
30 Navhind Times: India, IAEA hold talks on nuke safeguards pact
PTI
New Delhi, July 8: India and the International Atomic Energy
Agency today held “productive” talks on the proposed safeguards
agreement that is required to be put in place to allow
international community to resume nuclear trade with New Delhi.
The day-long discussions between officials focussed on various
aspects, including legal provisions and technical details, that
should form part of the India-specific agreement, official
sources said.
The two delegations also talked about the monitoring mechanism
that should be in place with regard to 14 Indian civilian
nuclear reactors identified by India under the separation plan
of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, they said.
The two sides held “useful and productive technical discussions
on concepts relating to India-specific safeguards emanating from
the Indo-US joint statement of July 18, 2005,” the external
affairs ministry said in a statement after the second round of
talks on the issue since March.
The two sides will meet again at a mutually-convenient date to
continue the discussions, it said.
At the discussions, the Indian side was led by joint secretary
(disarmament) in the external affairs ministry, Mr Hamid Ali Rao
and included officials from the department of atomic energy.
The four-member IAEA delegation included the deputy
director-general (safeguards), Mr Olli Heinonen and director
(external relations and policy coordination), Mr Vilmos
Cserveny.
As per the Indo-US civil nuclear deal signed in March during the
visit of the President, Mr George W Bush here, New Delhi and the
IAEA have to work out an ‘India-specific safeguards agreement’
for supervision of civilian nuclear facilities of this country.
In the civil nuclear agreement, India had classified 14 of its
22 atomic reactors as civilian which will be covered under the
IAEA safeguards agreement.
After the signing of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, the Atomic
Energy Commission Chairman, Mr Anil Kakodkar had travelled to
Vienna to hold preliminary discussions with IAEA officials on
the proposed safeguards agreement.
India is expected to seek an early conclusion of the agreement
with the IAEA in view of the US Congress’ desire to see progress
on it before the American Parliament approves a change of law to
allow nuclear trade with New Delhi.
International committees of both US House of Representatives and
the Senate recently approved two bills providing for a change of
law that will end India’s nuclear apartheid.
The Bush administration has said the safeguards agreement was
one of the pieces linked to the civil nuclear deal and needed to
be put in place before the Congress approves change in law to
allow nuclear trade with India.
Sunday, July 9, 2006
© Copyright Navhind Papers & Publications Ltd. All rights
*****************************************************************
31 AFP: India tests nuclear-capable missile
Sun Jul 9, 8:01 AM ET
BHUBANESHWAR, India (AFP) - India successfully carried out its
first test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile with a range
of 4,000 kilometres (2,480 miles), defence officials said.
The Agni-III missile was launched from Wheeler Island, 180
kilometres northeast of Bhubaneshwar in the eastern state of
Orissa, they said on condition of anonymity.
In May Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee had said the Agni-III,
India's longest-range ballistic missile, was ready but that the
country was observing "self-imposed restraint" before testing.
Opposition parties criticised the announcement, saying testing
was being delayed because of pressure from the United States.
New Delhi and Washington reached a landmark deal in March that
will see sanctions lifted on India's access to civilian nuclear
technology.
Sunday's test launch comes just four days after North Korea
" /> sparked an international outcry by test-firing seven
missiles.
A highly-placed Defence Research and Development Organisation
(DRDO) source said the Indian test was "successful".
He said scientists had detected a snag in the booster rocket
system of the Agni-III two weeks ago and had delayed its test.
"Now we have papered over the problem and hence the launch
window was chosen as Sunday," he said.
The missile was tracked during take-off, re-entry into the
Earth's atmosphere and splashdown in the Bay of Bengal, another
defence official said.
The Agni (Fire) is one of five missiles being developed by the
DRDO under its Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme
launched in 1983. The others are the Prithvi, the surface-to-air
Trishul (Trident), multi-purpose Akash (Sky), and the anti-tank
Nag (Cobra).
Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, who have fought three
wars since independence in 1947, routinely notify each other of
missile tests.
"We were informed about it," said Pakistani foreign ministry
spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam in Islamabad.
"It is a ballistic missile test and we have agreement on
pre-notification of ballistic missile tests," she said. "We have
no other reaction."
The two countries came to the brink of a fourth war in the
summer of 2002 following a December 2001 attack on India's
parliament by suspected Pakistan-backed militants. Islamabad
denied any role in the attack.
But in January 2004 they began a peace process that has led to a
ceasefire in the divided Himalayan state of Kashmir
" /> , the cause of two of the wars.
In May 1998 India conducted five nuclear tests, citing China as
a security threat. The tests were matched two weeks later by
Pakistan which India says has received Chinese assistance for
its nuclear programme, a claim denied by Beijing.
But tensions between China and India have lessened in the past
two years. There have been direct military talks and the
reopening last week of a famed Silk Road pass in the Himalayas,
the first direct border trade between the Asian giants since a
frontier war 44 years ago.
C. Uday Bhaskar, deputy head of the Institute of Defence Studies
and Analyses, said India's nuclear and missile programmes should
not be seen as country-specific.
"Countries acquire strategic capabilities that are generic in
nature. Our programme is not predicated on a single point
threat. It is always in relation to the international strategic
environment," Bhaskar said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
32 AFP: India, IAEA discuss nuclear safeguards agreement
Sat Jul 8, 7:00 AM ET
NEW DELHI (AFP) - India held talks with the UN's nuclear watchdog
to help clinch an accord which would see New Delhi place under
safeguards a majority of its atomic plants, an Indian official
said.
The talks between India and the International Atomic Energy
Agency " /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) came after a
US Congressional panel and another Senate committee last week
gave approval for Washington to help India develop its civilian
nuclear facilities.
The proposed Safeguards Agreement is being negotiated by senior
Indian foreign ministry official Hamid Ali Rao and is a step
toward giving India access to previously forbidden civilian
nuclear technology, said the foreign ministry official who asked
to be unnamed.
A United Nations " /> United Nationsstatment issued earlier this
week said a team would go to New Delhi at the Indian government's
request to discuss "the application of safeguards to nuclear
material and facilities that constitute Indias civilian nuclear
programme."
The deal to help India set up civilian nuclear power units to
meet its voracious energy needs was reached during US President
George W. Bush " /> President George W. Bush's visit to New Delhi
in March.
Under the deal, India will separate its civilian and military
programmes and place 14 of its 22 nuclear plants under
international safeguards in return for civilian nuclear
technology.
Washington in return has promised to amend the US Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 which now prevents the United States from trading
nuclear technology with nations like India which have not signed
the Non Proliferation Treaty.
India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and, as a result,
is currently banned by the United States and other major powers
from buying fuel for atomic reactors and related equipment.
Separately, India has to negotiate agreements with the IAEA and
the Nuclear Suppliers Group which controls the global trade in
civilian nuclear technology.
Soon after the India-US agreement, the chief of India's Atomic
Energy Commission Anil Kakokdar travelled to Vienna to hold
preliminary discussions with IAEA officials on the proposed
safeguards accord.
Last month, IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei, praised the US-India
nuclear cooperation deal as a "creative" solution that will
ensure New Delhi assists with international efforts to counter
the spread of nuclear weapons.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
33 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power 'to expand across G8'
[UP]
Press Association
Sunday July 9, 2006 10:08 AM
A mass expansion of nuclear power is planned for G8 countries
and across the developing world, according to claims.
An action plan for "global energy security" is to be agreed at
the G8 Summit in St Petersburg, Russia, next weekend.
Scotland's Sunday Herald newspaper said leaked documents drawn
up for the summit envisage a network of nuclear fuel plants in
G8 countries along with the widespread sale of reactors to
developing countries, as long as a guarantee is given that they
will not be used in the making of nuclear weapons.
Confidential drafts of the energy "plan of action" drawn up by
the senior G8 officials who guide prime ministers and presidents
towards the summit, have been passed to the newspaper. It said
one of the main aims of the plan is to spread nuclear power
stations around the globe.
The leaked version of the action plan is said to state: "Those
of us who have plans relating to the use and/or expansion of
nuclear energy believe that its development will promote
prosperity and global energy security, while simultaneously
offering a positive contribution to the climate change
challenge."
The plan is said to argue that improving the economic
competitiveness of nuclear power will "benefit all nations". But
nuclear expansion has to be based "on a robust regime for
assuring nuclear non-proliferation and a reliable safety and
security system for nuclear materials and facilities".
The more sensitive nuclear facilities that could be diverted for
making bombs are to be kept within the G8.
Other countries would not be allowed to enrich uranium fuel, or
to reprocess spent fuel to extract plutonium. They would be
permitted to run reactors to generate electricity but will have
to buy fuel enrichment and reprocessing services from G8
countries.
"Participation of developing countries in a 'shared nuclear
energy system' through developing the network of international
centres providing nuclear fuel services could be a viable option
for reducing their energy poverty and bridging the energy gap,"
the document states.
The G8 leaders are also proposing to bring back fast breeder
reactors, which were scrapped in Germany, France and the UK in
the 1990s because they were too expensive. They are designed to
create and burn plutonium and are much less reliant on imports
of uranium.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
34 The Observer: Energy review 'a sham' to back Blair on nuclear
[UP]
Juliette Jowit, environment editor
Sunday July 9, 2006
The Observer
A major review of Britain's future energy supplies has been a
sham designed only to push through Tony Blair's dream of a new
generation of nuclear power stations, a former leading
government adviser claims today.
Stephen Hale, who until a few weeks ago was special adviser to
the then Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, writes in The
Observer that the Prime Minister 'refused to consider the
alternatives' to nuclear energy. 'The depressing truth is that
the review was undertaken primarily to act as a springboard to
formally initiate the government's nuclear position,' says Hale,
who is now director of the Green Alliance think-tank.
The review of the government's 2003 energy white paper -
expected to be published this week - is believed to support a
new wave of reactors to replace Britain's ageing nuclear power
stations, which are soon to be decommissioned. It will say,
however, that 'the market' will decide how much new generating
capacity needs to be built.
It will give more support for energy efficiency, renewable power
and 'decentralised' local supplies. Small wind turbines and
combined heat and power units that run on gas or biofuels are
expected to be part of the new regime.
Environmental groups fear nuclear power because of the risk of
accidents and the high cost of building reactors and disposing
of nuclear waste. Critics claim that cash for more reactors will
undermine renewable and decentralised energy.
Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace, said there
was a danger that 'nuclear will siphon off the money for
renewable research and development'. Another concern was that
investment in local generation grids could be overshadowed by
the huge sums needed to replace the creaking national grid if
new reactors were built, he added.
However, the Royal Academy of Engineering said that both
renewable and nuclear energy were needed. Philip Ruffles, its
spokesman on energy, said at least 40 per cent of Britain's
energy should be generated from carbon-free renewables or
nuclear sources. 'You can't conceivably get renewables up to 40
per cent [of Britain's total power] in a sensible time. We have
got to have nuclear.'
A spokesman for 10 Downing Street denied the review had been a
sham. 'The Prime Minister has always made completely clear this
has been a very wide-ranging review, taking into account all
forms of power generation,' he said.
Tony Blair told MPs last week that he had 'changed his mind'
since the 2003 white paper put off a decision on nuclear power.
But Tindale, a Labour adviser from 1990-2000, accused him of
'lying'. 'It's been no secret he's been pro-nuclear ever since
he became leader of the Labour party,' he added.
Q: Nuclear plans
Q How many nuclear plants will be built, and where?
A The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King,
suggested up to 20 new reactors could be built. Trade Secretary
Alistair Darling said it could be as few as two. The review is
likely to say the private sector will 'decide', depending on the
cost of alternatives. The most likely sites are next to existing
reactors, where opposition is considered lower.
Q How big is the security threat?
A Only one-third of Britain's gas use is for electricity, but
that would increase without an alternative energy policy if gas
continues to be the cheaper option. Russia's decision to cut
supplies to Ukraine last winter understandably raised concerns.
But there are many gas suppliers around the world. And critics
claim supply of uranium for nuclear power also poses security
worries.
Q Are there viable alternatives?
A Many believe more effort to promote 'carbon free' renewable
energy and efficiency for homes, industry and transport, and to
'decentralise' energy supply to stem huge transmission losses,
would be enough to address environment and security concerns.
Britain is said to have Europe's best renewable energy sources.
And efficiency is the cheapest solution.
But the government - and others - do not believe these
alternatives can be developed far or fast enough.
Q Is there any chance of a reversal after the energy review is
published?
A Some claim that the government's support for a nuclear
building programme will wane when the Prime Minister steps down.
But it might be easier to blame him and keep going down the
nuclear path.
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
35 Guardian Unlimited: Obsession with nuclear power is wrong for Britain, Mr Blair
Comment |
The Energy Review will back the PM's push for atomic energy,
but, says Stephen Hale, it won't deal with the challenge of
global climate change
Sunday July 9, 2006
The Observer
The worst kept secret in British politics will be out this week,
when the government's Energy Review confirms that Labour wants a
new generation of nuclear power stations.
It will be the central conclusion of the Review, though expect
ministers to play it down and announce some welcome surprises
for supporters of renewable energy, energy efficiency and the
alternative vision of a de-centralised energy system set out by
the green movement and embraced last week by the Conservatives.
However, the Review will be remembered not for these, but for a
costly and misguided commitment to a new wave of nuclear power
stations.
Article continues
Britain's energy infrastructure is creaking. The big energy
generators are desperate for a long-term framework to enable them
to make long-term investment. But the depressing truth is that
the Review was undertaken primarily to act as a springboard to
formally initiate the government's nuclear position.
The Prime Minister has made crystal clear from the outset that
he sees no way of achieving Britain's goal of a 60 per cent
reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 without new nuclear
plants. He is wrong. But he has refused to consider the
alternatives. When the Sustainable Development Commission
published its comprehensive analysis on a nuclear-free
low-carbon economy, the Prime Minister rejected it only 24 hours
later at Prime Minister's Questions .
As long as this government identifies nuclear power as essential
to tackling climate change, supporters and potential investors
of other technologies will hold back, fearing that the market
and public funds will sooner or later be skewed to deliver
nuclear power.
