*****************************************************************
08/22/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.199
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 IPS-English POLITICS: Bush Ensured Iran Offer Would Be Rejected
2 Iran Talks Without Preconditions?
3 [NYTr] Tehran offers new talks in nuclear dispute
4 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free | The price of dictatorship
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran refuses access to nuclear site
6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran expected to reject nuclear deal
7 BBC: Iran responds to nuclear package
8 BBC: Iran offers West 'serious' talks
9 Xinhua: Arab League chief: double standards on nuclear issue dangero
10 AFP: Iran calls for talks over nuclear standoff
11 AFP: US ready to submit sanctions resolution quickly over Iran's
12 AFP: Ambiguous Iran reply in nuclear showdown could split West - ana
13 AFP: US says nuclear-armed Iran would be 'dangerous'
14 AFP: Iran defiant as world awaits nuclear response
15 AFP: Iran calls for talks over nuclear standoff
16 Telegraph: Sanctions threat as Iran defies UN over atomic plan
17 IRNA: Blix calls for talks with Iran over nuclear program
18 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Denies U.N. Inspectors Site Access
19 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: Response Will Clear Path for Talks
20 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Wants to Talk but Keep Nuke Program
21 Korea Herald: N.K. threatens to ignore the cease-fire treaty
22 AFP: NKorea condemns South's drills with US
23 RIA NovostiJ: Court returns ex-nuclear minister graft case to prosec
24 AFP: Scandal-hit Pakistan nuclear scientist has cancer -
NUCLEAR REACTORS
25 US: BNN: Nuclear fuel still missing from U.S. plant
26 The Hindu: No security breach at Kakrapar nuke plant
27 US: Philadelphia Inquirer: Oyster Creek nuclear plant operators seek
28 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Notifies NRC of Completion of its Spent Fu
29 US: POAC: NRC report: Oyster Creek liner corrosion needs more attent
30 The Herald: The nuclear power loophole
31 The Herald: New nuclear plants are to be exempt from pollution law
32 US: PRN: Southern Company: Southern Nuclear's Plant Hatch Completes
33 US: NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
34 US: Daily Press: Dominion is wisely planning more reactors, but safe
35 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
36 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
37 US: NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application
38 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
39 Bellona: A Global Nuclear Renaissance?
40 Telegraph: Anger as nuclear sell-off is shelved
41 US: Newsday.com: Feds: Oyster Creek can run for 20 more years if con
NUCLEAR SECURITY
42 PEDDLING PLUTONIUM
43 [NYTr] Peddling Plutonium: Bush Plan Poses Grave Dangers
44 IAEA: Trafficking in Nuclear and Radioactive Material in 2005
45 US: UPI: Nuclear fuel still missing from U.S. plant
NUCLEAR SAFETY
46 [DU List] doing the wrong thing in afghanistan: depleted
47 [du-list] Scientists suspect Israeli arms used in South
48 US: [NukeNet] Tritium contamination shuts down Pembroke plant
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
49 US: St. Paul Pioneer Press: Judge OKs nuclear waste storage
50 US: Bradenton Herald: Scientist wants Lockheed held accountable
51 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Critics blast slow perchlorate cleanu
52 US: MIT: Regional storage facilities could handle nuclear waste
53 News & Star: NDA wants £1bn contract slowed
54 Whitehaven News: Madonna magic to clean-up nuclear waste
55 US: TCEQ: Waste Control Specialists LLC License Application for Low-
56 Guardian Unlimited: BNFL looks to avoid political row with subsidiar
PEACE
57 Japan Times: Can't justify any use of A-bomb
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
58 AP Wire: Logs show napalm, dioxin burned in Simi Valley Rocketdyne p
59 CCT: Public comment opens on plan to cleanup Livermore Lab testing p
60 SF New Mexican: LANL comment period extended
61 LA Daily News: Field lab secret revealed
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English POLITICS: Bush Ensured Iran Offer Would Be Rejected
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:23:37 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
ROMAIPS MM NA HD IP BW ML NU=20
POLITICS: Bush Ensured Iran Offer Would Be Rejected
Analysis by Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Aug 22 (IPS) - Even before Iran gave its formal counter-offe=
r to ambassadors of the P5+1 countries (the U.S., Britain, France, German=
y, Russia and China) Tuesday, the George W. Bush administration had alrea=
dy begun the process of organising sanctions against Iran.
Washington had already held a conference call on sanctions Sunday with Fr=
ench, German and British officials, the Washington Post reported. =20
Thus ends what appeared on the surface to be a genuine multilateral initi=
ative for negotiations with Iran on the terms under which it would give u=
p its nuclear programme. But the history of that P5+1 proposal shows that=
the Bush administration was determined from the beginning that it would =
fail, so that could bring to a halt a multilateral diplomacy on Iran's nu=
clear programme that the hard-liners in the administration had always fou=
nd a hindrance to their policy.
Britain, France and Germany, which had begun negotiations with Tehran on =
the nuclear issue in October 2003, had concluded very early on that Iran'=
s security concerns would have to be central to any agreement. It is has =
been generally forgotten that the Nov. 14, 2004 Paris Agreement between t=
he EU and Iran included an assurance by the three European states that th=
e =94long-term agreement=94 they pledged to reach would =94provide...firm=
commitments on security issues.=94
The European three had tried in vain to get the Bush administration to su=
pport their diplomatic efforts with Tehran by authorising the inclusion o=
f security guarantees in a proposal they were working on last summer. In =
a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in=
July 2005, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy referred to the=
need to =94make sure...that we discuss with [the Iranians] the security =
of their country. And for this, we shall need the United States...=94
The European three and the Bush administration agreed that the P5+1 propo=
sal would demand that Iran make three concessions to avoid Security Counc=
il sanctions and to begin negotiations on an agreement with positive ince=
ntives: the indefinite suspension of its enrichment programme, agreement =
to resolve all the outstanding concerns of the International Atomic Energ=
y Agency (IAEA), and resumption of full implementation of the Additional =
Protocol, which calls for very tight monitoring of all suspected nuclear =
sites by the IAEA.
That meant that Tehran would have to give up its major bargaining chips b=
efore the negotiations even began. The Europeans wanted security guarante=
es from Washington to be part of the deal. Douste-Blazy said on May 8 if =
Iran cooperated, it could be rewarded with what he called an =94ambitious=
package=94 in several economic domains as well as in =94the security dom=
ain.=94
The European 3 draft proposal, which was leaked to ABC News and posted on=
its website, included a formula that fell short of an explicit guarantee=
. However, it did offer =94support for an inter-governmental forum, inclu=
ding countries of the region and other interested countries, to promote d=
ialogue and cooperation on security issues in the Persian Gulf, with the =
aim of establishing regional security arrangements and a cooperative rela=
tionship on regional security arrangements including guarantees for terri=
torial integrity and political sovereignty.=94
That convoluted language suggested there was a way for Iran's security to=
be guaranteed by the United States. But the problem was that it was stil=
l subject to a U.S. veto. In any case, as Steven R. Weisman of the New Yo=
rk Times reported on May 19, the Bush administration rejected any referen=
ce to a regional security framework in which Iran could participate.