The nuclear industry never asks for subsidies and bail-outs up
front - they come later, and have amounted, incredibly, to more
than £70bn so far. So it is imperative that Blair and his
government are cured of their nuclear obsession.
Climate change will of course be the pretext for the
government's position on nuclear energy, but it is a pretext. A
replacement programme of nuclear power stations would save only
6.7 million tonnes of carbon annually by 2030. Alistair
Darling's Aviation White Paper gave the green light to the
aviation industry to produce up to three times that volume of
emissions by the same date. A rethink of the Aviation White
Paper would be a far more effective way for Labour to tackle
climate change.
Labour's energy review, and the obsession with nuclear power, is
the wrong solution to the right question. We have Europe's best
renewable energy resources in wind and wave power, huge solar
and biomass resources that could reduce household carbon
emissions by 60 per cent. The UK hould aim to be among the top
five EU members for renewable energy contribution by 2025.
We need an energy system where power is generated as close as
possible to where it is used. Trying to shoehorn elements of the
decentralised approach into the incumbent system will not work.
We need to radically redesign regulations and institutions to
ensure that this vision becomes a reality.
The energy market of the future should be more ambitious, and do
more to encourage fledgling technologies. It should also be
accessible to a wide variety of players - individuals selling
home-generated power; community-owned renewables companies;
energy service providers and large commercial operators.
Reducing energy demand is the most cost-effective way of
reducing emissions. But at present the more energy companies
sell, the more money they make. This perverse system should be
changed so that companies make a profit by reducing energy use
and can compare this option against investment in new generation.
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme should be the primary means to
drive new investment and significant emissions reductions. A
domestic trading scheme should be introduced to limit emissions
from the service and retail sectors.
There is too much discussion around the provision of
electricity, and too little focus on how we heat our buildings.
The majority of our heating needs are met by gas, whereas
nuclear provides just electricity, therefore we need to find
ways to expand the use of renewable heat and combined heat and
power.
Local authorities should be required to use renewable heat and
electricity in new developments. All of us should be encouraged
to use less energy, with council tax reductions linked to
increased property insulation.
Where do we go from here? This week's review will promise a
further White Paper. If the government wants to escape from the
hole it has dug for itself, it needs to support nuclear-free
pathways to its climate change goals.
As David Cameron said last week, nuclear should be the option of
last resort. If Blair sees new nuclear power as his legacy, he
will need to ask the Chancellor to make provision now for the
costs, and to stay around a lot longer.
· Stephen Hale is Director of Green Alliance. He was a special
adviser at the Department of Environment, Food &Rural Affairs
from 2002 to May 2006.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
36 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, U.S. Eye Nuke Power Cooperation
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday July 8, 2006 4:16 PM
By JUDITH INGRAM
MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and President
Bush are expected to make progress at a meeting next week on a
civilian nuclear power agreement, a Western official and
analysts said.
The two leaders, who have been promoting nuclear energy as a
clean alternative, have made similar proposals on providing
nuclear power to developing countries while building in
safeguards for nonproliferation of weapons.
``I think it is possible you're going to see further discussion
of how to advance that cooperation'' when the presidents meet on
the eve of the July 15-17 Group of Eight summit in St.
Petersburg, a Western diplomat said Friday, speaking on
condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Rose Gottemoeller, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center,
said the potential joint project was ``probably the biggest
story coming out of the Petersburg summit.''
``This is a field where Russia has a clear technological
advantage because over the past 30 years, the U.S. has
essentially abandoned nuclear power technology development'' in
the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in
Pennsylvania and the Chernobyl accident in 1986, Gottemoeller
said during a round table discussion on U.S.-Russian relations.
In January, Putin proposed establishing an international nuclear
center in Russia that would provide full fuel cycle services. He
said that the center could be the start of a network of such
centers around the world, and Russian Nuclear Agency chief
Sergei Kiriyenko said there could be up to five such centers in
other nations.
At about the same time, Bush introduced his Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, which would provide fresh fuel to countries
that agree to use it only for power generation and would recover
spent fuel.
Jon Wolfstahl, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in
Washington, predicted that Putin and Bush would announce the
start of negotiations on cooperation in developing a new
generation of nuclear power reactors.
``President Bush is very anxious to move his nuclear energy
proposals forward and he sees his relationship with President
Putin as a natural way to add momentum,'' Wolfstahl told The
Associated Press.
``The Russians have probably more modern nuclear reactor
technology than we do but they need our endorsement and our
cooperation if they are going to bring it to the international
market,'' he said. ``So there's a natural sort of convergence of
interests on this issue.''
Nuclear cooperation between the two countries has stalled for
more than a decade because of Washington's objections to
Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran, including construction
of an atomic power plant in Bushehr, Wolfstahl said.
``Now that Russia has been more cooperative in putting pressure
on Iran to abandon its'' alleged nuclear weapons program, the
United States ``won't allow the Iran relationship to get in the
way of this particular activity,'' Wolfstahl said.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that a nuclear agreement
would allow Russia to import and store nuclear fuel from
U.S.-supplied power plants, opening the way to a profitable
business.
Environmentalists have criticized Russia's efforts to develop
such a business, arguing it will turn the country into a dumping
ground for nuclear waste.
Russia has 31 reactors at 10 nuclear power plants, accounting
for about 16 percent of the country's electricity generation,
and Putin has called for raising the share to 25 percent.
Last month, Russia's atomic energy agency signed a contract with
a military shipbuilding plant to build the world's first
floating nuclear reactor near the Arctic port of Severodvinsk.
Gottemoeller said Russian technology in areas including fast
neutron reactors and recycling nuclear fuel ``far outstrip those
of other countries, including the United States.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
37 The Observer: Gas on high heat as Western power takes on Russia's energy giant
[UP]
This week's G8 summit could help decide how global resources are
shared, writes Conal Walsh
Sunday July 9, 2006
The Observer
The leaders of the G8 industrialised nations will be in no mood
for celebration next weekend when they sit down to a banquet in
St Petersburg. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, will put on
lavish hospitality, but it may not be long before knives are out
for the host.
Years in the planning, this summit was meant to mark Putin's
triumphant entry into the world statesmen's club. High energy
prices, indeed, have given Putin's gas-rich country a genuine
claim to sit alongside the mature economies of North America,
Europe and Japan. But while George Bush, Tony Blair and Jacques
Chirac will smile for the cameras, across the negotiating table
there will be few warm words for Putin.
Russia's growing power has been accompanied by spats with the
West, and the Kremlin is accused of using its position as a key
energy supplier to bully neighbours. There are other issues,
too, on which Russia disagrees with Europe and the US, including
Putin's human rights record and what to do about Iran. But
energy is the chosen theme for this week's meetings, and the
fate of Eurasia's vast gas and oilfields is what some diplomats
believe will dictate international politics in the next half
century.
The big question is who will control and have access to these
still largely unexploited resources. Russia will play a pivotal
role in answering that question, which becomes more urgent every
year as Europe's home-grown energy resources dwindle, America
looks for alternatives to the Middle East, and the
fast-expanding economies of China and India seek to secure fuel
sources for their rocketing economic growth.
Nobody imagines all of these issues can be resolved this week,
or even in the medium-term future. But the struggle for
influence in central Asia is already under way, with Europe in
particular desperate to reduce its dependence on Russian energy.
The EU imports 25 per cent of its gas from Russia; by 2030, that
figure is predicted to rise to 60 per cent. Most of this gas
comes from Gazprom, the state-controlled monopoly, which holds
an estimated quarter of the world's reserves but whose technical
ability to extract and transport this gas is uncertain. What is
more, nearly all of the energy that Europe gets from the
independent Caspian states currently comes via Gazprom's
pipeline network.
Europe's theoretical vulnerability to the whims of the Kremlin
was starkly illustrated in January, when Gazprom temporarily cut
supplies to Ukraine in a dispute over pricing. The episode
disrupted supplies to parts of the EU, boosting calls in Britain
and elsewhere to build more nuclear power stations as a means of
achieving energy self-sufficiency.
Russia's stranglehold on gas supplies has been a worry for some
time. In a bid to counter it - and much to Moscow's annoyance -
America and the EU have given strong backing to Western-leaning
governments in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. They have also
championed the Blue Stream Pipeline, a multinational project
connecting southern Europe via Turkey to the gas fields of
Azerbaijan, which comes on stream this year.
Blue Stream is the first Caspian pipe to bypass Russia but has
been dogged by delays, cross-border disputes and allegations of
environmental damage. Plans to extend the pipeline east to
Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have come to nothing. 'It is also
unrealistic because private companies are not investing in it,'
says Clifford Gaddy, a Russia expert at the Brookings
Institution in Washington.
Most telling of all is that Gazprom, ironically, has already
established itself as a key supplier to Blue Stream, which it
connects into via a pipeline under the Black Sea. It could be
that Gazprom will have the European market sewn up by the time
alternative corridors to Europe can be built in any number.
That is certainly the end Gazprom seems to be working toward. As
well as sponsoring a $5bn Baltic Sea pipeline, it is
consolidating its position in Europe by making acquisitions in
the downstream industry. The company has taken stakes in parts
of Europe's pipeline network, concluded a supply deal with Italy
and could soon bid for Centrica, the UK's biggest gas
distributor. Accompanying this expansion have been gestures of
defiance by Moscow. Last week Russia's government passed a bill
ratifying Gazprom's monopoly on the country's gas export
network, rejecting EU calls to let Western companies in.
Previously, it had expressed irritation at Europe's dismay over
the Ukrainian incident, hinting that it might choose to turn its
attention to Asian customers in future.
That drew a rebuke from US vice-president Dick Cheney, who
accused Russia of using energy as a tool of 'intimidation and
blackmail'. Washington's main gripe at the moment is Putin's
reluctance to allow American energy firms into the huge Shtokman
gas field until the US backs Russian entry to the World Trade
Organisation. On Gazprom's dominance over supply it is more
neutral, since it buys neither Russian nor Caspian gas in
meaningful quantities.
Without sustained diplomatic pressure from the US, it remains to
be seen if Caspian states can be persuaded to build new
pipelines and risk antagonising Moscow, on whose distribution
networks their own exports will depend for many years to come.
Economically, it could make better sense for some of these
states to focus on supplying China, especially since high oil
prices might offset the previously prohibitive costs of offshore
pipeline construction.
But William Browder, head of the Hermitage investment fund and
one of the biggest Western investors in Russia, dismisses the
idea that Gazprom would do the same: 'If you consider the
installed pipeline capacity [in the West] and the cost of
building infrastructure [in the east], there's no chance of
that. Europe is where the long-term investment is.'
Browder, whose fund holds a minority stake in Gazprom, believes
that 'Russia understands the importance of keeping the customer
on side' and points to Gazprom's decision to give ground in gas
pricing negotiations with Ukraine last week: 'Gazprom could have
cut off supplies again, but chose not to, because that would
have truly hurt its reputation as a reliable supplier.'
Rising US antagonism towards Russia, Browder says, reflects
Moscow's new-found diplomatic strength, rather than any
fundamental rift over policy. Russia and the West will remain
interdependent, he predicts.
'There's a lot of gas in many different countries. But Algeria,
for example, is unlikely to be a more reliable partner. Anyone
looking for alternative suppliers is faced with countries that
make Russia look like the least worst option.'
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
38 Guardian Unlimited: Revealed: Blair's energy blueprint
Long-awaited government review stresses need for more renewables
but critics blast nuclear plans
Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday July 9, 2006
The Observer
The government will this week unveil plans for a five-fold
increase in energy generation from wind, solar, tidal and
agricultural sources as a key measure in its long-awaited energy
review.
Proposals to raise the level of electricity produced by these
sources from 4 per cent to 20 per cent of the UK's needs, along
with moves to prioritise support towards promising technologies
that are currently uneconomic such as offshore wind farms, will
be outlined in the document, to be published on Tuesday.
The boost will be emphasised by ministers to head off criticisms
of the government's backing for nuclear power, which forms a key
part of the strategy.
In the 120-page document, the final draft of which has been seen
by The Observer, the government concludes that nuclear power is
now economically viable and that it should play a role in the
UK's future need for sources of carbon-free and secure energy.
The government is concerned that without nuclear, the UK will
become dependent on gas, moving from 38 per cent of today's
supply to 55 per cent by 2020, with up to 90 per cent of this
imported - largely from potentially unstable regions such as the
Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Russia. Three years ago it
drew the opposite conclusion in its last Energy White Paper. The
review says that the closure of nuclear and coal plants over the
coming decade will mean 25 gigawatts of carbon-free, secure
capacity must be built by 2020 - some 30 per cent of today's
total capacity.
The review states: 'Based on a range of possible scenarios, the
economics of nuclear now look more positive than at the time of
the 2003 Energy White paper.' It adds: 'Government considers
that nuclear should have a role to play in the future of the UK
generating mix, alongside other low carbon-generating options.'
Sources indicate that six modern stations, each capable of
generating 1.6 gigawatts of power, are envisaged by the
Department of Trade and industry.
However, the review also stresses that nuclear plants must be
financed and operated by the private sector, and that there will
be no subsidy to underpin them. The government's scenarios are
based on the continuation of high gas prices, which make nuclear
relatively more attractive, and the emergence of a reliable and
long-term market to place a 'charge' on carbon, the main source
of greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy experts are sceptical. Dr Jim Watson, the senior fellow
in the Sussex Energy Group at Sussex University, said: 'I find
it hard to see how the government can expect the market to fund
this against uncertainty on energy and carbon prices.'
The review states that it will support renewables, which
currently generate only 4 per cent of UK electricity, by
increasing the level of the Renewables Obligation (RO), which
forces power suppliers to source a given amount of their
electricity from them at a given price through a system of
certificates.
It will do this by:
· Increasing the level of the RO. Currently there is a target to
supply 15 per cent of electricity from these sources by 2015.
The review states that the target will always be set above
existing capacity so that investors know there is no risk of
oversupply.
· Creating 'bands' within the RO, with a higher price for
technologies that are uneconomic but should create high volumes
of renewable power, such as offshore wind farms and solar
installations. The review admits this has been unsuccessful so
far.