Rice denied on Fox News May 21 that the United States was being =94asked =
about security guarantees=94, but that was deliberately misleading. As a =
European diplomat explained to Reuters on May 20, the only reason the Eur=
opeans had not used the term =94security guarantees=94 in their draft was=
that =94Washington is against giving Iran assurances that it will not be=
attacked.=94
In light of these news reports, the public comment by Iran's U.N. Ambassa=
dor Javad Zarif May 27 is particularly revealing. Zarif declared that the=
incentive package =94needs to deal with issues that are fundamental to t=
he resolution=94 of the problem. =94The solution has to take into conside=
ration Iranian concerns.=94
Zarif seems to have been saying that Iran wanted to get something of comp=
arable importance for giving up its bargaining chips in advance and discu=
ssing the renunciation of enrichment altogether. That statement, which de=
parted from Iran's usual emphasis on its right to nuclear technology unde=
r the Non-Proliferation Treaty, suggested that Tehran was at least open t=
o the possibility of a =94grand bargain=94 with Washington such as the on=
e it had outlined in a secret proposal to the Bush administration in Apri=
l 2003.
The partners of the United States in the P5+1 made one more effort to con=
vince Rice to reconsider the U.S. position at their final meeting in Vien=
na Jun. 1 to reach agreement on a proposal. As Russian Foreign Minister S=
ergei Lavrov revealed in a talk with Russian media the following day, the=
issue of security guarantees for Iran was raised by the negotiating part=
ners of the U.S. at that meeting.
But the Bush administration again rebuffed the idea of offering positive =
security incentives to Iran. In the final text of the proposal, the Europ=
ean scheme for a regional security system was reduced to an anodyne refer=
ence to a =94conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional s=
ecurity issues=94.
The Europeans, Russians and Chinese knew this outcome doomed the entire e=
xercise to failure. In the end, only the United States could offer the in=
centives needed to make a bargain attractive to Iran. A European official=
who had been involved in the discussions was quoted in a Jun. 1 Reuters =
story as saying, =94We have neither big enough carrots nor big enough sti=
cks to persuade the Iranians, if they are open to persuasion at all.=94
Despite the desire of other members of the P5+1 for a genuine diplomatic =
offer to Iran that could possibly lead to an agreement on its nuclear pro=
gramme, the Bush administration's intention was just the opposite.
Bush's objective was to free the administration of the constraint of mult=
ilateral diplomacy. The administration evidently reckoned that, once the =
Iranians had rejected the formal offer from the P5+1, it would be free to=
take whatever actions it might choose, including a military strike again=
st Iran. Thus the Jun. 5 proposal, with its implicit contempt for Iran's =
security interests, reflected the degree to which the administration has =
anchored its policy toward Iran in its option to use force.=20
As Washington now seeks to the clear the way for the next phase of its co=
nfrontation with Iran, Bush is framing the issue as one of Iranian defian=
ce of the Security Council rather than U.S. refusal to deal seriously wit=
h a central issue in the negotiations. =94There must consequences if peop=
le thumb their noses at the United Nations Security Council,=94 Bush said=
Monday. =20
If the European three, Russia and China, allow Bush to get away with that=
highly distorted version of what happened, the world will have taken ano=
ther step closer to general war in the Middle East.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His =
latest book, =94Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to W=
ar in Vietnam=94, was published in June 2005.
*****
+POLITICS: Defiant Iran Shrugs Off Security Council Ultimatum (http://ips=
news.net/news.asp?idnews=3D34179)
+POLITICS: No Evidence of Secret Enrichment by Iran (http://ipsnews.net/n=
ews.asp?idnews=3D33930)
+P5+1 Draft Proposal (http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0606/doc01.htm)
(END/IPS/MM/NA/IP/HD/BW/NU/ML/GP/KS/06)
=20
=3D 08222352 ORP012
NNNN
*****************************************************************
2 Iran Talks Without Preconditions?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:32:41 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Will the U.S. Accept Iran Talks Without Preconditions?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN, ervand_abrahamian@baruch.cuny.edu,
http://www.globalagendamagazine.com/2005/ervandabrahamian.asp
Author of the article "Iran: The Next Target?" and several books
including "Inventing the Axis of Evil" and "Iran Between Two
Revolutions," Abrahamian said today: "Some seem to want to move to air
strikes in the near future as if Iran were on the verge of having a
nuclear bomb when the CIA and other experts predict that Iran needs at
least five to six years to develop a bomb."
TRITA PARSI, tp@tritaparsi.com, http://www.tritaparsi.com,
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33983
A specialist on Iran, Parsi is head of the largest Iranian-American
organization in the U.S., the National Iranian American Council. He said
today: "The U.S. should pursue a resolution of all outstanding issues
with Iran as soon as possible. Iran's response to the P5+1 proposal ...
should not be regarded as the end of the diplomatic track. Doing so
would put the U.S. on a slippery slope towards military action.
"In 2003, the Iranian government sent Washington an offer to without
preconditions negotiate all the areas of friction between them,
including the nuclear issue, Hezbollah and Iran's position on Israel.
The Bush administration rejected that offer.
"Had it not done so, much indicates that nuclear concessions would
have been won, no war in Lebanon would have taken place, more than 1,000
Lebanese and 150 Israelis would not have gotten killed, and the risk for
war between the U.S. and Iran would not be existing today.
"The lesson is that every delay to negotiate the full range of
problems Washington has with Tehran has only served to exacerbate the
situation, increase the suffering and weaken America's leverage over Iran.
"Iraq and Lebanon have shown that there is no military solution to
the problems in the Middle East. As long as the aim is to avoid war,
diplomacy must be given a fair chance -- without preconditions from
either side."
Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Triangle -- The Secret Dealings
of Iran, Israel and the United States," a book scheduled for publication
next year.
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
(202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org
For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
3 [NYTr] Tehran offers new talks in nuclear dispute
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Financial Times - Aug 22, 2006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1c4222e2-3201-11db-ab06-0000779e2340.html
Tehran offers new talks in nuclear dispute
By Gareth Smyth in Tehran and Daniel Dombey in London
Iran said on Tuesday it was ready to begin "serious talks" over its nuclear
programme but appeared to refuse a United Nations demand to scale down its
activities by the end of this month.
Analysts and officials said the move could leave the west struggling to
build an international consensus to impose sanctions on Tehran. Privately,
diplomats say that Iran has been emboldened by the recent conflict in
Lebanon, while the US's standing in the region has been hit.
Advertisement
"Iran is prepared to hold serious talks from August 23," said Ali Larijani,
Iran's top nuclear official, according to a report by ISNA, Iran's student
news agency.
He was responding to an international offer, brokered by the European
Union, to persuade Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can
produce both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material.
Details of the Iranian response, which Mr Larijani handed over to
ambassadors of the world's big powers in Tehran, were not immediately
clear. But Tehran has given no indication that it will immediately suspend
its enrichment activities, which it says are purely peaceful but which the
US and the European Union suspect are intended to develop nuclear weapons.
On Tuesday Mr Larijani also described the UN Security Council resolution
that requires Iran to limit its nuclear programme as "illegal".
The resolution gives Tehran until August 31 to suspend enrichment.
The US and the EU warn that unless Iran complies the next stage will be to
impose sanctions on Iran - although they are keenly aware of Russia and
China's reluctance to take any such step.
John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, acknowledged on Tuesday that it was
far from clear how quickly the Security Council could take action.
Discussions are likely to begin in early September.
"It really is a test for the council and we will see how it responds," Mr
Bolton said.
Western officials say any first measures would probably include practical,
small scale steps such as restricting visas for officials connected to
Iran's nuclear programme, as well as access to relevant materials and
expertise.
They also argue that the clock is ticking on Iran's ability to develop
nuclear weapons capacity, which some analysts believe Tehran could achieve
by the turn of the decade.
A report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the British think
tank, will say on Wednesday that "the US-driven agenda for confronting Iran
is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its
region", partly because of Washington's success in toppling Iran's foes
from office in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Iran is playing a longer, more clever game [than the US] and has been far
more successful at winning hearts and minds," said Nadim Shehadi, a
contributor to the report.
Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, said last week Tehran was
ready to negotiate about suspending uranium enrichment but as the result of
talks, rather than as a precondition.
Some Iranian officials have also floated a compromise that could limit
Iran's enrichment to laboratory work.
But US and European diplomats argue that as a binding demand made by the UN
Security Council, immediate suspension of all enrichment is non-negotiable.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
***
Financial Times - Aug 22, 2006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/529a366a-321d-11db-ab06-0000779e2340.html
Iranian forces seize Romanian oil rig
By Alex Barker in London
Iranian armed forces attacked and forcibly seized a Romanian-owned oil rig
operating in the Gulf on Tuesday, after a contractual dispute with its
owners.
Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP), an oil services group, said its Orizont rig
had come under fire from a gunboat on Tuesday morning, after the crew
refused to allow officials from a subsidiary of the Iranian state oil
company on board.
Advertisement
The incident, which led to a minor diplomatic dispute between the two
countries, marks a violent turn in a contractual wrangle between the
Romanian group and a subcontractor.
The gunfire is understood to have damaged a crane on board as well as
strafing the legs of the rig and accommodation areas for staff.
None of the 26-strong crew, including 19 Romanian and seven Indian
nationals, was injured. The rig was on Tuesday under guard by an Iranian
naval vessel, although the Iranian soldiers had left.
"It is totally crazy," Gabriel Comanescu, president of GSP, a private
company that owns six rigs, told the Financial Times. "The Iranians took my
men hostage. This must be the first- ever rig to be occupied by force in
peacetime."
Mr Comanescu said he was in touch with staff on board until armed men in
camouflage - who scaled the legs of the rig - cut off communications. He
was able to speak to his staff again in the late afternoon.
It is unclear who ordered the operation to seize the rig.
Hamid-Reza Asefi, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, declined to comment on
yesterday's incident. But Iran's Revolutionary Guards, a key element of
Iran's armed forces, have substantial involvement in the country's energy
sector.
GSP has been in a contractual dispute with Oriental Oil Kish, a private
Dubai-based drilling contractor that had leased its rigs to drill wells for
Petroiran Development Company, a unit of Iran's state-owned oil company.
The board of Oriental includes senior Iranian political and military
figures, who are believed still to include Cyrus Nasseri, a veteran
diplomat who played a leading role in negotiations with Europe over Iran's
nuclear programme. Oriental has been the target of a corruption
investigation in Iran.
GSP says it terminated its contract with Oriental after the group fell
behind with payments and after doubts about the legal basis of its contract
came to light.
Last week the Romanian company towed the Fortuna, its second rig in Iranian
waters, to the United Arab Emirates.
GSP says it had permission to do so but Iranian oil industry officials
later claimed GSP had "hijacked" the rig and they demanded its return.
In spite of high demand for offshore drilling rigs in Iran to exploit its
oil and gas resources, few international operators choose to lease their
rigs there. The Orizont, which was moored near the island of Kish, was one
of only four foreign-owned rigs operating in Iran.
It emerged last year that Oriental had had business dealings with a
subsidiary of Halliburton, the US oil services group.
Additional reporting by Gareth Smyth in Tehran
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free | The price of dictatorship
The west's support for military rule in Pakistan has made the
country a seedbed of terrorism
Benazir Bhutto
Wednesday August 23, 2006
To some, the disquieting pattern of the link between Pakistan
and terrorist plots against the west may seem irrelevant and
coincidental. To me the pattern is a consequence of the west
allowing Pakistani military regimes to suppress the democratic
aspirations of the people of Pakistan, as long as their
dictators ostensibly support the political goals of the
international community.
In the late 1970s the democratically elected government of
Pakistan was toppled by a coup led by the army chief General Zia
ul-Haq. At first the international community demanded a
restoration of democracy. But after the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan these demands subsided as the US saw an opportunity
to hobble the Soviet Union. The US funnelled aid for the
fundamentalist mujahideen through Pakistan, specifically through
the military intelligence agencies Zia had created to cement his
iron rule.
This alliance converted my homeland from a peaceful nation into
a violent society of weapons, heroin addiction and a radicalised
interpretation of Islam, and the diversion of resources to the
military devastated Pakistani society. As the government
relinquished its responsibility in education, health, housing
and social services, people looked elsewhere for support. The
clearest manifestation of this was the spread of political
madrasas. They became the breeding ground for hatred, extremism,
militancy and terrorism. Once the Soviets left Afghanistan, the
west abandoned democracy there. Pakistan and Afghanistan became
the sources of a political and religious extremist movement that
morphed into the Taliban and al-Qaida.
The new Pakistani dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, has played
the west like a fiddle, dispensing occasional support in the war
on terror to keep America and Britain off his back as he
proceeded to arrest and exile opposition leaders, decimate
political parties, pressure the press and set back human and
women's rights by a generation. His regime, claiming sections of
the frontier are ungovernable, has relinquished responsibility
to the Taliban and al-Qaida. During both of my tenures as prime
minister, my government enforced the writ of the state there
through the civil administration and paramilitary troops.
The Musharraf dictatorship doles out ostensible support in the
war on terror to keep it in the good graces of Washington, while
it presides over a society that fuels and empowers militants at
the expense of moderates. And the political madrasas, which I
spent years as prime minister dismantling, flourish and grow
under the military dictatorship. Why is it that the terrorist
trail always seems to lead back to Pakistan? Why are
second-generation Pakistani emigres far more attracted by this
pattern of terrorism than other disillusioned Muslims in the
west? What is it about Islamabad that puts it at the centre of
terrorist plots?
For decades the message sent to Pakistani youth through repeated
military interventions is that might is right. The west, by
supporting the suppression of the democratic aspirations of
Pakistanis, has enabled the dictatorship to permeate this
message among a new generation of Muslim youth. Further, the use
of radical institutions to superficially address some social
needs is the key to understanding the pattern that links
Islamabad to terror-related incidents.
Democratic governments do not empower, protect and harbour
terrorists. Democratic societies largely produce citizens who
understand the importance of law, diversity and tolerance. A
democratic Pakistan, free from the yoke of military
dictatorship, would cease to be the Petri dish of the pandemic
of international terrorism.
Benazir Bhutto is a former prime minister of Pakistan and the
leader of the opposition People's party
Tribune Media Services Inc.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian
Newspapers Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran refuses access to nuclear site
Robert Tait in Tehran and Ian Traynor
Tuesday August 22, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
[A nuclear power plant in Natanz, Iran]
Iran's Natanz nulcear facility. Photograph: Getty Images
Iran was accused today of hampering international officials
engaged in inspecting its nuclear facilities.
As the country's Islamic rulers prepared to present their formal
response to an international incentive offer aimed at persuading
them to abandon a nuclear fuel project the west suspects is
designed to produce an atomic bomb, western diplomats said
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna
were refused access to areas of Iran's uranium enrichment centre
at Natanz.
Western diplomats and officials familiar with the IAEA
inspections, however, played down the problems of access and
agreed that the Iranians were entitled for the time being to
refuse access to an underground hall at Natanz being built to
host an industrial-scale enrichment facility.
They denied reports that the access refusal amounted to a
violation of Iran's obligations under the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, which is policed by the IAEA.
The prospects, meanwhile, for the international offer to Iran
producing a breakthrough deal appeared dim after Iran's supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared on Monday that the
country would continue "on the nuclear path".
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in
the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will
continue its path. It will receive the sweet fruits of its
efforts," he said on state television.