The review outlines a streamlined planning process in which
generic nuclear reactor types can be pre-licenced and a High
Court judge will be appointed to expedite local planning
inquiries.
Much of the strategy relies on the establishment of a stable and
predictable price for carbon, which will penalise gas and other
fossil fuels. The report makes clear that this means overhauling
the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which sets caps on CO2
emissions permitted by each European nation, with penalties for
those that exceed them.
Investors will need some persuading, after the price of carbon
fell by 70 per cent earlier this year because some EU countries,
particularly Germany, set generous caps on their industries.
The paper states: 'A clear and stable long-term carbon policy
framework is important for creating the confidence and certainty
that is needed to underline changes in industry behaviour.' One
industry expert was sceptical, saying: 'The UK government is
going to have to tell EU states that they must crack down on
their industry to make our nuclear plants pay for themselves.'
Watson said: 'The banks are going to want reassurance on
assumptions on the gas price, the carbon price and the ability
of nuclear to generate at that level. I think these numbers are
optimistic.'
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
*****************************************************************
39 London Times: Tough choices on energy -
The Sunday Times - Comment
The Sunday Times July 09, 2006
Most people would not hold their breath in keen anticipation of a
government’s energy review, but rarely has the country been more
receptive to bright ideas about solving our energy needs without
risking damage to the planet. After delivering the review, Tony
Blair and other western leaders will troop off to St Petersburg
next weekend for a summit meeting hosted by Vladimir Putin in
which energy security will top the agenda. It is a reminder that
the rich countries of the West are increasingly reliant on energy
from nations such as Russia, Iran and those of the Middle East.
Nobody in Britain can feel too secure that we are going to have
to rely on Mr Putin and his regime, which controls more than a
quarter of the world’s gas reserves, to supply our energy.
Whether the motivation is energy security or reducing carbon
emissions, we all have an interest in developing other sources
of energy. We also have an interest in reducing energy
consumption. The government’s plan to persuade manufacturers to
phase out standby buttons on televisions and other electrical
products may sound like a gimmick, but it could cut the
country’s electricity bill by £740m and reduce carbon emissions
by 3%. Unplugging mobile phone chargers could free enough
electricity to power 66,000 homes for a year. Lots of small
measures can add up to a big effect. People are keen to respond
by buying energy-efficient fridges, cookers and cars. As the
energy review will make clear, we have barely scratched the
surface.
There are also hard choices in energy, especially those that
affect the environment. A proposed 10-mile Severn barrage could
generate 5% of our electricity demand but objectors say the
environmental cost will be substantial. This newspaper has
opposed wind farms across swathes of Britain’s countryside. For
new nuclear power stations to be viable, the government must
answer questions about the safe disposal of dangerous waste.
These are hard questions with no easy answers. The one thing we
cannot afford is to ignore them.
Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
40 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Injunction sought against Diablo project
| 07/08/2006 |
Opponents of dry cask storage want work stopped until a
court-ordered assessment of terrorism risks is made
By Bob Cuddy bcuddy@thetribunenews.com
+ Read statement from Mothers for Peace opposing storage of
radioactive waste at Diablo Canyon
Mothers for Peace and other local groups have asked the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to halt work on a dry cask storage
facility at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
The groups are seeking an injunction to stop the construction
until the NRC completes an environmental impact statement
assessing the risks of a terrorist attack on the facility, as
ordered last month by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It’s unclear how long the environmental study will take.
Pacific Gas &Electric, which owns and operates the plant,
reiterated Friday that the ruling doesn’t affect operation of
the plant and won’t delay construction of the dry cask storage
facility, which has begun.
PG is building the project in phases and will fill storage casks
as needed.
The dry cask facility is being built to store used but still
highly radioactive fuel assemblies pulled out of the power
plant. The spent fuel pools inside the plant are nearing
capacity, and the proposed federal repository intended for used
fuel, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is facing strong political
opposition. Whether it will ever open is in question.
"We don’t want them to be building this thing and then finding
out that it’s not safe (against terrorist attack)," Jill ZaMek
of Mothers for Peace said Friday of the dry cask storage.
The Sierra Club’s Santa Lucia chapter and former county
Supervisor Peg Pinard have joined Mothers for Peace in the
injunction effort.
The groups have asked the NRC to threaten PG with denial of a
new permit if it continues to build the dry cask facility before
the court-ordered review process has finished.
The NRC couldn’t be reached for comment Friday.
*****************************************************************
41 BBC: UK sees nuclear power as 'viable'
Last Updated: Sunday, 9 July 2006
[Nuclear plant being demolished]
Decommissioned power plants need to be replaced in coming years
The UK government is expected to say nuclear power is
"economically viable" when it unveils an energy review on
Tuesday, a report has said.
The Observer newspaper claims to have seen a final copy of the
review, which will lay out recommendations for the development
of the UK's energy sector.
However, the government will want any expansion of nuclear power
to be paid for by companies and not by the state.
It also wants a large increase in power from sources such as
wind and solar.
The Department of Trade and Industry said it would not comment
on leaks and declined to confirm or deny the contents of the
review.
Powering ahead
Energy generation and supply has become a hot topic as demand
increases and the UK becomes more dependent on foreign suppliers,
and has to decommission ageing nuclear and coal-fired power
plants.
Nuclear should have a role play in the future of the UK
generating mix, alongside other low carbon-generating options DTI
energy review
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said earlier this year that nuclear
power was back on the agenda, marking a shift in government
policy and sparking a fierce debate about its safety and
financial viability.
In a 2003 White Paper on UK energy, the government said nuclear
power was not the best option from a financial point of view.
The Observer said the government's change of direction came
because without nuclear power the UK would end up using more
gas, much of which would have to come from nations in unstable
regions such as the Middle East.
According to the paper, gas will account for 55% of the UK's
total energy consumption by 2020, with as much as 90% of that
being imported.
[Woman protesting against nuclear power]
The nuclear topic stirs up emotions
"Based on a range of possible scenarios, the economics of
nuclear now look more positive than at the time of the 2003
Energy White Paper," the DTI is reported to have concluded in
its review.
"Government considers that nuclear should have a role to play in
the future of the UK generating mix, alongside other low
carbon-generating options," it added.
Offsetting
In an effort to balance many concerns about the increased role
of nuclear power, the government will also look to boost the
amount of power from sources such as wind, solar, tidal and
agricultural sources, the Observer said.
The UK currently gets about 4% of its energy from so-called
renewable sources and the government wants this to increase this
to 20%. It also will look to providing greater support for
developing new technologies, the paper said.
While many experts will welcome these changes, others have
raised question marks over the willingness of companies to
invest in nuclear power and other carbon-free energy sources
when there is no guarantee of future power prices.
Much will depend on how companies in the future are penalised
for the pollution they produce, and how quickly European states
can implement a harmonised and stable carbon-trading market, the
paper added.
*****************************************************************
42 Sunday Herald: Politcal consensus on power is overdue -
NULL
THERE were welcome signs last week that some sense may be
beginning to emerge through the haze on an issue that is of
vital import to almost every business: namely the future of UK
energy policy.
As the CBI said in a statement, it appears that the main
political parties are edging towards a consensus on the issue.
Richard Lambert, the bodys recently appointed director-general
pointed out that there were welcome similarities in the line
taken in comments made by trade and industry secretary Alistair
Darling and in the Conservative Partys interim energy report.
This was indeed encouraging, ahead of the energy green paper
expected this week. As Lambert said, political consenus is vital
if our companies and households are to have secure, affordable
and cleaner energy in the future.
As Lambert stressed, one matter that is essential is the
introduction of streamlined planning rules for energy
infrastructure developments.
The review, conducted by Monetary Policy Committe member and
former CBI chief economist Kate Barker, agreed with what we have
opined in these columns many times before: the UKs flawed
planning regime is holding back development that is essential to
the economy and the country as a whole.
Both major UK political parties have also moved towards saying
that nuclear energy as a source of reliable and low-carbon power
is a key part of the mix for energy production in the future. We
believe that is the only logical conclusion to which a thought-
out review can come, but at the same time more investment should
be put into sustainable power sources to achieve a proper
balanced energy policy in future.
09 July 2006
© newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
43 Sunday Herald: Lower grade uranium could hasten climate change pace -
By Rob Edwards Environment Editor
AS the use of nuclear power expands, it will become
increasingly ineffective at combating global warming, warns a
report by an independent think tank published today .
The Oxford Research Group argues that a worldwide shortage of
high- grade uranium ore will force new nuclear reactors to
exploit increasingly lower-grade ores for their fuel. Because
that requires more energy to extract, the process will result in
ever-greater amounts of climate-wrecking pollution.
A report by the Dutch nuclear expert Jan Willem Storm van
Leeuwen says that, after 2034, the grade of uranium ore being
dug out of the ground will fall dramatically. This will cause
nuclear power to become increasingly inefficient and expensive,
leading to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions, he says.
By 2070 the grade of uranium ore being used will have become so
poor he predicts that nuclear power will become a net energy
user. At the end of 2005 the worlds known recoverable uranium
resources amounted to about 3.6 million tonnes, mostly in
Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan.
A similar point will be made tomorrow when the Scottish National
Party (SNP) publishes its energy review. It has been written for
the party by leading energy experts Stephen Salter, Kerr
MacGregor and Clifford Jones.
The SNP review argues that within 50 years or less carbon
dioxide emissions from nuclear power could be as high as those
from gas-fired power stations. Nuclear technology also releases
chlorine and fluorine which can be thousands of times more
effective at causing climate chaos, it points out.
The value of nuclear power as a weapon against climate change
might have been exaggerated, the review concludes. The advantage
may not be as large as has been claimed.
The nuclear industry, however, is optimistic that new reserves
of uranium will be discovered. And, if not, it will rely on the
fast breeder reactor, which extracts up to 60 times more energy
from uranium than conventional reactors.
According to Luis Echavárri, director-general of the Nuclear
Energy Agency of the OECD club of industrialised nations, fast
reactors will be needed in 60 years time. They are most
attractive from a sustainable point of view, he said.
But the industrys view is dismissed by the Green MSP Chris
Ballance. The fast reactor was a discredited technology across
the world, he said. And building nuclear power stations to
tackle climate change is about as much use as a chocolate
fireguard.
09 July 2006
© newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
44 Sunday Herald: Conveniently clouding over the lessons of Britains nuclear history -
What we think
Tony Blairs energy review has pulled off a remarkable feat: it
has abolished history. Dont take our word for it, read what Dr
Colin Mitchell, a manager of nuclear policy at the Department of
Trade and Industry in London, wrote last month when he turned
down a request for information on the review.
I have spoken directly with the team carrying out the energy
review and they have informed me that in-depth research into the
past performance of the nuclear industry is not required to
carry out the review, he said. The past performance, when the
nuclear industry was establishing itself, has little correlation
to the future performance.
So history is bunk. There is no need to learn from the mistakes
of the past because the past is not related to the future. If
you are about to do something stupid, this is a very handy
notion.
When the Prime Ministers review finally sees the light of day
this week, its headline conclusion will contain no surprises. As
ministers have been signalling for months, it will endorse a
programme of new nuclear power stations to replace those that
are due to close down.
The only way for Blair to do this without flinching is to ignore
the history of nuclear power over the last 50 years. Because if
he remembered the mountains of radioactive waste, the companies
that have gone to the wall and the billions of pounds wasted, he
would choose another way.
Unfortunately, the leaders who will be joining Blair at the G8
summit in St Petersburg next weekend look like they are going to
make a similar mistake. As we reveal today, they are planning a
major worldwide expansion of nuclear power to ensure global
energy security. The also want to revive the fast breeder
reactor, which depends upon plutonium, the raw material of the
atomic bomb.
Blair and the other G8 leaders might prefer to ignore history
but its lessons are very clear. In the past, spreading civil
nuclear technology has often led to the spread of military
nuclear technology, thereby rendering the world a less safe
place. Previous efforts to develop the fast breeder reactor have
also failed: more than £2 billion was spent on it at Dounreay
before it was dropped as too costly.
Too many memories are too short. Our leaders need to learn from
history, not abolish it.
09 July 2006
© newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
45 APP.COM - Roads the reason to ditch plan
| Asbury Park Press Online
Saturday, July 8, 2006
The only way out of town in some parts of southern and
central Ocean County is by two-lane blacktop road. This alone
renders current evacuation plans unworkable if the unthinkable
were to occur within a 10-mile radius of the Oyster Creek
nuclear plant in Lacey.
That's why groups such as the Ocean County League of Women
Voters and Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety this
week urged the Ocean County freeholders to give a no-confidence
vote to the evacuation plans in the event of an emergency at
Oyster Creek at a public hearing Tuesday. We think the
freeholders should do just that. As Freeholder John P. Kelly
said after the groups' presentation, "We just don't have the
roads for it."
The existing plan, such as it is, has been tweaked and updated
for years. No amount of revision has yet resulted in an
evacuation plan that deals with the very real limitations of
area infrastructure and human psychology.
It's a complicated sort of plan, dividing the area into
pie-shaped areas called "emergency planning areas." The
architects of the plan say it takes into account the nature of
the nuclear emergency and such things as wind direction to
determine which pie-shaped areas should be evacuated.
If there were a serious accident at Oyster Creek, if radiation
escaped in amounts that necessitated an evacuation, does anybody
really believe the people who make up the whole pie wouldn't all
try to get out of the area? And at nearly the same time?
Ocean County residents have enough traffic headaches getting
around the area during the summer, when the only emergency is
making sure we have packed enough sunscreen.
Given the current thinking, getting out of the area in event of
a nuclear emergency seems like a pipe dream, even if the worst
came to pass either before Memorial Day or after Labor Day.
This all adds up to one conclusion: A no-confidence vote by the
freeholders is a no-brainer.
Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 APP.COM: Public gets say on new Oyster Creek report
| Asbury Park Press Online
Saturday, July 8, 2006
ALSO: Hearing on safety plan set for Tuesday
BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER
A controversial draft report on the anticipated
environmental impacts of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant
will be the subject of a public hearing Wednesday.