His announcement followed statements by government officials
that Iran would reject demands to suspend uranium enrichment,
which the UN security council had set as an essential condition
of any agreement.
In a graphic expression of the hardening Iranian mood, a senior
MP, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the parliament's national
security and foreign policy committee, said Iran would formally
halt IAEA inspections if international pressure continued.
"If the pressure on Iran increases, the activities of the IAEA
in Iran's nuclear installations will be restricted," he said.
"If the Europeans act hastily and ignore Iran's national rights,
agency inspections, as required by the NPT, would not have any
force. In the event of sanctions, parliament will approve a bill
requiring the removal of agency cameras from our nuclear
installations."
The UN incentive offer, put together by the security council's
five permanent members of America, Britain, France, Russia and
China, plus Germany, offers Iran a range of economic sweeteners,
including civilian nuclear technology.
However, a council resolution passed last month gave Iran until
August 31 to suspend enrichment or face the prospect of
sanctions. Uranium enrichment is a process which can be used to
fuel domestic power stations or - conducted to a high enough
level - produce atomic bombs.
Iranian officials have been encouraged in their defiance by high
oil revenues and the known reluctance of Russia and China, both
of whom have strong economic ties with Tehran, to countenance
tough embargoes. The benchmark Brent crude oil price rose $0.75
yesterday to $73.05 a barrel on the strength of the comments
from Mr Khamenei.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran expected to reject nuclear deal
Iran gives response to nuclear proposals
David Fickling and agencies Tuesday August 22, 2006
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Photograph:
AFP/Getty Images
Iran today gave its response to international proposals aimed at
limiting its nuclear programme amid fears Tehran will refuse to
give up uranium enrichment and concerns about international
inspections of its nuclear sites.
The Iranian response was handed to diplomats in Tehran from the
UK, France, Germany, Russia and China, as well as Swiss officials
representing the US, which has no diplomatic relations with Iran.
The six countries are the UN's lead negotiators with Iran over
the nuclear issue.
Details of the response are yet to be released, but an official
close to the meeting told Reuters that the response offered a
"new formula" to resolve the nuclear dispute.
"Iran has provided a comprehensive response to everything said in
the western package. In addition, Iran, in its formal response,
has asked some questions to be answered," one official said.
Recent statements from Iranian officials suggest that a
suspension of uranium enrichment - considered an essential
precondition of further talks by the six negotiating countries -
is not up for discussion.
The country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei yesterday
vowed never to give up nuclear technology and claimed that
western negotiators were trying to hold back his country.
"Though they well know that Iran does not want to produce nuclear
arms, they are exerting maximum pressure to stop progress of an
Islamic state.
"Iran has taken its own decision," he said. "By relying upon God
it will proceed with its nuclear programme to produce nuclear
energy."
Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi also said on Sunday
that there was no question of stopping enrichment. "The issue of
suspension is a return to the past and is not on Iran's agenda,"
he said.
Iran announced in April that it had succeeded in enriching
uranium, a process necessary to produce fuel for nuclear power
stations that can also be used to make material for nuclear
bombs.
Tehran insists that the programme is only for peaceful uses, but
western governments suspect that Iran is working on a weapons
programme that could produce an atomic bomb.
The Iranian government has rejected prior calls from the UN
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to halt its enrichment
activities as a confidence-building measure.
In June, the negotiating countries offered Tehran a package of
incentives designed to persuade it to give up its enrichment
activities. The measures are understood to include economic
incentives, technological help and a possible green light for
limited, monitored enrichment activities after an initial
suspension.
A western diplomat told Reuters that the issue of suspension was
a deal-breaker. "If they reject suspension [of enrichment],
that's rejection of the package [for western countries]," he
said, adding that Russia and China might take a different view.
"If they said suspension was negotiable, there would be pressure
on [the six powers] to think about it."
Analysts believe a key purpose of the Iranian strategy is to
exacerbate divisions between the six negotiating nations.
China and Russia, which have close trade relations with Iran,
may well oppose economic sanctions that would be supported by
the European powers, while Washington has refused to rule out
military action against Iran if diplomacy fails.
Washington's UN ambassador, John Bolton, said that the US was
prepared to quickly move forward with sanctions if Iran was seen
as rejecting the incentives package, although much would depend
on the stance of other security council members.
"It really is a test for the council and we will see how it
responds," he told reporters.
Iran shows little will to change direction and yesterday barred
IAEA inspectors from its enrichment plant in Natanz.
The IAEA has previously been allowed access to the 164
uranium-enriching centrifuges at the site, but diplomats fear
more may have been built to speed Iran's acquisition of the
highly enriched uranium needed for nuclear weapons.
Tehran's tepid initial response to the incentives package
prompted a marked sharpening of the negotiators' position on the
issue last month. The UN security council passed a resolution
ordering that the regime give up enrichment activities by the
end of this month or face sanctions.
The US president, George Bush, yesterday said that the recent
war in Lebanon, which pitted US ally Israel against Hizbullah
fighters funded and trained by the Iranian government, made the
search for a solution more urgent.
"Iran is obviously part of the problem. They sponsor Hizbullah.
They encourage a radical brand of Islam. Imagine how difficult
this issue would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon," he said.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 BBC: Iran responds to nuclear package
Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 August 2006
[Iran's parliamentary Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel
is shown around the Bushehr nuclear power plant] Iran says
its nuclear programme is for power generation only
Iran has delivered its formal response to the demand by world
powers that it suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for a
package of incentives.
Iranian TV said the response was handed over in Tehran to
diplomats from the five permanent UN Security Council members
plus Germany.
The details were not immediately released, but Iran made clear on
Monday that it would reject global pressure.
Supreme leader Ali Khamenei said Tehran would pursue its nuclear
activities.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has now handed a
written response to the envoys representing the US, UK, Russia,
China, France and Germany, Iranian television reported.
The US, which broke off diplomatic relations with Iran during the
Islamic revolution in 1979, is represented by the Swiss in the
Iranian capital.
US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton described Iran's
response as a significant moment:
"We will obviously study the Iranian response carefully, but we
are also prepared if it does not meet the terms set by the
permanent five foreign ministers to proceed here in the Security
Council, as the ministers have agreed, with economic sanctions.
"If on the other hand the Iranians have chosen the path of
co-operation, as we've said repeatedly then a different
relationship with the United States and the rest of the world is
now possible."
Incentives
The incentives on offer include help with civilian nuclear
technology.
The package was devised amid fears that Iran is trying to develop
a nuclear weapons programme - a claim that Iran denies.
The UN Security Council has demanded Iran suspend uranium
enrichment by 31 August or face the threat of unspecified
economic and diplomatic sanctions.
[Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei]
Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran would "continue its path"
Ahead of its release, Iranian officials said the formal response
would be "multi-faceted" - not just "yes" or "no" - and address
ambiguities over its right to nuclear technology.
Iran has already said it would like further negotiations to
resolve the nuclear dispute, says the BBC's Mike Sergeant at the
UN headquarters in New York.
Tuesday was a self-imposed deadline for Iran to respond to the
incentives proposed on 6 June by the six nations.
It had said it would respond by the end of the Iranian month of
Mordad - which finishes on Tuesday.
As well as help with a civilian power programme, the suggested
package offers Iran a partial lifting of economic sanctions.
Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly
enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for civilian use
only. It points out that as a signatory to the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (NPT) it is entitled to a nuclear power
programme and says it has broken no rule.
But the Western powers accuse Iran of concealing an enrichment
programme, and Washington has refused to rule out military
action.
*****************************************************************
8 BBC: Iran offers West 'serious' talks
Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 August 2006
[Preliminary installation of a turbo generator at Iran's Bushehr
nuclear power plant]
Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said his
country is ready to start "serious talks" with six world powers
on Wednesday.
Iran has submitted a written response to the demand by the five
permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany to suspend
uranium enrichment.
It has until the end of August to suspend enrichment in exchange
for incentives, or risk possible sanctions.
Iran denies Western claims that it is developing a nuclear
weapons programme.
Tehran has always maintained that it has a right to civilian
nuclear technology, and Supreme leader Ali Khamenei made it clear
on Monday that Iran would reject international pressure.
Although Mr Larijani has spoken of "serious talks", what the
Security Council needs to know is whether Iran is willing to
suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or not, says the BBC News
website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds.
If it is not, or gives no clear response on this, the US and its
allies will take it as a "no" and will press for sanctions,
though these would need a separate council decision, our
correspondent adds.
'Clear choice'
The US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany have offered Iran a
package of incentives - including the offer of help with civilian
nuclear technology. The details of Tehran's written response have
not been made public.
The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said
the Iranian document was "extensive" and required "a detailed and
careful analysis."
The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said the choice facing
Iran was clear.
"They can either take up the very generous offer that the five
permanent members and Germany have extended to them, and if they
do there's a possibility of a different relationship with the
United States and others.
"But if they don't we've also made it clear that their
unwillingness to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons will
result in our efforts in the Security Council to obtain economic
sanctions against them."
Iranian officials had previously said the response would address
ambiguities over its right to nuclear technology.
Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly
enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.
Iran points out that as a signatory to the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (NPT) it is entitled to a nuclear power
programme and says it has broken no rule.
But the Western powers accuse Iran of concealing an enrichment
programme, and Washington has refused to rule out military
action.
*****************************************************************
9 Xinhua: Arab League chief: double standards on nuclear issue dangerous
www.chinaview.cn 2006-08-22 06:02:13
CAIRO, Aug. 22 (Xinhua) -- Arab League Secretary General Amr
Moussa said Tuesday that the international double-standard
stance towards the nuclear program was dangerous, referring to
U.S. nuclear policy, Egypt's MENA news agency reported.
Speaking at a joint press conference with visiting
Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado, Moussa said that "Taking
it the hard way with one party while choosing to neglect the
other was dangerous."
Many Arabs believed that Israel was the only country to have
nuclear weapons in the Middle East but Israel has never admitted
or denied it.
Such a stance didn't fall in line with the issue of freeing
the Middle East of nuclear weapons, said Moussa, adding that
only peaceful nuclear technology would serve the region. Moussa
also said that the Arab states would send the Arab-Israeli issue
back to the UN and the Arab group at the UN would seek to hold a
special session by the Security Council at the level of foreign
ministers on Sept. 9.
The UN Security Council was the only body entitled to tackle
the Middle East conflict, he said, adding that the intransigent
Israeli policies posed a serious danger to the stability and
security of the region.
Asked about the disarmament of Hezbollah, Moussa said that
the Lebanese track is linked to the implementation of the UN
Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the 34-day-long
conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
For his part, Amado stressed the importance of the role
played by the European Union (EU) in the Middle East in terms of
politics and economy.
Amado said that Germany and Portugal would work together
--during their presidency of the EU next year -- to launch an
effective European policy in the Arab and Muslim worlds with the
aim to solve the Middle East problem.
Amado arrived here earlier in the day for a one-day visit as
part of his three-nation tour, which has already taken him to
Jordan and will further take him to Libya. Enditem
Editor: Mu Xuequan
*****************************************************************
10 AFP: Iran calls for talks over nuclear standoff
by Hiedeh Farmani Tue Aug 22, 4:23 PM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Irancalled for talks as it delivered its
response to a deal aimed at ending a long-running nuclear
standoff but it did not say whether it had met the demands of the
international community.
The United States said it would study the response carefully but
added that it was ready to move ahead quickly in seeking UN
enforcement action if Tehran did not suspend sensitive nuclear
fuel cycle work as demanded by the Security Council.
And the European Union" /> European Unionsaid the document
required careful analysis.
Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani delivered the written
response to representatives of the five permanent Security
Council members plus Germany, which drew up the package of
incentives for Iran to renounce uranium enrichment and
reprocessing activities.
"Iran is ready for serious talks with the 5+1 group from August
23 over the offered package," the student ISNA news agency
quoted Larijani as telling the envoys.
"We prepared the response to the package with a positive view
and even tried to open a way for fair talks by interpreting the
many cases of ambiguity logically and positively," he said.
He called on the world powers that backed the offer to "return
to negotiations", adding that Iran "is ready to play its role as
a responsible country".
But he did not elaborate on what was in the written response,
and made no direct reference to an August 31 deadline for Iran
to freeze enrichment or risk UN sanctions.
All the indications ahead of Iran's submission were that it was
set to reject the basic precondition set by the six powers.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on all key policy
issues, had said Monday that Iran was determined to press ahead
with its nuclear programme despite the Security Council
deadline.
Atomic Energy Organisation deputy head Mohammad Saeedi said the
same day that Iran would "provide Europe with an exceptional
chance for an understanding and a return to the negotiating
table," but insisted an enrichment freeze was "no longer
possible".
Divisions were emerging among world powers over how to handle
the crisis, with the United States baying for sanctions while
China said punishing Iran was not the way to resolve the
international concerns about the purpose of its nuclear
programme.
"We will obviously study the Iranian response carefully," US
ambassador to the United Nations" /> United NationsJohn Bolton
told reporters in New York.
"But we are also prepared, if it does not meet the terms set to
proceed here in the Security Council... with economic sanctions.
"I think we will be prepared to submit elements of a resolution
in the Council very quickly," he said.
But a Chinese official said Beijing opposed sanctions.
"We have all along stood for a peaceful settlement of the issue
through negotiations, rather than resorting to force or
threatening sanctions," said Sun Bigan, special envoy to the
Middle East.
"Resorting to force and sanctions cannot fully solve the
problems."
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said "the document is
extensive and therefore requires a detailed and careful
analysis."
Solana added that he would "remain in open contact" with
Larijani.
Washington suspects Iran's nuclear programme is a cover for an
attempt to produce a bomb but Iran, the world's fourth largest
oil producer, insists it is purely for peaceful power
generation.
The proposal, originally submitted to Tehran in June, offers
trade and technology incentives in return for a freeze on
enrichment, which can make the fuel for nuclear power stations
or in extended form can produce the fissile core of an atom
bomb.
With the threat of sanctions looming large, and bellicose
warnings from the United States, Iran has been showing off its
military muscle during war games this week to demonstrate its
readiness to "respond to any threat."
In Israel" /> Israel, a cabinet minister and former Mossad spy
said the country should learn the lessons of its offensive
against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and prepare for an
Iranian attack.
One of Iran's top clerics warned last week that if the country
is attacked by the United States and Israel, it would retaliate
with ballistic missile strikes against Tel Aviv.
Crude oil futures rose ahead of the response from the OPEC" />
OPECoil cartel's number-two producer, which has warned that it
might halt exports to the West if the Security Council imposes
sanctions.
In London, Brent North Sea crude for October delivery gained 20
cents to 73.58 dollars per barrel in electronic trade, dealers
said. Prices later eased, with Brent at 73.31.
A diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agencytold AFP the UN watchdog's
inspectors had faced obstacles carrying out their work at
Iranian nuclear facilities in recent days although these were
not yet "deemed to be systematic and obstructionist."
As well as blocking a visit to a uranium enrichment facility
under construction, Iran had refused visas for a few inspectors
and was giving mainly short-term, single-entry visas instead of
longer-term, multiple-entry ones.
The deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad
Saeedi said reports of UN inspectors being blocked were
"inaccurate" as "the IAEA inspectors ... could go to the Natanz
plant last week," the semi-official Mehr news agency reported in
Tehran.
But Saeedi did not indicate if this was the above or
below-ground plant.
Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: US ready to submit sanctions resolution quickly over Iran's
nuclear defiance -
Tue Aug 22, 12:29 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United States threatened to push
quickly for economic sanctions against Iran" /> in the UN
Security Council if it fails to heed demands for a freeze of its
uranium enrichment activities.
As Iran delivered its long-awaited response Tuesday to an
international deal aimed at ending a nuclear standoff, US
Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said: "This is a significant
moment."
"We will obviously study the Iranian response carefully, but we
are also prepared, if it does not meet the terms set (by six
major powers), to proceed here in the Security Council ... with
economic sanctions," Bolton told reporters.
"I think we will be prepared to submit elements of a resolution
in the council very quickly," he said.
"The rhetoric, particularly in the past few days, has indicated
they (Iranians) are not prepared to suspend their uranium
enrichment activities, but we have consistently said for two and
a half months that we would not rise to the rhetoric, we would
wait for the definitive response," Bolton said.
Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani delivered Tehran's written
response shortly after 1315 GMT to representatives of the five
permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.
Details on the Iranian response were not immediately available,
but the student ISNA news agency quoted Larijani as telling the
envoys that Tehran was "ready for serious talks with the 5+1
group from August 23 over the offered package."
He did not elaborate on what was in the written response, and
made no direct reference to the August 31 deadline for Iran to
freeze enrichment or risk UN sanctions.
The six powers last June offered a package of economic and
political incentives in exchange for a freeze of Iran's uranium
enrichment, which can be used to make the fuel for nuclear power
stations or which, in extended form, can produce the fissile
core of atomic warheads.
Western countries suspect Iran's nuclear program is a cover for
an attempt to build a bomb, but Iran, the world's fourth-largest
oil producer, insists it is purely for peaceful power
generation.
And Tehran insists that, as a signatory to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has the right to conduct uranium
enrichment.
Monday, US President George W. Bush" /> already said Washington
would take the lead in demanding enforcement action if Iran
failed to halt nuclear work.
"There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the
United Nations" /> Security Council," he said. "We will work
with people on the Security Council to achieve that objective."
But China, which has close economic and energy ties with Tehran,
reiterated its opposition to sanctions.
"We have all along stood for a peaceful settlement of the issue
through negotiations, rather than resorting to force or
threatening sanctions," said Sun Bigan, China's special envoy to
the Middle East.
"Resorting to force and sanctions cannot fully solve the
problems," he added.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 AFP: Ambiguous Iran reply in nuclear showdown could split West - analysts -
by David Millikin Tue Aug 22, 3:57 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Despite a call from Iran" /> Iranfor further
negotiations on its suspect nuclear program, Washington seemed as
intent as ever on pressing for UN sanctions that some analysts
see as a slippery slope towards military confrontation.
Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tehran was ready
"for serious talks" with countries leading demands that it
suspend a uranium enrichment program which could help it produce
nuclear arms.
Larijani provided no other details of a written response given
Tuesday to an incentives package offered by the United States
and five other powers to entice Iran to give up uranium
enrichment and other suspect nuclear activities.
Even before the full content of the Iranian response was known,
senior US officials were reaffirming their position that only a
total cessation of Iran's uranium enrichment by a UN Security
Council deadline of August 31 would avert sanctions.
"We will obviously study the Iranian response carefully, but we
are also prepared, if it does not meet the terms set, to proceed
here in the Security Council ... with economic sanctions," said
the US ambassador to the United Nations" /> United Nations, John
Bolton.
"I think we will be prepared to submit elements of a resolution
in the council very quickly," he said.
Most observers had expected Iran on Tuesday to avoid a direct
rejection of the enrichment suspension demand while at the same
time refusing to give in to the UN requirement it abandon the
program as a precondition for further talks.
"The Iranians will likely agree to negotiations that may lead to
at least a temporary suspension, but not agree to this as a
precondition," said Trita Parsi, a writer who has had extensive
contacts with the Iranian leadership.
"As disappointing as this response may be for Washington, it
should not be seen as the end of the negotiating track," said
Parsi, author of the forthcoming book "Treacherous Triangle --
The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel" /> Israeland the United
States".
Iran's conditional response to the UN ultimatum is expected to
prompt renewed debate in the US administration between those
seeking dialogue with Iran, as promoted in the past by some in
the State Department, and hardliners identified with Vice
President Dick Cheney" /> Dick Cheney.
Parsi and other experts warned that a win by proponents of
immediate sanctions carried grave risks.
"Doing so would put the US on the slippery slope towards
military action, because none of America's allies believe that
UN sanctions will be effective," said Parsi.
James Marsh, director of the Security Studies program at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agreed and said a US rush
to impose sanctions could also split the fragile alliance built
up over the issue among the permanent UN Security Council
members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.
"You can tell by Iran's comments in advance of this response
that they are seeking to divide the Europeans and the
Americans," Marsh said.
"Any appearance on the part of Iran that it is willing to be
serious about negotiations will give the Chinese, the Russians
and to some extent the Europeans reason to want to avoid
escalating the political crisis, and that means at this point
voting for sanctions," he said.
US officials have been reluctant to spell out exactly what
sanctions Washington will seek at the UN if Iran fails to meet
the August 31 deadline.
A senior State Department official would only say it would be a
"multi-stage process" beginning with "targetted sanctions".
These are expected to include relatively minor actions like bans
on travel by Iranian nuclear or other officials and restrictions
on government contracts with Iranian enterprises.
But the UN has the authority to impose more wide-ranging trade
sanctions that could have a significant impact on the Iranian
economy.
Fuller sanctions will also impact on European and other
economies which have extensive trade relations with Iran, either
as exporters to the Islamic republic or importers of its oil.
"The Iranians have been preparing themselves for sanctions,
calculating that they won't be very harsh and they will be just
as costly, if not more costly, to the Europeans," Parsi said.
"Sooner or later the Europeans will break ranks," he said.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: US says nuclear-armed Iran would be 'dangerous'
Tue Aug 22, 4:40 PM ET
MINNEAPOLIS, United States (AFP) - The White House warned that a
nuclear-armed Iran" /> Iranwould be "dangerous" to the world but
declined to assess Tehran's reply to a offer to end the standoff
over its atomic programs.
"Let's let the diplomats take a look at this response before we
parse it out too much here," spokeswoman Dana Perino said as US
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushtraveled
here for an event focused on health care reform.
"We are aware of the rhetoric that's been coming out of the
regime about a nuclear program, and the president made very
clear to everyone yesterday in his press conference that he
thinks that that would be a mistake, and dangerous for the
region and the whole world," she said.
On Monday, Bush had urged the United Nations" /> United
Nationsto act swiftly if Iran refuses to stop sensitive nuclear
activities by an August 31 Security Council deadline, warning
that there must be "consequences" for ignoring UN demands.
The UN Security Council has given Iran until the end of this
month to halt uranium enrichment -- a process that makes fuel
for nuclear power plants but can be diverted to make weapons --
or face possible sanctions.
Asked at a White House news conference whether he was confident
the council would move quickly on sanctions if Iran defied the
decision of the international community, Bush said, "I certainly
hope so.