One day before the meeting, state officials are scheduled to
hold an annual hearing to collect public comments on the
response plan they would use in case a radioactive release from
the Lacey plant threatened Ocean County.
Department officials would likely cancel Tuesday's hearing if
state government remains closed due to the absence of an
approved budget.
Comments gathered by emergency planners with the state Department
of Environmental Protection and the State Police would provide
the state agencies with information that could be used to alter
the response plan, which includes instructions on how to evacuate
the public.
Tuesday's hearing will start at 7 p.m. at the Ocean County
Administrative Building.
Wednesday's meeting will give the public an opportunity to
comment on a draft environmental report put together by federal
regulators considering whether to renew the plant's operating
license for an additional 20 years.
The report, released by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
in June, said the plant would have a small impact on the
environment if given permission to keep running past the
expiration of the existing 40-year license in 2009.
Regulators also wrote that alternative sources of power at the
site — using coal, natural gas or the latest in nuclear
technology — might have greater impacts.
DEP officials and some environmentalists want plant operator
AmerGen Energy Co. to build a cooling tower, which would
drastically reduce the amount of water needed to cool the plant,
along with the amount of sea life killed by the existing cooling
system.
AmerGen officials have said that their current cooling system
has a small impact on Barnegat Bay. The company also meets
environmental regulations, they have said.
Environmentalists have been particularly concerned about the
plant because its cooling water is drawn from one of the bay's
tributaries.
Nicholas Clunn: (732) 643-4072 or nclunn@app.com
MEETINGS
WHAT: Oyster Creek emergency response plan hearing.
WHEN: 7 p.m. Tuesday.
WHERE: Ocean County Administrative Building, 101 Hooper Ave.,
Toms River.
WHAT: Meeting to discuss draft environmental report on Oyster
Creek.
WHEN: 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. and 7 to 10 p.m. Wednesday.
WHERE: Toms River Quality Inn, 815 Route 37, Dover Township.
Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
47 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point plant returns to full power
By LEN MANIACE lmaniace@lohud.com
(Original publication: July 9, 2006)
Indian Point 3 returned to full power early yesterday following
an interruption in service that began Thursday when worn wiring
in a transformer, beneath the nuclear plant's power generator,
triggered an automatic shutdown.
The plant hit full capacity at 1:30 a.m. after workers began to
restore power at 2:40 p.m. Friday, said Jim Steets, a spokesman
for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plant's owner. The plant was
knocked off line at 4 a.m. Thursday. Steets attributed it to
worn wiring beneath the generator where it is subject to greater
vibration.
Indian Point 3, which produces 1,000 megawatts, or about 5
percent of the state's power, had been experiencing one of its
more reliable operating periods. It had run continuously for 273
days, the third-longest period since starting to produce
electricity in 1976.
The problem did not affect the nuclear side of the plant and
caused no radioactive release, federal regulators said Friday.
Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
48 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3 back online
By GREG CLARY
(Original publication: July 8, 2006)
BUCHANAN Indian Point 3 is expected to be back up to full
capacity this morning after technicians there found that worn
wiring underneath a huge transformer caused the automatic
shutdown of the nuclear plant early Thursday morning.
There was no radioactive release, federal regulators said, and
no risk to the public from the stoppage.
The plant produces 1,000 megawatts of electricity enough to
power 1 million homes and was shut down about 4 a.m. Thursday
after a relay switch tripped because of a short in the wiring.
"They found that the wiring had worn," said Jim Steets, a
spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the two
operating nuclear plants at the Buchanan site. "The wiring is
located under the main generator's turbine and is subject to
greater vibration than in other places."
Steets said the repairs were made Thursday and yesterday and
other wiring was checked before the plant was synchronized to
the statewide electrical grid at 2:40 p.m. yesterday. The
shorter the shutdown time, the quicker the plant can be back to
full generating capacity, he said.
Steets declined to say how much money the shutdown cost Entergy,
but said that the producer continued to meet its contractual
responsibility to supply power by purchasing it on the open
market.
A spokesman for the New York Independent System Operator said
after the shutdown that there was adequate power in reserve on
the state's electrical grid to compensate for the temporary
loss. Indian Point 3 supplies about 5 percent of the state's
power.
Resident inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
observed the repairs, along with the shutdown and restart, NRC
spokeswoman Diane Screnci said.
"The resident inspectors have been monitoring everything,"
Screnci said. "We wouldn't let them restart if we thought there
were any problems."
NRC and Entergy officials said the shutdown went by the book and
there were no incidents.
Up until the stoppage, Indian Point 3 had operated continuously
for 273 days, its third longest period since it started
producing electricity in 1976.
Copyright 2006 The Journal News,. Inc. newspaper serving
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of
*****************************************************************
49 Brattleboro Reformer: Vernon weighs appeal of VY plant valuation
By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff
Saturday, July 8 VERNON -- The town's Board of Civil Authority
will visit Vermont Yankee this month as it weighs an appeal of
the plant's assessed property value, which rose by more than 25
percent this year.
The Board of Listers, which set the value, had pointed out that
an assessor for the town did not have access to the plant when
he determined the value.
Officials from Entergy, the company that owns Vermont Yankee,
came before the board on Thursday in their second effort to
contest the assessment.
Patricia Galbraith, a company tax official, explained to the
board that it would not have been safe to bring members of the
public through the plant during the course of its power boost
this spring. She said it would be appropriate now.
The town now lists the plant's value at $239.4 million and
assesses its fuel at an additional $35 million. That assessment
was made based on public information about the plant, from
sources including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
Vermont Public Service Board.
Last year, Vermont Yankee paid $1,224,900 in municipal taxes on
a $180 million assessment, which included all of the plant's
real and personal property.
The plant pays education taxes directly to the state, and those
aren't affected by this tax stabilization agreement.
The Board of Civil Authority, a quasi-judicial body made up of
the town's Selectboard and its justices of the peace, has the
authority to revisit property assessments.
The board is set to tour the plant on July 26, at 5:30 p.m.
Members have 15 days after that to decide whether to change the
assessment.
But this board may not be able to fully settle the disagreement
by changing the assessed figure.
The major issue between the two sides has to do with a tax
stabilization agreement made between the town and Vermont Yankee
in 2000. It calls for the plant's value to decline steadily
through 2010, from $165 million this year, to $150 million next
year, to $130 million the following year, to $120 million in
2010.
The town has determined that Vermont Yankee's recent 20 percent
power boost invalidated that agreement, but the plant says it
still holds.
Officials from both Entergy and the town of Vernon have declined
requests for comment on the issue.
While the agreement was in effect, Vernon's Board of Listers did
not assess the plant's value. It was set by the terms of the
deal.
Galbraith told the Board of Civil Authority Thursday that the
plant should not have any value other than the one set in the
stabilization agreement.
"We have a tax stabilization agreement in place to have that
value placed on the grand list. Any other value is invalid," she
said.
Also, Galbraith said, Entergy sees several substantive issues in
the assessment that it does not agree with. She did not go into
specifics.
Vernon Lister Phyllis Newton told the board that Vermont
Yankee's increased value would significantly decrease the town's
tax rate.
The Selectboard hasn't officially set the tax rate yet, but
Newton said the listers calculated that the increase in taxable
property would reduce the municipal tax rate by more than 20
cents per $100 of assessed property value.
At that rate, she said, Vermont Yankee would only pay the town
about $30,750 more than it did last year.
Galbraith disagreed with those calculations. She said the plant
had expected, under the agreement, to pay less in taxes this
year.
Andy Rosen can be reached at or (802) 254-2311, ext. 275.
New England Newspapers, Inc.
» (802) 254-2311
» 62 Black Mountain Road
» Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242
*****************************************************************
50 Reuters: U.S., Russia to pursue civilian nuclear pact
Sat 8 Jul 2006 5:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - The United States is initiating
talks with Russia aimed at reaching an agreement on civilian
nuclear energy cooperation, the White House said on Saturday.
"Such an agreement would benefit both the United States and
Russia and indeed the world by enabling advances in and greater
use of nuclear energy," said White House spokesman Peter Watkins.
Earlier on Saturday the Washington Post reported President
George W. Bush will allow extensive U.S. civilian nuclear
cooperation with Russia in a reversal of decades of bipartisan
policy. The Post said the move could be worth billions of
dollars to Russia but possibly stir an uproar in the U.S.
Congress.
The White House provided no specifics about the scope of
cooperation being considered in the talks.
The Post said a deal would clear the way for Russia to import
and store thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from
U.S.-supplied reactors around the world.
The newspaper, quoting administration officials, said the
decision would be announced at Bush's meeting with Russian
President Vladimir Putin next Saturday before the annual summit
of the Group of Eight industrialized nations.
Bush has resisted such extensive nuclear cooperation for years,
insisting Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for
Iran, the Post reported.
But U.S. officials have changed their view of Russia's
collaboration with Iran and have concluded Putin has become a
more constructive partner in trying to pressure Iran to give up
any move for nuclear weapons, the paper said.
The Post added the deal could be used as an incentive to gain
more Russian cooperation on Iran.
"Our policy on assistance to Iran's nuclear program has not
changed," Watkins said. "We've made clear to Russia that for
agreement on peaceful cooperation to go forward we will need
Russia's active cooperation in blocking Iran's attempts to
obtain nuclear weapons."
Watkins added that recognition of the need to prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons was acknowledged in an incentives
package offered to Iran by six powers -- the United States,
Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany.
The package is aimed at trying to get Iran to halt uranium
enrichment and answer questions about its nuclear program.
"Russia and the United States are in agreement that Iran should
not have nuclear weapons and this view is reflected today as we
press for Iran's prompt response to the international
community's proposal," Watkins said.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [ border=]
*****************************************************************
51 tulsaworld.com: Nuclear power
Opinion
[Today's Tulsa World]
Sunday, July 09, 2006
By KEN NEAL Editorial Pages Editor
Around the globe, plants are proven efficient, cost-effective and
safe The price of a barrel of crude oil hit $75.19 on the New
York Mercantile Exchange last week. Meanwhile, 103 nuclear
generating plants on 65 sites in 31 states produced 20 percent of
the nation's electric power at a fifth of the cost of oil-fired
generators.
The big debate in oil circles is the one as old as the business:
How much oil and gas is there and how soon will mankind use it
all?
Experts argue that, but there are certainties about fossil fuel.
First, rising worldwide demand means more competition for oil
and gas and therefore higher prices. The $75 oil prices brought
with it predictions of $3 per gallon gasoline, for example.
The end of oil will come some day, so "alternate" fuels are the
buzz words. Make alcohol from corn; revise engines to be able to
burn it; make farmers (and Archer Daniels Midland) rich. Wind
power. Solar power. Both sound good but are not likely to
produce the concentrations of electricity needed.
Back on the nuclear ranch.
Here are a few figures from the Nuclear Energy Institute,
admittedly the publication arm of the industry.
As of June, there were 442 nuclear electricity-generating plants
in 30 countries with 27 more under construction in 11 countries.
The nuclear plant at Palo Verde, Ariz., produces more
electricity than any other plant in the U.S. It alone generates
more power than all solar and wind plants in the U.S. combined.
Nuclear plants are more reliable than electricity generating
plants run on other fuels. Nuclear plants produced about 90
percent of their capacity in 2005. Coal-fired plants, by
comparison, produced about 73 percent of their capacity.
Cost to operate comparison:
Nuclear: 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour.
Coal: 2.21 cents per KWH.
Oil: 8.09 cents per KWH.
Natural Gas: 7.51 cents per KWH.
Bogus numbers? Not likely. It costs more to build a nuclear
plant than conventionally-fueled plants. But over the life of
those facilities, nuclear operations are preferred.
That does not take into account that nuclear power plants do not
pollute. The Institute (and President George W. Bush) estimate
that nuclear generating plants in the U.S. kept 700 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the air annually, an amount
equal to the emissions of 136 million passenger cars.
Because of the damage that all fossil fuels cause the
environment, some environmentalists are looking anew at nuclear
power. Massive stripping of land to get at coal and oil shale as
well as the problems of burning fossil fuel put the nukes in a
new light.
Safety will, of course, be the objection to nuclear. The nuclear
protesters can be expected to trot out the Halloween masks and
predictions of doomsday. But the objections are largely
emotional, not based on fact.
A nuclear plant is perhaps the safest workplace in the world. If
you live next door to a nuclear plant, you are apt to get the
same radiation that you would get from an airline flight from
New York to Los Angeles.
You'd have to live next door to a plant for 2,000 years to equal
the radiation you get from one medical X-ray.
The largest source of manmade radiation, by the way, is from
medical institutions. Virtually all hospitals have at least one
nuclear radiation unit. Nuclear power is used in a variety of
medical diagnostics and treatments.
The bugaboo of nuclear power is disposal of the used pellets
that are being held in "pools" at plants scattered across the
country. The pellets are in lead-lined vaults with as much as 18
inches of concrete in the walls.
From the start of nuclear generating plants in the late 1950s,
storage at the plants (or munitions facilities) were considered
temporary. Ultimately, the used nuclear fuel will be stored at
Yucca Mountain, Nev., in geologically stable caves. Although it
will take thousands of years for used fuel to be "safe,"
scientists hope to develop reactors that can "burn" it in
"breeder" reactors.
It would be nice if the storage question didn't exist. But it
does. Is it safer to leave spent nuclear fuel stacked at
locations in 31 states, or put it all in one place? There are
citizens who claim nuclear plants cause cancer. But then there
are citizens who swear that magnetic fields cause disease; some
who claim that cell phones cause brain damage.
More than 65 years after the first experimental reactor lighted
four light bulbs, nuclear power has yet to have been proved to
cause disease. Yeah, there was the Chernobyl disaster, but that
is like refusing to build barns because someone burned one down.
In the U.S., the notorious Three Mile Island nuclear accident
proved, if nothing else, that an American designed facility can
withstand virtually every mistake that can be made and still be
safe. And compared to today's plants, Three Mile Island is an
antique.
Alternate fuels?
Look no farther than nuclear power.
Ken Neal 581-8330 ken.neal@tulsaworld.com
Copyright© 2006 , World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
52 Scotsman.com News: SNP vows 'no more nuclear power plants' if
party wins next election
Edinburgh Evening News Dating Jobs
Sat 8 Jul 2006
Alex Salmond: Wants to put focus on clean energy for Scotland.
Picture: Ian Rutherford
HAMISH MACDONELL
ALEX Salmond yesterday put nuclear power at the heart of next
year's election campaign when he published the SNP's
environmental proposals, vowing never to allow more nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
The SNP leader was determined to stress the difference between
his party, which is totally opposed to new nuclear power
stations, and Labour, which has endorsed the principle of new
stations for Scotland.
Jack McConnell has tried to tread an uneasy balance by refusing
to rule out nuclear power altogether, but also stressing his
commitment to renewable energy and hoping that Scotland will not
need to build any new nuclear stations.
With the government's long-awaited energy review due to be
published next week, Mr Salmond was unequivocal on the issue
yesterday, insisting that Scotland did not need new nuclear
stations.
"We need to take a principled stand, because it's what Scotland
needs - for our environment, for our economy, for our
well-being," he said.
Mr Salmond declared: "Under my leadership, Scotland will not
take a step backwards to the nuclear age, but will instead take
strides to become the pre- eminent location for clean energy
research, development and delivery in Europe."
And he added: "The SNP is currently looking at ways we can put
renewable generation into the heart of every Scottish community.
"But, as a bottom line, we must as a government actively promote
take-up by local organisations of community scale heat exchange,
wind and hydro projects.
"From wind turbines on the scout hut to solar heating on the
church roof, the opportunity is there to be seized. If we have
the ambition.
"We all have a part to play in meeting the challenge of global
warming, and Scotland is fortunate in that we have an abundance
of green energy potential. There is no doubt in my mind that
Scotland can become a beacon nation for renewable and clean
carbon technology."
The SNP claims that Scotland has 25 per cent of Europe's
capacity for wind and tidal power, as well as 10 per cent of
Europe's wave power, and it wants to see this harnessed and
turned into a profitable and environmentally sustainable
industry.
The Nationalists have also vowed to implement a climate change
policy incorporating ambitious targets for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, as well as supporting research and
development into clean technologies.
Mr Salmond said: "Our environmental ambitions are integral to a
better future for Scotland. It means improved economic prospects
through new skills, more jobs, and an increasingly efficient and
extensive public transport infrastructure. That's why building a
greener future for Scotland is central to success."
However, the SNP's environmental strategy was derided by the
Greens, who said that while the Nationalists had commendable
policies on renewables, their whole approach was undermined by
their transport, fishing and oil policies.
Mark Ballard, a Green MSP, said: "Whilst I welcome Mr Salmond's
foray into the environmental agenda, I hope he takes a long,
hard look at some of the contradictions in his approach.
"The SNP cannot be taken seriously on the environment as long as
they support the building of the M74 extension, the Aberdeen
bypass and a host of other road expansion projects that will
increase traffic levels and pollution.
"Their support for massive expansion of aviation also bursts the
Nationalist environmental bubble rather severely."
And he added: "Mr Salmond needs to add coherence as well as
green paint to his toolkit."
*****************************************************************
53 AFP: Bush to allow US civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia - report -
Sat Jul 8, 12:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush " /> President George
W. Bushis set to allow extensive US civilian nuclear cooperation
with Russia for the first time ever, it was reported, citing
administration officials.
Both the Bush administration and the previous government of
President Bill Clinton " /> Bill Clintonrefused to consider such
cooperation until Russia stopped building a nuclear plant for
Iran " /> Irannear the Gulf.
But US officials now believe that Russian President Vladimir
Putin " /> Vladimir Putinhas been increasingly helpful in trying
to pressure Tehran into giving up its nuclear weapons
aspirations, according to the Washington Post.
A nuclear cooperation agreement would also let the US nuclear
energy industry export tonnes of nuclear waste from US-supplies
reactors around the world to Russia, a deal in which Moscow
stands to make up to 20 billion dollars, according to the Post.
This would in turn facilitate the expansion of nuclear energy
plants around the world, a move also supported by the Bush
administration.
The agreement does not need congressional approval as long as it
conforms to US law, but can be sunk by a majority in both houses
of Congress within 30 days of its signing.
According to the Post, Bush and Putin are to announce the start
of negotiations for a formal agreement when they meet on July 15
at the Group of Eight industrialized nations summit in St.
Petersburg, Russia.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
54 New York Times: Bush Says Korean Missile Shows Need for Shield -
By DAVID E. SANGERPublished: July 7, 2006
CHICAGO, July 7 — President Bush said today that he believes the
nation's nascent missile defense system would have had a
"reasonable chance" of shooting down a long-range missile
launched by North Korea had it come close to the United States,
and he said he was determined to use the United Nationsto set
"some red lines" for North Korea's future behavior.
] Peter Thompson for The New York Times
President Bush speaking to reporters during a news conference at
the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
Transcript: President Bush's News Conference (July 7, 2006)
Video: Bush in Chicago
Mr. Bush said the launching of a prototype long-range missile
that tumbled into the Sea of Japan showed why missile defenses
are needed, but he acknowledged that the capabilities of the
unproven missiles based in Alaska and California are "modest,"
and he said it was "hard for me to give you a probability of
success."
"I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting it down, at
least that's what the military commander has told me," he said
at a news conference in Chicago.
Although defensive sensors and missiles, while not fully
tested, are theoretically available for use in an emergency,
Pentagon officials have said there was little reason to think
they would have been used this week, as the North Korean test
missile was not thought to carry a live warhead.
In an hourlong news conference here that was part of a new White
House strategy to bolster Mr. Bush's sagging popularity around
the country, the president sounded mildly frustrated that
diplomacy to disarm North Korea and halt Iran's nuclear program
was so "slow and cumbersome."
But Mr. Bush sidestepped questions about under what conditions
he might be tempted to use military force, saying he was
determined to find diplomatic solutions to both disputes. And,
in a sharp contrast to the kind of claims he made about Iraq
based on vague intelligence reports, he cast doubt on North
Korea's claims that it possesses what that country calls a
"nuclear deterrent."
Mr. Bush challenged a reporter who, in posing a question,
asserted that North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, had increased
the size of his nuclear arsenal during Mr. Bush's presidency. "I
don't think we know that," the president shot back. But, in what
may have been a sign of his wariness about intelligence
assessments of opaque nations, Mr. Bush pointedly declined to
say what assessment he believes.
"Maybe you know, but you're not telling," one reporter said. Mr.
Bush replied, "That's an option," and then, to laughter, added,
"Or maybe I don't know and don't want to tell you I don't know."
A new "National Intelligence Estimate" of North Korea's
capabilities was completed earlier this year, but the Bush
administration has declined to publish a declassified version of
it. According to officials who are familiar with its contents,
it concludes that North Korea has likely produced enough fuel
for six or more nuclear weapons from a supply of 8,000 spent
reactor-fuel rods that the country boasts it reprocessed after
expelling international nuclear inspectors three years ago.
"What we don't know is whether they turned those into weapons,"
one senior intelligence official said in a recent interview.
"You can assume it, but it is just an assumption."
Mr. Bush's discussion of "red lines" — a term drawn from the
cold war limits over steps the United States and Soviet Union
agreed not to take for fear they could spiral into war — was
important because until now his aides have said such limits do
not work in North Korea's case. Three years ago, one of the
president's senior aides said that it would be useless to
declare to North Korea that turning its spent fuel into
plutonium was a "red line" because the United States had no
effective way to enforce the threat. The North Koreans went
ahead anyway, lines or no lines.
It was the ambitious North Korean program to extend the reach of
its missiles — along with its work on producing nuclear warheads
— that many proponents of the missile defense plan cited to
justify the Pentagon's huge expenditures on the new defensive
system, which is costing about $9 billion a year and is still in
the early stages of a long and complex development process.
After deciding to field a first batch of interceptors without
fully testing them, in what commanders have called a "thin line"
of defense against a small-scale attack, the Pentagon
interrupted its testing for more than a year after a series of
test failures. The testing of missiles and radars has now
resumed, with an important set of test shots at dummy targets
expected to begin as early as this summer.
If they succeed, officials have told Congress, there will be
better grounds for confidence that the system would be able to
intercept a missile launched from North Korea or from Iran.
As things stand now, though, there considerable uncertainty over
both sides of the technology race: how long it will take North
Korea to produce a missile capable of posing a serious risk to
the United States, and how long it will take to build a reliable
defensive system.
Though North Korea and the response to that nation's missile
tests dominated the news conference, Mr. Bush was questioned on
other topics and he denied that the United States was trimming
back on its search for Osama bin Laden by disbanding a unit
within the Central Intelligence Agency that focused on that hunt.
"We got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden," Mr. Bush
said. "So whatever you want to read in that story, it's just not
true, period."
He added later: "In my judgment, it's just a matter of time,
unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop looking so
long as I'm the president, not only for Osama bin Laden, but
anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United
States of America."
He repeated his conviction that the United States would prevail
in Iraq, but he also seemed intent on dampening speculation about
significant drawdowns of forces in coming months. "An artificial
timetable of withdrawal and early withdrawal before this finishes
sends the message to the enemy: 'We were right about America,' "
Mr. Bush said, repeating his argument that Al Qaeda seeks to turn
Iraq into a haven for training.
But when the subject turned back to North Korea, Mr. Bush by
turns argued that Mr. Kim, that country's leader, was
untrustworthy - he cited the North's violation of a 1994 accord
with the Clinton administration - and that the only path was to
negotiate with him. But he rejected conducting those negotiations
one-on-one, insisting that he needed China and other neighbors at
the table so that Mr. Kim did not make the United States to
appear like the blockade to an agreement.
"One thing I'm not going to let us do is get caught in the trap
of sitting at the table alone with the North Koreans," Mr. Bush
insisted, rejecting the critique of Democrats who argue that such
talks would be the only way to break the logjam.
"If you want to solve a problem diplomatically, you need partners
to do so," Mr. Bush said, adding later that his worry about
"handling this issue bilaterally is that you run out of options
very quickly."
"And sometimes, you see, it's easier for the nontransparent - or
the leader of the nontransparent society to turn the tables and
make a country like the United States the problem, as opposed to
themselves," he said.
But in citing anew the need to team up with China and South
Korea, Mr. Bush was skipping past the warnings of members of his
own administration that neither country will agree to sanctions.
Both are worried about a North Korean collapse, and both have
continued supplying North Korea with food, energy and investment
- even while Japan and the United States try to cut the North
off.
Mr. Bush has been careful never to publicly criticize either
China or South Korea. But he seemed to do so obliquely when he
said, with some frustration in his voice: "The problem with
diplomacy, it takes a while to get something done. If you're
acting alone, you can move quickly. When you're rallying world
opinion and trying to, you know, come up with the right language
at the United Nations to send a clear signal, it takes a while."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
55 Japan Times: Shipboard reactors pose radiation leak risk if attacked - expert
Saturday, July 8, 2006
Shipboard reactors pose radiation leak risk if attacked: expert
A U.S. expert on atomic reactors said Thursday nuclear-powered
vessels, including the aircraft carrier that will be deployed to
the Yokosuka base in Kanagawa Prefecture, pose a radiation risk
if their reactors are breached in an attack.
Gordon Thompson, head of a U.S. think tank, told reporters in
Tokyo the probability of an accident caused by internal sabotage
or terrorists "cannot be quantified."
As an example, he cited the boat-bomb attack on the
conventionally powered destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in October
2000.
Thompson, executive director of the Institute for Resource and
Security Studies, is visiting Japan at the invitation of a
Japanese civic group to announce the findings of a report on the
radiation risk posed by the planned deployment of the aircraft
carrier USS George Washington to Yokosuka.
Thompson said a reactor in a nuclear-powered carrier may have a
"comparatively high potential for a destructive hydrogen
explosion" if its core sustains damage.
Yokosuka Mayor Ryoichi Kabaya announced June 14 that the city
would inevitably be forced to host the George Washington to
replace the USS Kitty Hawk, a diesel-powered aircraft carrier
scheduled to be decommissioned in 2008.
"My judgment is that the probabilities of an accident in a
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier reactor and a commercial
reactor are rather similar," he said. "The probability of
sabotage or attack cannot be quantified, so each person must
reach their own judgment."
Masahiko Goto, a lawyer and representative of the civic group,
said the group expects the state, prefecture and the city to
further examine the safety of the planned deployment based on
the report.
Goto criticized the mayor for accepting the deployment in line
with a U.S. Navy fact sheet that "advertised the safety" of U.S.
nuclear-powered warships.
The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
56 Sydney Morning Herald: Govt must consider nuclear dump - Libs MP -
www.smh.com.au
July 9, 2006 - 9:54AM
Science Minister Julie Bishop has contradicted the prime
minister by leaving the door open for Australia to become a
nuclear waste dump.
Ms Bishop said it would be irresponsible for the current debate
on nuclear energy not to look at all aspects of the uranium
cycle.
"As a country with about 40 per cent of the known uranium
reserves, I think it would be irresponsible if we didn't look at
all aspects of nuclear power to see if it is a clean, green,
safe alternative," Ms Bishop told Network Ten.
But Prime Minister John Howard said on Thursday Australia would
not handle international nuclear waste.
"I'm not going to have this country used as some kind of
repository for other peoples' nuclear problems ... waste
problems," Mr Howard said.
Labor immediately jumped on the disagreement, saying Ms Bishop
was trying to undermine Mr Howard's leadership.
Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin described Ms Bishop as "a
well-known supporter of Peter Costello".
Speculation over the leadership of the Liberal Party intensified
on Sunday after News Ltd reported Mr Howard had made a promise
to Mr Costello in 1994 to hand over power after two terms.
Mr Howard now has served almost four terms in the top job.
The nuclear debate was started by Mr Howard during his recent
visit to the US.
Since then, he has commissioned former Telstra boss Ziggy
Switkowski to chair an inquiry into the nuclear industry.