"There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the
United Nations Security Council. We will work with people on the
Security Council to achieve that objective," he said.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: Iran defiant as world awaits nuclear response
by Hiedeh Farmani Tue Aug 22, 8:41 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranis set to respond to a deal aimed at
ending a nuclear standoff but has already signalled it was likely
to defy the international community and refuse to freeze
sensitive atomic work.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on all key policy
issues, said Iran was determined to press ahead with its nuclear
programme despite an August 31 UN Security Council deadline to
suspend uranium enrichment.
Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani is due to deliver its answer
at 1230 GMT to representatives of the five permanent Security
Council members plus Germany which drew up the incentives
package.
"Iran will give a response that will provide Europe with an
exceptional chance for an understanding and a return to the
negotiating table," Atomic Energy Organisation deputy head
Mohammad Saeedi said Monday.
But he said an enrichment freeze was "no longer possible".
Divisions were emerging among world powers over how to handle
the crisis, with the United States baying for sanctions while
China said punishing Iran was not the way to resolve the
long-running crisis.
Washington suspects the programme is a cover for an attempt to
produce a bomb but Iran, the world's fourth largest oil
producer, insists it is purely for peaceful
electricty-generation purposes.
"The Islamic republic has made up its mind and on the nuclear
programme and other issues it will continue on its path with
strength, with God's help," Khamenei was quoted as saying
Monday.
The proposal, drawn up by the so-called 5+1 -- the five Security
Council permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and
the United States -- plus Germany, was submitted to Tehran in
June.
It offers trade and technology incentives in return for a freeze
on enrichment, which can make the fuel for nuclear power
stations or in extended form can produce the fissile core of an
atom bomb.
But Saeedi told the semi-official Mehr news agency that Iran
wanted to clarify "ambiguities" in the proposal relating to
article four of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which affirms the
right of signatory states to develop nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes.
With the threat of sanctions looming large, and bellicose
warnings from the United States, Iran has been showing off its
military muscle during war games this week to demonstrate its
readiness to "respond to any threat."
In Israel" /> Israel, a cabinet minister and former Mossad spy
said the country should learn the lessons of its offensive
against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and prepare for an
Iranian attack.
"Iran has threatened to attack us with its ballistic missiles
and we should prepare behind our lines and civilians for such an
attack," said Rafi Eitan.
One of Iran's top hardline clerics warned last week that if the
country is attacked by the United States and Israel, it will
retaliate with ballistic missile strikes against Tel Aviv.
Saeedi has said Iran was planning to start up a plant in the
city of Arak to produce heavy water for a research reactor due
for completion by 2009, and pressing on with its research on
centrifuges used in the nuclear fuel process.
The UN atomic watchdog is concerned about the risk of diversion
of nuclear materials as the reactor could produce 8-10
kilogrammes (about 20 pounds) of plutonium a year, enough to
make at least two nuclear bombs.
US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushsaid
Washington would take the lead in demanding enforcement action
if Iran failed to halt nuclear work.
"There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the
United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity Council," he said. "We
will work with people on the Security Council to achieve that
objective."
But a Chinese official said Beijing opposed sanctions.
"We have all along stood for a peaceful settlement of the issue
through negotiations, rather than resorting to force or
threatening sanctions," said Sun Bigan, special envoy to the
Middle East.
"Resorting to force and sanctions cannot fully solve the
problems."
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> Kofi Annanhas urged Iran to
reply positively.
"I appeal to the government of Iran to seize this historic
opportunity," he said Sunday. "Iran's reply will, I trust, be
positive and that this will be the foundation for a final,
negotiated settlement."
But the markets took fright at the negative noises coming out of
Iran, the OPEC" /> OPECoil cartel's number two producer, which
has threatened to halt exports to the West if the Security
Council imposes sanctions.
In London, Brent North Sea crude for October delivery gained 20
cents to 73.58 dollars per barrel in electronic trade.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Iran calls for talks over nuclear standoff
by Hiedeh Farmani Tue Aug 22, 7:02 PM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> called for talks as it delivered its
response to a deal aimed at ending a long-running nuclear
standoff, without saying whether it had met the demands of the
international community.
US officials said they would study Tehran's Tuesday response
carefully, but added that they were ready to move ahead quickly
in seeking UN enforcement action if Iran did not suspend
sensitive nuclear fuel cycle work as demanded by the UN Security
Council.
The European Union" /> said the document required careful
analysis.
Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani delivered the written
response to representatives of the five permanent Security
Council members plus Germany, which drew up the package of
incentives for Iran to renounce uranium enrichment and
reprocessing activities.
"Iran is ready for serious talks with the 'five plus one' group
from August 23 over the offered package," the student ISNA news
agency quoted Larijani as telling the envoys.
"We prepared the response to the package with a positive view
and even tried to open a way for fair talks by interpreting the
many cases of ambiguity logically and positively," he said.
He called on the world powers that backed the offer to "return
to negotiations," adding that Iran "is ready to play its role as
a responsible country."
But he did not elaborate on what was in the written response,
and made no direct reference to an August 31 deadline for Iran
to freeze enrichment or risk UN sanctions.
All the indications ahead of Iran's submission were that it was
set to reject the basic precondition set by the six powers.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on all key policy
issues, said Monday that Iran was determined to press ahead with
its nuclear program despite the Security Council deadline.
Iran's Atomic Energy Organization deputy head Mohammad Saeedi
said the same day that Iran would "provide Europe with an
exceptional chance for an understanding and a return to the
negotiating table," but insisted an enrichment freeze was "no
longer possible."
Differences emerged among world powers over how to handle the
crisis, with the United States baying for sanctions while China
said punishing Iran was not the way to resolve the international
concerns about the purpose of its nuclear program.
"We will obviously study the Iranian response carefully," US
ambassador to the United Nations" /> John Bolton told reporters
in New York.
"But we are also prepared -- if it does not meet the terms set
-- to proceed here in the Security Council ... with economic
sanctions.
"I think we will be prepared to submit elements of a resolution
in the council very quickly," he said.
The White House warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would be
"dangerous" to the world, but declined to assess Tehran's reply.
"Let's let the diplomats take a look at this response before we
parse it out too much here," spokeswoman for US President George
W. Bush" /> , Dana Perino, said.
Washington suspects Iran's nuclear program is a cover for an
attempt to produce a bomb. However, Iran, the world's fourth
largest oil producer, insists it is purely for peaceful power
generation.
"We are aware of the rhetoric that's been coming out of the
regime about a nuclear program," she said, adding that Bush made
it clear on Monday that he believes that continuing with the
nuclear program "would be a mistake, and dangerous for the
region and the whole world."
A Chinese official said Beijing opposed sanctions on Iran.
"We have all along stood for a peaceful settlement of the issue
through negotiations, rather than resorting to force or
threatening sanctions," said Sun Bigan, special envoy to the
Middle East.
"Resorting to force and sanctions cannot fully solve the
problems."
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said "the document is
extensive and therefore requires a detailed and careful
analysis."
Solana added that he would "remain in open contact" with
Larijani.
With the threat of sanctions looming large, and bellicose
warnings from the United States, Iran has been showing off its
military muscle during war games this week to demonstrate its
readiness to "respond to any threat."
Crude oil futures rose ahead of the response from the OPEC" />
oil cartel's number-two producer, which has warned that it might
halt exports to the West if the Security Council imposes
sanctions.
In London, Brent North Sea crude for October delivery gained 20
cents to 73.58 dollars per barrel in electronic trade, dealers
said. Prices later eased, with Brent at 73.31.
A diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
told AFP the UN watchdog's inspectors had faced obstacles
carrying out their work at Iranian nuclear facilities in recent
days although these were not yet "deemed to be systematic and
obstructionist."