An issues paper released by Dr Switkowski asked whether there
was a business case for managing radioactive by-products
generated outside Australia.
Labor has called on the government to nominate the sites nuclear
power plants may be built on.
Ms Bishop said this was part of the opposition's illogical scare
campaign.
"I believe that the task force will have access to a whole range
of areas of information that they will put forward as part of
the public consideration of nuclear power," she said.
"The members of the task force are eminently qualified to
provide expert advice and we should await the outcome of the
task force report.
"Let's be sensible about this and have a discussion about
whether or not nuclear power, for example, is a safe, clean and
green alternative to burning fossil fuels and let's look at
Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle.
"We don't need scare-mongering."
© 2006 AAP
*****************************************************************
57 Las Vegas SUN: Brian Greenspun remembers Clinton's advice about Reid
and Yucca Mountain that really paid off
Today: July 09, 2006 at 7:37:48 PDT
President Bill Clinton was right about Harry Reid.
Way back in 1998, when Harry Reid was running for re-election to
the U.S. Senate, I happened upon an exclusive interview with the
president in which he said that if Harry Reid were not
re-elected, Nevada was certain to get the Yucca Mountain dump.
I ran that story on the front page of the Las Vegas Sun -
believing that if the president of the United States said the
dump was coming our way without Harry Reid in the Senate to stop
it, that was big news in Nevada - much to the chagrin of Harry's
opponents and a few "experts" on journalistic ethics. Harry won
his re-election bid, as usual not by very much, and the rest has
been a very interesting history in the making.
I recount this story because it cannot be lost on any Nevadan
just how prescient the president was eight years ago. Presidents
come and go, but a good U.S. senator, who continues to rack up
seniority and other IOUs along the way, is worth his weight in
gold to the constituents he represents. Nowhere is this more
true than in the Silver State because I believe our senior
senator has just scored a knockout punch on the only foe Nevada
has faced that could knock us flat on our backs.
We have water issues - we live in a desert. We have air quality
concerns - we live in a bowl. We have traffic problems - we
invite more cars into town than we have roads for them to travel
or places for them to park. And we have all kinds of growth
challenges - we encourage people to move here who don't come
with a commitment to better our community from Day One.
But each of these "showstoppers" can be overcome. Whether it be
a technological fix or a financial one, there is nothing out
there that should stop Southern Nevada from growing its way to
the top of the most favorable-city-to-live-in list and staying
there for many years to come.
Except for just one thing. Yucca Mountain. You see, high-level
nuclear waste has a way of stopping people in their tracks.
Nobody wants it in their back yards, and everybody has wanted it
in ours.
That is a lethal dose of reality in a city that makes a living
based on tourism. One accident, one spill, one bad headline
heard around the world and the people stop coming. Especially
when there are so many other places to go for people who want to
eat, shop, gamble and enjoy themselves.
Ever since Congress and, later, President George W. Bush,
decided that only Nevada should be singled out for the honor of
hosting the nation's radioactive garbage, Harry has been on the
case. But it wasn't until he became minority leader of the U.S.
Senate, it wasn't until he had earned enough respect from his
powerful Senate colleagues, and it wasn't until he built up the
kind of seniority in the Senate that made him a force to be
reckoned with, that he was able to do what so far has been the
impossible.
Ever since Congress decided that Las Vegans should bear the
brunt of our nation's woefully lacking nuclear power plan, we
have been on a delay-of-game tactic in the hopes of putting
enough time and space between the political decision to destroy
Las Vegas for the benefit of the rest of America and the reality
of Yucca Mountain actually opening. So far, our congressional
delegation and our state leadership (at least most of them) have
put the inevitable off for more than 20 years.
Now word comes that Sen. Reid has reached an understanding with
the top Senate dog for nuclear power, Sen. Pete Domenici of New
Mexico, which will buy us another 15 to 20 years. And the
likelihood is now that Yucca Mountain will never happen.
As Sun Washington Bureau reporter Lisa Mascaro noted in a June
29 story, Sen. Reid believes the plan to build temporary nuclear
waste sites across the nation is certain to create strong
opposition from those states involved, causing them to agree
with Nevada that the waste should be kept at the nuclear power
plants.
"You can have all the requirements you want to move the waste,
but as we learned from Yucca Mountain, people aren't simply
willing to have it moved," Reid said.
Only Harry Reid could have pulled this off, which means that
Bill Clinton was right and all those folks who find the oddest
reasons for bashing Sen. Reid are wrong.
Either wrong or just wrong-headed. Because there is nothing more
important to Las Vegas than doing everything we can do to keep
this tourism engine humming. That means thousands upon tens of
thousands of new jobs, hundreds of thousands of new residents,
and millions and billions of dollars of financial benefits that
will be shared by the people who live and work in our community.
Like all compromises in government, the solution isn't perfect.
Reid will have to stick around in the Senate for many years to
make sure this thing doesn't unravel.
Nevadans can do their part by making sure he moves from minority
to majority leader in a very short time and that we refuse to
pay attention to people who say they are on our side but who are
clearly not. Sometimes they look and sound like former Nevada
governors and sometimes they take the guise of smooth political
salesmanship. But, always, they have as their goal to remove
good men like Harry Reid from political office.
I don't know if Yucca Mountain is dead for sure. We will have to
wait a couple more decades to find out. But I do know that one
of the most respected scientific journals from MIT said that a
proper scientific answer will resolve the radioactive waste
issue within the next generation. That's right, science not
politics will rule the day.
I also know that Nevadans owe an eternal debt of gratitude for
the determination and skill that Sen. Harry Reid has brought to
the Senate on our behalf.
President Clinton was right. Without Harry in the U.S. Senate,
we would have already been up to here in radioactive waste. But
with the good senator, it looks like we have our future back.
The one full of hope and promise that is the dream of every
Nevada parent.
Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
58 reviewjournal.com: MIT geologist finds fault with Yucca assessment
Jul. 08, 2006
Researcher says project rife with uncertainty
By SANDRA CHEREB
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
RENO -- A geologist who spent a decade researching, compiling and
editing a book of scientific analyses of the Yucca Mountain
project said the Energy Department's assessment lacks sufficient
geological input and is fraught with uncertainty.
"Yucca Mountain is a complex site geologically," Allison
Macfarlane told the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects at a
meeting Friday.
"This is a very uncertain endeavor, and we shouldn't be rushing
into it."
Macfarlane and Rodney Ewing, a professor at the University of
Michigan, co-edited the book, "Uncertainty Underground; Yucca
Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste."
"It really is all based on geology," Macfarlane said. "It was
surprising and alarming to us that there wasn't more geologic
input. It's really important, it's essential, that enough people
in the policy arena grasp these issues to make decisions."
Some of the 23 scientific papers in the anthology focus on
regional climate change over a period longer than recorded human
history and raise questions about whether water seeping through
the site will, over tens of thousands of years, dissolve
canisters encasing spent nuclear reactor fuel and leach
radioactivity into groundwater.
Others focus on whether computerized DOE performance models are
accurate and adequate, and whether the site could resume
volcanic activity.
"The scientific community will review the book. We will not
review the book," said Allen Benson, spokesman for the Energy
Department and the Yucca Mountain project in Las Vegas.
"There's a lot of good work in that book," Benson said. "But we
have spent several billion dollars and more than 20 years of
intensive scientific research, which resulted in ... Congress
designating Yucca Mountain for development as the repository."
He said the DOE intends to demonstrate in its license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "that we can
protect the public health and safety."
"It's not a question of taking our word for it," Benson added.
Macfarlane, 42, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology
researcher, said she's not opposed to geologic repositories to
dispose of spent nuclear fuel piling up at reactors and
government facilities in 39 states.
"But it's not clear Yucca Mountain is the right location," she
said, "especially when you extend it out 1 million years. You
have to be willing to live with a lot of uncertainty."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revamped its radiation
safety standard to cover 1 million years after a federal court
in Washington, D.C., rejected an earlier 10,000-year standard.
Aside from concerns over earthquakes and groundwater levels and
movement, Macfarlane said the DOE's assessment doesn't take into
account global warming.
The DOE, she said, looked at the last 400,000 years to predict
future climate changes.
"But what they didn't do is include the potential effect of
climate change by accumulation of greenhouse gases, especially
carbon dioxide, over the next couple hundred of years."
Macfarlane said current carbon dioxide levels in the Yucca
Mountain region are around 380 parts per million. Preindustrial
levels were in the 200s.
By 2100, she predicted, "we could easily see numbers in the
1,000s," something that hasn't occurred in 50 million years.
"And that is highly alarming," Macfarlane said, adding that long
ago, "we were a lot wetter and a lot hotter everywhere."
Associated Press writer Ken Ritter in Las Vegas contributed to
this report.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
59 AP: Nuclear waste a challenge in Asia
(AP)
Updated: 2006-07-09 15:37
With royal tombs and a history dating back 1,000 years to the
Shilla Kingdom, Gyeongju is a cradle of Korean civilization. But
it's about to get a tomb of a different type.
[A worker checks the radioactivity of drums containing nuclear
waste at Yonggwang Nuclear Power Plant in Yonggwang, south of
Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, April 20, 2006. (AP Photo] A worker
checks the radioactivity of drums containing nuclear waste at
Yonggwang Nuclear Power Plant in Yonggwang, south of Seoul, South
Korea, April 20, 2006. [AP Photo]
A hillside bunker overlooking the Sea of Japan is to become one
of Asia's first permanent nuclear dump sites, ending South
Korea's 19-year quest to deal with low- and medium-level waste
such as contaminated clothing and old parts from its 20 nuclear
power plants.
It's costing the government nearly US$320 million in subsidies
to the town of 300,000 for voting to accept the dump, and it
doesn't even begin to address the country's real problem, 6,500
tons of spent nuclear fuel with hundreds of thousands of years
to live and nowhere to go.
As Asia goes nuclear in a big way to feed its appetite for
energy, environmentalists are warning that the growing
stockpiles could either be stolen by terrorists and used to make
a bomb, or end up polluting the environment.
The nuclear industry says a permanent solution will eventually
be found and that the waste issue will not slow the growth of
nuclear power in Asia. Temporary sites, they said, are safe.
But only the United States and Finland have come up with
permanent sites, and the one at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is
years behind schedule and mired in legal disputes.
One solution is to recycle spent fuel by extracting its
plutonium and combining it with uranium. But the plutonium is
weapons-grade and could fall into terrorist hands, warns the
US-based Union of Concerned Scientists.
Australia, has no nuclear plants but has struggled for 15 years
to find a permanent site for low-level nuclear waste from its
medical, industrial and research facilities.
It settled in 2004 on three potential sites in the Northern
Territory, which is home to Aborigine communities as well as
world-famous Ayers Rock, or Uluru. Authorities expect to choose
a final site by 2007 and open it in 2011.
"People are outraged," said Michaela Stubbs of Friends of the
Earth Australia.
*****************************************************************
60 AP: Geologist says Yucca lacks geological input
By SANDRA CHEREB
Associated Press writer Saturday, July 08, 2006 -->
RENO, Nev.-- A geologist who spent a decade researching,
compiling and editing a book of scientific analyses of the Yucca
Mountain project said the Department of Energy's assessment
lacks sufficient geological input and is fraught with
uncertainty.
"Yucca Mountain is a complex site geologically," Allison
Macfarlane told the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects at a
meeting here Friday.
"This is a very uncertain endeavor, and we shouldn't be rushing
into it."
Macfarlane and Rodney Ewing, a professor at the University of
Michigan, co-edited the book, "Uncertainty Underground; Yucca
Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste."
"It really is all based on geology," Macfarlane said. "It was
surprising and alarming to us that there wasn't more geologic
input. It's really important, it's essential, that enough people
in the policy arena grasp these issues to make decisions."
Some of the 23 scientific papers in the anthology focus on
regional climate change over a period longer than recorded human
history and raise questions about whether water seeping through
the site will, over tens of thousands of years, dissolve
canisters encasing spent nuclear reactor fuel and leach
radioactivity into groundwater.
Others focus on whether computerized DOE performance models are
accurate and adequate, and whether the site could resume
volcanic activity.
"The scientific community will review the book. We will not
review the book," said Allen Benson, spokesman for the Energy
Department and the Yucca Mountain project in Las Vegas.
"There's a lot of good work in that book," Benson said. "But we
have spent several billion dollars and more than 20 years of
intensive scientific research, which resulted in ... Congress
designating Yucca Mountain for development as the repository."
He said the DOE intends to demonstrate in its license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "that we can
protect the public health and safety."
"It's not a question of taking our word for it," he added.
Macfarlane, 42, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology
researcher, said she's not opposed to geologic repositories to
dispose of spent nuclear fuel piling up at reactors and
government facilities in 39 states.
"But it's not clear Yucca Mountain is the right location," she
said, "especially when you extend it out 1 million years. You
have to be willing to live with a lot of uncertainty."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revamped its radiation
safety standard to cover 1 million years after a federal court
in Washington, D.C., rejected an earlier 10,000-year standard.
Besides concerns over earthquakes and groundwater water levels
and movement, Macfarlane said the DOE's assessment doesn't take
into account global warming.
The DOE, she said, looked at the last 400,000 years to predict
future climate changes.
"But what they didn't do is include the potential effect of
climate change by accumulation of greenhouse gases, especially
carbon dioxide, over the next couple hundred of years."
Macfarlane said current carbon dioxide levels in the Yucca
Mountain region are around 380 parts per million. Preindustrial
levels were in the 200s.
By 2100, she predicted, "we could easily see numbers in the
1,000s," something that hasn't occurred in 50 million years.
"And that is highly alarming," Macfarlane said, adding that that
long ago, "we were a lot wetter and a lot hotter everywhere."
Associated Press writer Ken Ritter in Las Vegas also contributed
to this report.
Copyright © 19952006 Lee Enterprises a subsidiary of
*****************************************************************
61 The Dispatch: Olin Corporation's Solution: More Monitoring
Saturday, July 08, 2006
By Tony Burchyns Staff Writer
Morgan Hill - A 100-page report that addresses the long-term
cleanup efforts of Olin Corp., suggests a passive monitoring
program that would be carried out over a 20 years to the tune of
$5.6 million. However, the report on the 9.5-mile perchlorate
plume stretching south from Tennant Avenue in Morgan Hill to
north of Gilroy, defers until August a cleanup solution on the
area immediately south of the company's former Tennant Avenue
factory.
The company also explored - but rejected - a more aggressive and
thorough cleanup strategy in the report, which would cost $250
million and would have reduced perchlorate levels in the South
County water table to 4 parts per billion (ppb).
Tom Mohr, a geologist with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, said he understands some people may criticize Olin,
but he thinks the proposed measures are reasonable at face
value.
"When you get into money like $250 million, even if from a
corporation, you have to weigh the societal cost of that," said
Mohr.
The report was submitted to the Central Coast Regional Water
Control Board June 30. The board may make revisions to the
document.
Rick McClure, who oversees the South County cleanup effort for
Olin Corp., was on vacation when contacted and declined to
comment. His signature, however, appears in the report's cover
letter.
Hector Hernandez, the water board engineer on the case, is also
on vacation this week.
As for parts of the cleanup report that were deferred until
August, the reason for the delay is so Olin's consultants can
further study the water table surrounding the site.
To that point, consulting engineers at a June 29 Perchlorate
Community Advisory Committee meeting said they had not yet
characterized the depth of the deepest aquifers beneath the site.
[(408)842-9070]
*****************************************************************
62 This Is Essex: Radioactive Waste Will Be Burnt
Radioactive warhead waste would be burned or detonated in open
air then dumped off site, if it is disposed of at Foulness
again.
A letter sent to Rochford and Southend East MP James Duddridge
from QinetiQ admits radioactive waste was also burned there in
2003, despite earlier statements saying it had not been sent to
the island since 2001.
But QinetiQ, which runs the Foulness site on behalf of the
Ministry of Defence, also said it been "taken by surprise" when
the Echo revealed the Atomic Weapons Establish-ment (AWE) wished
to renew its licence to use the site again.
The AWE wants to retain permission to send top secret warhead
waste contaminated with tritium radioactive hydrogen for
disposal to the island.continued...
The letter says: "Demilitarisation of irradiated material would
involve burning or detonating any energetic material and then
separately burning the irradiated matter. This would then be
disposed of off site as general waste."
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence has stressed there are no
"definite plans" to send waste to Foulness.
A spokesman said: "It's just operationally essential to keep
this route open as a future option.
"Any necessary future activity in this regard will be
undertaken, as in the past, strictly within authorisations
issued by the Environment Agency."
12:23pm Saturday 8th July 2006Print Send
Newsquest Media Group
A Gannett Company
*****************************************************************
63 New York Times: U.S. to Negotiate Russian Storage of Atomic Waste -
Lynsey Addario for The New York Times
Russian and Iranian workers at a nuclear reactor at Bushehr,
Iran.
By and Published: July 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 8 — The Bush administration said Saturday that
it would open formal negotiations with on a long-discussed
civilian nuclear agreement that would pave the way for Russia to
become one of the world's largest repositories of spent nuclear
fuel.
President has been looking to expand the country's role in the
multibillion nuclear power business. The United States has
traditionally opposed any such arrangement, in part because of
concerns about the safety of Russian nuclear facilities, and
because the country has helped Iran build its first major
nuclear reactor.
But administration officials said that once Mr. Bush endorsed
Mr. Putin's proposal last year for Iran to conduct uranium
enrichment inside Russia — rather than in Iran, where the
administration fears it would be diverted to weapons — it made
little sense to bar ordinary civilian nuclear exchanges with
Russia.
In announcing the change of course, the White House made it
clear that in return, it expected Mr. Putin's cooperation in
what promises to be a tense confrontation with Iran on forcing
it to give up the enrichment of uranium. Mr. Bush has charged
that the enrichment is intended to feed a secret nuclear weapons
program. "We have made clear to Russia that for an agreement on
peaceful nuke cooperation to go forward, we will need active
cooperation in blocking Iran's attempts to obtain nuclear
weapons," said Peter Watkins, a White House spokesman.
So far, Russia has backed the United States in its fundamental
demands but balked at the imposition of sanctions or the passage
of any resolution that Mr. Bush could later use as a
justification for military action.
The Washington Post first reported the shift on Saturday.
A spokesman for Mr. Putin declined to comment. But Sergei G.
Novikov, a spokesman for Russia's Atomic Energy Agency, said in
a telephone interview that Russia and the United States had been
talking about the subject in recent months.
He added that he did not expect that an agreement would be
signed during the summit meeting in St. Petersburg next weekend,
but rather that Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin might issue a vaguely
worded statement on increased nuclear cooperation, and then
instruct their governments to work on an agreement that might
lift the current restrictions. The United States has similar
deals with a variety of nations, including China.
If such a statement is issued, Mr. Novikov said, negotiations on
the details would probably take at least several months. "I
would rather not talk about any expectations, so as not to
experience any frustration should they not come true," he said.
For Mr. Bush, an accord could help solve two problems: where to
send a growing stockpile of waste from nuclear fuel that
originated in the United States, and how to keep Russia on board
in pressuring Iran to give up its uranium enrichment programs.
Under American law, the United States retains control over
nuclear fuel, and nuclear waste, made from uranium that
originated in the United States. As a result it has barred South
Korea, Taiwan and other states that bought American fuel from
transferring it to Russia, which changed its laws several years
ago to enter the multibillion dollar business of storing nuclear
waste. The proposed agreement does not appear to be intended to
allow storage in Russia of waste from reactors in the United
States.
But a negotiation would also help provide Mr. Putin with an
economic incentive for giving up nuclear aid to Iran, which has
long been one of the Bush administration's objectives. On
Friday, in Chicago, Mr. Bush alluded to the difficulty in
getting Russia and China to join in sanctions against Iran or
North Korea.
"You know, some nations are more comfortable with sanctions
than other nations, and part of the issue we face in some of
these countries is that they've got economic interests," Mr.
Bush told reporters.
In two previous trips to St. Petersburg as president, Mr. Bush
tried to persuade Mr. Putin to give up a lucrative contract to
supply the reactors to Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant. But Russia
resisted, and eventually Mr. Bush accepted a deal in which any
nuclear fuel Russia sells to Iran would have to be returned to
Russia after use, so that plutonium could not be removed from
the waste for military use.
Congress would have the right to review any agreement. But since
the administration just concluded an accord with India, which
requires a more intensive nuclear review, administration
officials said they thought Russia would win approval.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a regular
administration critic, offered tentative approval of the idea.
"While the devil is certainly in the details, given that our
greatest danger right now is a nuclear Iran and North Korea, we
very much need Russia's help," he said in an e-mail message.
Congressman Edward R. Royce, Republican of California and the
chairman of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and
Nonproliferation, said that he was supportive of the idea but
that he expected to hold hearings.
Rep. Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who is the
co-chairman of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation,
harshly criticized Mr. Bush over the move.
"President Bush's foreign policy has become so hollow that his
favorite bargaining position is to give everything away. He is
repeatedly rewarding bad behavior," he said in a statement.
Outside experts with whom the administration had been consulting
on the deal said they had sensed a recent cooling off on the idea
as Russia continued to hold out on bringing sanctions against
Iran. The idea seemed to pick up again several weeks ago when
Russia's top atomic energy official, Sergei V. Kiriyenko, lobbied
hard for it during meetings with counterparts in Washington.
At the same time, the administration seemed to come around to
thinking that the negotiations for the deal - which could take
place over months or even years - could help bring Russia more
fully on board with the administration's efforts to rein in Iran,
said Robert J. Einhorn, senior adviser at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies and a former assistant
secretary of state for nonproliferation in the Clinton
administration and briefly in Mr. Bush's.
"They had reached the conclusion that entering the negotiations
would provide continuing leverage," Mr. Einhorn said.
The idea is not new, and some outside experts have been calling
for just such an arrangement for months. The Council of Foreign
Relations did so in a report on United States-Russian relations
in March that was highly critical of Mr. Putin's policies.
"The idea was to create a greater foundation for nuclear
cooperation with the Russians to support staying on the same
track with Iran," said Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at
the council and an adviser on Russia for former President Bill
Clinton.
But the report also cited such an agreement as a way to foster
cooperation on securing spent fuel and providing nuclear energy
to nonnuclear nations seeking to develop their own enrichment
facilities.
C. J. Chivers contributed reporting from Moscow for this article,
and Matthew L. Wald from Washington.
*****************************************************************
64 Lockport Union-Sun & Journal: A challenging process
Published: July 08, 2006 08:43 pm
Officials leading the way in the conversion of the Army Reserve
By KEVIN PURDY
ROMULUS — To say there are notable differences between the former
Seneca Army Depot and the Army National Guard Reserve Center in
the Town of Niagara is akin to saying the Canadian side of
Niagara Falls is somewhat different from its U.S. counterpart.
This vast, fenced-off swath of land in the heart of the
Fingerlakes region is roughly 480 times the size of the Porter
Road facility. The entire county the Seneca depot sits inside
has less people than any of Niagara County's cities, and it
lacks the updated air travel facilities that could be the
Niagara base's greatest assets.
While 11 years of transition and more than 100 miles also
separate the two bases, the process of converting a former
closed-gate military facility into a space open for development
will likely be similar in many ways for the Army Reserve Center
— snags, successes and a seemingly endless chain of studies and
decisions included.
Glenn Cooke, a Buffalo native, Royalton-Hartland graduate and
executive director of the Seneca County Industrial Development
Agency that has overseen and is still leading the depot
development effort, has some advice for Niagara or any region
that was told last year to start formulating new plans for their
facilities.
Don't expect the process to move as quickly as you'd like.
Expect plenty of public debate and discussion throughout the
whole lengthy process. And, perhaps most importantly, be ready
to have to weigh a number of proposals — from serious to
seriously odd — to determine what can fit best within the
community.
"You can be given all this land and property, but that doesn't
create a market for it," Cooke said. "But you also have to
manage development in a responsible manner, in a way that
doesn't become a detriment to the community
... that's what we've strived to do, ever since we realized the
base was actually going to close."
History of the deer
When the Army surrounded more than 10,500 acres in the rural
towns of Varick and Romulus with 24 miles of fence in 1941, it
unintentionally created a mascot for its new munitions storage
and disposal site.
Suddenly, a cluster of deer with a recessive gene for an
entirely white coat of fur were now in a closed community, and
the Army wouldn't allow annual hunting sweeps to touch them.
Years later, the depot became home to the world's largest herd
of the "white deer," and the animal has been tied to the base
ever since.
For more than 50 years of conflicts and Cold War, the depot put
missiles on rail cars, shoved unexploded ordinance into remote
spaces and kept one of the Army's largest stockpiles of "special
munitions" — more commonly known as nuclear weapons — in an
inner space surrounded by three fences, with one of them
electrified and guards given orders to shoot intruders on sight.
The depot's officially quiet but publicly well-known mission
made it a hotbed for protest for five months in 1983. Activists
with the nearby Seneca Women's Encampment for a Future of Peace
and Justice, along with nationally-known anti-war protesters,
took turns at climbing the facility's fences and being arrested.
Earl and Joyce Campbell lived about 15 miles north of the depot
for most of their adult lives, and their son Andrew managed to
get "a good job, with good pay" at the depot while it was
operational, Earl Campbell said.
A lot of the town saw the writing on the wall before Department
of Defense officially called for the depot's closure in 1995 —
military police and most of the "special weapons" were being
removed in 1993 — but the Campbells, now living in Cape Coral,
Fla., said it took some time for the full impact to set in.
"Back then, it was the biggest employer ... a lot of people were
affected, and the economy with it, no question," Earl Campbell
said.
"But (Andrew) was lucky, he had a good education in
communications and he ended up with another job," Joyce Campbell
said. "Some people ended up in the supermarket."
The plan
Cooke came to Seneca County in 1995, just before that year's
round of BRAC recommendations were issued. It took some time, he
said, before the community shifted from a desire to try and undo
the closure decision to wanting to create new jobs there.
As the Army began to pull its troops and equipment out of the
spacious site, the first incarnation of the Seneca Army Depot
Local Redevelopment Authority (or LRA) was formed.
Representatives from both towns, the nearby city of Geneva, the
local school districts, county government and other interested
parties — a total of 17 members — were brought on-board.
Seneca County had to spend about $400,000 in consultation and
study fees, said Cooke, who also serves as director of the
county's planning and economic development arms. The Army,
however, would spend more than $80 million on environmental
studies, clean-up efforts and anything else necessary to make
the site ready for its new life.
"Just because land is free, that doesn't mean it's cheap," Cooke
said.
The initial development plan, put together over 18 months and
subjected to at least 25 public meetings, provided only a
general outline of what uses would be appropriate throughout the
massive site. Most of them were closely related to their former
military use — storage spaces, administration offices, secure
facilities and similar private-sector variations.
When a deal to purchase former soldier housing came along in
1998, the IDA oversaw the creation of a separate company, Seneca
Depot LLC, to serve as a transfer agency and leasing agent for
the depot's property. Within the next two years, the state
prison known as Five Points Correctional Facility and KidsPeace,
a home for children with emotional and behavioral disorders,
were planned, green-lighted and built.
With those federal-to-state contracts and transfers finished,
the work force at the depot was raised closer to 800. Soon the
State Police and local firefighters sought out the facility's
worn airfield for training grounds, and a number of companies
sought to lease individual warehouses from the county.
But the county wasn't interested in becoming a leasing agent,
landlord or commercial property broker, Cooke said — "The faster
we got our hands out of that land, the better," he said.
So when Neal Sherman, a Geneva native and president of the
formerly Bethesda, Md.-based Advantage Group, came to his
hometown with a $500,000 offer to fill the empty warehouses
across 850 acres, the LRA jumped at the opportunity.
The 20-year-old company Sherman heads up, which stores,
rehabilitates and manages equipment for clients, mostly
restaurants, is targeted to employ up to 100 people in the near
future, he said. While the journey into the depot had its "bumps
with the Army and the IDA," it's nothing any business owner
wouldn't expect or foresee, he said.
"We've consolidated all our warehouses up here, and it's been
extremely costly, and challenging … but we view it as a real
opportunity," Sherman said. "Upstate New York has gone through a
great deal of decline, and brain drain … we've added jobs, and
we're continuing to move along."
The IDA board is currently looking to lure a nearly $80 million
ethanol plant project into the roughly 7,500 acres that house
534 "igloos," former munitions bunkers that are slowly seeing
nature reclaim their facades, and eventually reduce the white
deer's space to about 1,450 acres, while designating it for
eco-tourism.
At least one local group, Seneca White Deer Inc., is seeking to
have the entire unused portion declared as a conservation area
and used as a tourist draw. A master plan study commissioned by
the IDA recommends development of the land for resort,
residential or training development.
Local Redevelopment Authority meetings are open to the public by
statute, and while the Town of Niagara's Town Council and other
selected LRA members mull possible development ideas, they must
accept written suggestions from any member of the public.
Most of the requirements placed on communities during the 1995
BRAC process remain the same for the 2005 base closures. A few
things, however, have been prioritized, according to Tim Ford,
executive director of the Association of Defense Communities, a
base redevelopment membership organization.
"There's going to be a shift in focus, to where (the Department
of Defense) is going to be looking to achieve fair market value
for property whenever possible," Ford said. "A lot of land was
transferred through economic development conveyances, at no cost
to communities (in 1995) … the Department of Defense's intention
is not to use this tool alone anymore, from what we understand."
Ford said communities with base closures in their futures can
also expect a somewhat tighter schedule than before, with
shorter deadlines for each stop in the process and for overall
transfer of base land.
"The real focus right now is on speed, they want to get these
actions completed, to get land transferred as quickly as
possible," Ford said.
As it stands at the former Seneca Army Depot, a handful of Army
personnel remain on-site to tie up loose ends and stay on top of
maintenance demands. The Army will be responsible for
maintaining the fencing around the facility until 2012, Cooke
said, but will slowly relinquish other duties in the time
leading up to that point.
Sandy Travis, a Romulus area native, remembers when enrollment
at the local school system dropped from roughly 1,100 students
to 550 after the last of the troops had moved out. When the
opportunity to move with her husband to Buffalo came about, she
took it.
A little less than a year ago, however, the couple decided to
put their own money into opening up the White Deer Inn, in a
former Noncommissioned Officers Club space right on the depot.
They had their official opening on St. Patrick's Day, pull in
country and other singers every weekend night they can, and see
opportunity in the chance for growth at the former base that
houses their inn's namesake.
"I like it out here, the life, and we both wanted to be part of
it," Travis said. "If we just get some more businesses here,
we'll be doing alright."
Contact Kevin Purdy at 282-2311 ext. 2251
© 2006, Lockport Union-Sun &Journal 170 East Avenue Lockport,
NY 14094 Phone: (716) 439-9222, Fax: (716) 439-9239 Greater
Niagara Newspapers: | | | |
*****************************************************************
65 MNT: Accidents And Incidents Involving The Transport Of Radioactive
Materials In The UK
[Medical News Today
9th July 2006
Main Category: Radiology / Nuclear Medicine News
Article Date: 09 Jul 2006 - 0:00am (PDT)
The Health Protection Agency's Radiation Protection Division has
today published a report on accidents and incidents involving
the transport of radioactive materials in the UK , from 1958 to
2004 1. The report finds that the most serious of these events
involved the transport of poorly shielded industrial radiography
sources, which occurred mainly in the 1970s. Some of these
incidents led to radiation exposures to workers and members of
the public. Better training has ensured that no similar events
have occurred for 20 years 2. The report also details trends in
other types of events; for example, a rise in incidents of
excess radioactive contamination on nuclear fuel flasks in the
late 1990s was reduced by better procedures at nuclear power
stations. Radiological consequences from these incidents, both
to workers handling the flasks and to members of the public,
were negligible. The report concludes that good training of the
workers involved in the transport of radioactive materials
should always be a priority.
Radioactive materials are widely used in hospitals, general
industry and research. It is necessary for these materials to be
transported from suppliers to customers, and for some
radioactive wastes to be returned from customers to suppliers or
to waste facilities. All these materials are normally
transported by road. Radioactive materials associated with the
nuclear industry are mainly moved by road and rail. Also,
exports and imports of radioactive materials are made by sea and
air. Up to half a million packages are transported in the UK
annually, and during these shipments events can occur. Packages
that are damaged or poorly prepared can have the potential for
radiological consequences for workers and members of the public
in the vicinity. Damaged or poorly prepared packages can result
in increased dose rates around the package or releases of
radioactive material.
The analysis of the information on reported accidents and
incidents provides an overview of the types of events that have
featured throughout the period covered. For example, there was
an increase in occurrences of excess contamination on flasks and
rail wagons used to transport irradiated nuclear fuel (INF) from
the late 1990s to the early 2000s. The occurrence of these
events was reduced by improved conditions in power station
storage ponds and more thorough cleaning and monitoring of INF
flasks. During the 1970s there were many events involving
packages being damaged at airport cargo centres, but their
occurrence was greatly reduced by improvements in handling
procedures. In the later years of the period, events involving
contaminated items and lost sources being discovered in scrap
metal were increasingly being reported.
Most of the recorded events have resulted in negligible
radiological consequences to the workers involved or to members
of the public. Only in 19 out of 806 cases reported,
radiological exposures were not negligible; almost all of those
events occurred in the earlier years of the reported period,
only two having occurred since the mid 1980s. The most serious
radiological consequences occurred as a result of transporting
improperly packaged industrial radiography sources, mainly in
the 1970s.
Accidents and incidents that happen during the transport of
radioactive materials, as in the transport of other types of
materials, inevitably occur from time to time. However, the
frequency of occurrence of such events, and their effects, can
be reduced by the establishment of comprehensive radiation
protection programmes and emergency procedures. Appropriate
training of workers involved in these transport operations
should always be a priority.
The study was funded by the Department for Transport and the
Health and Safety Executive.
1 J S Hughes, D Roberts and S J Watson. Review of events
involving the transport of radioactive materials in the UK ,
from 1958 to 2004, and their radiological consequences.
RPD-014. ISBN: 0-85951-577-X.
2 There was a potentially serious incident in 2002 involving a
radiotherapy source which, however, did not lead to any
significant radiological exposure.
Privacy Policy Disclaimer © 2006 MediLexicon
*****************************************************************
66 AU ABC: Nuclear waste fact-finding tour useful, says Minister.
08/07/2006. ABC News Online
The Northern Territory Environment Minister says the opportunity
to look at nuclear waste facilities in Europe has been useful,
despite her opposition to any such facilities being built in the
territory.
Marion Scrymgour was in France yesterday and will soon travel to
Finland to see more waste facilities.
She says the trip is helping her quantify the costs involved in
setting up a waste dump.
"Seeing the facilities over here, I think to run the facilities
in France [costs] about $3 billion, now is the Federal
Government, are they proposing to put that sort of money into
running such a facility? And this was only dealing with low
level waste," she said.
Ms Scrymgour says she is impressed by the transparency of the
French nuclear waste program.
"It's taken over 15 years of both planning and management.
Putting in place appropriate laws to ensure the safety," she
said.
"The community consultation has been quite extensive, to the
complete opposite of what we've experienced in the Northern
Territory."
*****************************************************************
67 The Australian: Minister defies PM's promise on nuclear dump
Mark Dodd July 10, 2006
A SENIOR government minister has insisted that Australia
consider storing nuclear waste from other countries, days after
John Howard ruled out such a move.
Science Minister Julie Bishop said a government-appointed
independent taskforce inquiring into the nuclear industry needed
to gather "all the facts and evidence about nuclear power".
Speaking on the Meet the Press program, she said that as the
nation was home to 40 per cent of the world's known uranium
reserves, "I think it would be irresponsible not to look at
Australia's role, if any, in the whole nuclear cycle".
Last week, the Prime Minister appeared to rule out the option of
Australia storing foreign nuclear waste.
"I'm not going to have this country used as some kind of
repository for other people's nuclear problems, if that's
whatyou're getting at," Mr Howard said.
An issues paper released by nuclear taskforce head Ziggy
Switkowski, the former head of Telstra, had asked whether there
was a business case for managing radioactive by-products from
outside Australia.
Federal Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin said the
inquiry's conclusions were foregone and that Mr Howard wanted to
see nuclear power stations in Australia.
© The Australian
*****************************************************************
68 SF New Mexican: LANL: Groundbreaking highlights group’s success
Sun Jul 9, 2006 2:58 pm
By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
Director sees new building as center for nonprofit activism
ESPAÑOLA Los Alamos National Security LLC has committed to
funding the Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation at $1
million a year and is looking for more money. However, the
foundations director said the new private company that took over
management of the lab June 1 is committed to $4.3 million a
year.
These issues were discussed Friday, after the congressional and
local leaders broke ground on a new foundation building in
Españolas industrial park. The $1.1 million building is
scheduled to be completed by July 2007, director Susan Herrera
said.
New Mexico leaders gathered for the groundbreaking ceremony to
tout the successes of the foundation, which gave out about $3
million last year to schools and nonprofit community groups in
Northern New Mexico. One program also trains public-school
teachers in math and science education.
The foundation was established in April 1997. Since then, its
board has given out $19 million to schools, student scholarships
and nonprofit groups, Herrera said.
She envisions the new building as a center for nonprofit activism
in the north, and a meeting place for the whole valley.
U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-Santa Fe, said he was pleased with the
boards focus on education.
We need to keep that focus because Ive always believed that when
you get that welleducated work force, the companies will follow,
Udall said. They will come here; the jobs will follow.
He also praised the board for locating the new building in
Española. About one-third of the money goes into Rio Arriba
County, Herrera said.
Udall also said the foundations assets are about $56 million
now.
U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, RN.M., has helped the foundation secure
about $35 million.
Mike Anastasio, the labs new director, is a member of the
foundations board.
Its important for the laboratory. Its central for the laboratory
that were part of the community, Anastasio said.
The University of California, which used to manage the lab, gave
the foundation about $3.3 million in the 2005 fiscal year,
Herrera has said.
She said Los Alamos National Security LLC is committed to that
amount plus $1 million more.
Lab spokesman Steve Sandoval said Los Alamos National Security
LLC is committed to giving $1 million from the management fee it
receives from the government for running the lab.
But nothings been finalized beyond that, he said.
However, the lab is committed to working with the U.S.
Department of Energy to see that the foundation is supported
financially, he said.
There are some discussions about some additional financial
support that would be outside of the management fee, Sandoval
said.
Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use |
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
69 Knox News: Reactor used for backup taken apart in ORNL Lab
Removal of uranium fuel next for stand-in that stayed grounded
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
July 8, 2006
OAK RIDGE - A tiny nuclear reactor originally designed for use in
space has been taken out of mothballs after 30 years so it can be
de-fueled and put to its final rest. The Systems for Nuclear
Auxiliary Power reactor was a backup to the first and only
nuclear reactor ever launched into space by the United States,
back in 1965. The sister reactor to SNAP-10A was tested at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory but never operated at full power,
according to information from the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Since 1974, the little reactor has been stored in a
warehouse at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. It was stored at
Y-12 for security reasons because the reactor's fuel - made of
highly enriched uranium - could be used in a nuclear bomb.
The reactor was transferred from Y-12 to ORNL in late June for
the disassembly operation, which is under way in the Irradiated
Fuels Examination Lab, Building 3525.
The initial activity involved the removal of liquid metal
sodium-potassium, known as NaK, which was used as coolant in the
reactor.
"We've already got that out of the way, and now we're going to
do some additional tests to make sure there's no moisture inside
the reactor," Jeff Smith, ORNL's deputy director for operations,
said this week.
Smith said the NaK removal was of greatest concern because of
its potential explosiveness. He made reference to a 1999 NaK
accident at Y-12 that seriously injured one worker and led to a
lengthy investigation of safety issues.
The ORNL official said the uranium fuel would be removed during
the next couple of weeks, repackaged and sent back to Y-12 for
storage.
Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said the highly
enriched uranium from the reactor would be included "in a future
disposition project." It likely will be blended with other
uranium stocks to remove its weapons capability and then
converted into fuel for a commercial nuclear reactor, he said.
A staff report from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
said removal of the SNAP reactor was part of an overall effort
to "de-inventory" a warehouse at the Oak Ridge warhead plant.
Wyatt said Y-12 is getting rid of surplus materials while
preparing to move the plant's stockpile of weapons-grade uranium
into a $500 million storage facility, which is under
construction.
"The SNAP reactor could not be stored in the new storage
facility because of the presence of the NaK coolant," he said.
Wyatt said there were 2-3 gallons of sodium-potassium coolant in
the nuclear reactor. The reactor has been stored inside a
stainless-steel container and a secondary shipping container.
"Since the NaK accident that occurred at Y-12 in December 1999,
and because of the chemical hazards associated with this
material, Y-12 has sought to remove all quantities throughout
the plant," he said. "This marks the last remaining liquid metal
NaK at Y-12."
The uranium fuel was irradiated during the reactor's limited
operations, which changed its radioactive makeup.
"The reactor was operated intermittently at low power levels
over a five- to six-year period," Wyatt said. "The fuel elements
were slightly irradiated from these past operations but have
very low levels of fission byproducts."
Sherrell Greene, director of nuclear technology programs at
ORNL, said the Oak Ridge reactor is "nearly identical" to the
one put into space in 1965.
"It was operated as the TSF-SNAP at ORNL's Tower Shielding
Facility from 1967 to 1973 as a radiation source for radiation
shielding experiments," Greene said in an e-mail response to
questions. "There were some minor modifications to accommodate
ground test safety requirements and heat removal in air (rather
than in space), but the reactor was basically a clone of the
only U.S. space reactor ever flown."
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Workers examine the spacecraft equipped with the SNAP-10A, the
first and only nuclear reactor ever launched into space by the
United States, in 1965. Its backup is being disassembled in an
ORNL lab for eventual storage at Y-12.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************