As well as blocking a visit to a uranium enrichment facility
under construction, Iran had refused visas for a few inspectors
and was giving mainly short-term, single-entry visas instead of
longer-term, multiple-entry ones.
Saeedi said reports of UN inspectors being blocked were
"inaccurate" as "the IAEA inspectors ... could go to the Natanz
plant last week," the semi-official Mehr news agency reported in
Tehran.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
16 Telegraph: Sanctions threat as Iran defies UN over atomic plan
Wednesday 23 August 2006
[telegraph.co.uk]
By David Blair
America threatened to impose economic sanctions on Iran
yesterday after Teheran failed to guarantee to obey a United
Nations resolution to stop enriching uranium.
The latest trial of strength came after Iran delivered its
long-awaited response to a Western package of economic
incentives. This offer, endorsed by America, was designed to
induce Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium in order to allay
Western fears about its possible development of nuclear weapons.
[Ali Larijani]
Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator
Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, delivered the
regime's formal reply to six ambassadors in Teheran.
He offered more negotiations and claimed to be "positive" about
some elements of the Western offer.
But, crucially, Mr Larijani did not guarantee to halt the
enrichment of uranium. This was the key demand of UN Resolution
1696, passed by Security Council last month, which obliged Iran
to "suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities"
by Aug 31.
Last year, Iran removed the seals on nuclear plants frozen by
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and began
enriching uranium in breach of earlier agreements.
This prompted Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, to recommend
a referral of the issue to the Security Council - an opportunity
willingly seized by America. Mr Larijani said yesterday:
"Although there is no legal justification for the Security
Council's illegal action, based on Kofi Annan's recommendation,
we prepared the response to the proposed package with a positive
view." He added that "serious negotiations" should begin today.
However, this failed to defuse the confrontation with the US
administration.
John Bolton, the American ambassador to the UN, vowed to "study"
the response, but added: "We're also prepared, if it does not
meet the terms set by the Security Council, to proceed with
economic sanctions."
When the matter returns to the Security Council on Aug 31,
America is likely to press for a full package of economic
penalties against Teheran.
Iran's leadership could scarcely be more defiant. On Monday, the
Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ruled out any
concessions. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has made up its mind,
based on the experience of the past 27 years, to forcefully
pursue its nuclear programme and other issues it is faced with,
and will rely on God," he said.
Iran hopes that Russia and China - both of which have crucial
economic ties with Teheran - will combine to veto any American
bid to impose sanctions.
Observers believe Iran's strategy is to win time and split the
opposing coalition while pursuing its nuclear programme with all
speed.
Robert Lowe, from the Middle East Programme of the Royal
Institute of International Affairs in London said: "They're quite
prepared to drag this on and on and there's no hint that they're
willing to abandon their strategic objective."
dblair@telegraph.co.uk
Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
17 IRNA: Blix calls for talks with Iran over nuclear program
London, Aug 22, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear-Blix
Former director general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Hans Blix says that he is certain Iran is not
making a nuclear weapon and believes that the west should
restart talks to resolve its desire to enrich uranium.
Iran is "certainly not now" developing any bomb and even the
CIA believe that it might take up to 2010 or 2112 to have any
capacity, Blix said Tuesday.
"So there is time to talk and that is an important point," he
said in an interview with Today, BBC Radio Four's flagship
current affairs program. "I think the west should continue
talking with Iran," he said.
Blix, who now chairs the Weapons of Mass Destruction
Commission, made his call ahead of Iran's expected formal
response to a package of incentives being offered by the
permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
"There is something curious about the offer they made in the
spring to come to talks, including with the US which was seen as
a big concession, but only if Iran first suspends enrichment,"
he said.
The former IAEA director general, who was also the UN's chief
arms inspector ahead of the Iraq war, further criticized the
Security Council for making the same demand to first suspend in
its resolution on July 31.
"They are asking the Iranians really to give up their chief
leverage and what should be the chief subject of the
negotiations" about resolving the dispute, he said.
During his interview, Blix also believed that it was "not very
wise" of both the US and Britain not to rule out military
adventurism against Iran.
"There has been too much whipping or threats of whipping all
the times," he said, adding that the issue should be about Iran
being taken "seriously."
The former chief arms inspector said that he was "doubtful" if
Iran felt threatened by its neighbors for any need to develop a
nuclear deterrent.
"But Iran may be worried about the US," he said. Washington
should not up its threats against the Iranians as he believed it
may have the opposite effect and "incite them."
Asked whether he thought other countries, including Brazil and
Japan, who already have uranium enrichment facilities, posed any
threat to develop a nuclear weapons, Blix suggested that it
depended on "political will."
"Any country with a big industrial capacity in technology could
perhaps, but depends if they have the political will," he said,
but he added that he did not think either Brazil or Japan had
any intentions at the moment.
"What we do not know is if the US continues to develop capacity
and there is no disbarment then the atmosphere may change," the
former IAEA chief warned as a possibility.
*****************************************************************
18 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Denies U.N. Inspectors Site Access
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 22, 2006 5:46 AM
AP Photo XTH103
By GEORGE JAHN and NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran turned away U.N. inspectors from an
underground site meant to shelter its uranium enrichment program
from attack, diplomats said Monday, while the country's supreme
leader insisted Tehran will not give up its contentious nuclear
technology.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's comments came on the eve of a
self-imposed deadline to respond formally to Western incentives
aimed at curbing its atomic program, deflating hopes that Iran
will accept a U.N. Security Council demand that it freeze
enrichment by Aug. 31 or face the possibility of sanctions.
Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to its underground
facility at Natanz could seriously hamper U.N. attempts to
ensure Tehran is not trying to produce nuclear weapons, and
might violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and
U.N. officials told The Associated Press.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of
the information, the diplomats and officials from the U.N.
nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
described other signs of Iranian defiance.
They said Iran denied entry visas to two IAEA inspectors in the
last few weeks after doing the same earlier this summer for
Chris Charlier, the expert heading the U.N. agency's team to
Tehran. Additionally, they said, other inspectors were given
only single-entry visas during their visits to Iran last week,
instead of the customary multiple-entry permits.
Iran's reported actions were likely to harden Western resolve to
punish the Tehran regime if it refuses to give up uranium
enrichment, which can be used to create the fissile core of
nuclear warheads.
Diplomats told AP on Monday that sanctions could include a ban
on the sale of missile and nuclear technology to Tehran,
international refusal to grant entry visas to people involved in
Iran's nuclear program and a freeze of their assets, and a ban
on investment in Iran.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei is to report by Sept. 11 to the
agency's board on Iran's compliance with the Security Council
deadline on freezing enrichment and on other aspects of Tehran's
cooperation with U.N. inspectors.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said
that ``nothing surprises me about how Iran treats its
obligations'' under the nonproliferation agreement. He said Iran
concealed things from inspectors in the past and alleged Tehran
also has falsified data.
Although Bolton said he had no specific knowledge of the
reported recent blocking of U.N. inspectors, he said, ``More
obstructionism doesn't surprise me at all.''
IAEA officials at the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria,
refused to comment.
The Islamic republic has promised to formally respond Tuesday to
an offer of economic and political rewards for it to freeze
enrichment and negotiate strengthened monitoring of its nuclear
program.
The proposal from six world powers - the U.S., Russia, China,
Britain, France and Germany - includes promises that the United
States and Europe will provide civilian nuclear technology and
that Washington will join direct talks with Iran.
But Iran's supreme leader again ruled out an enrichment freeze.
``The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in
the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will
continue its path,'' Khamenei was quoted as saying Monday by
state television.
He accused the United States of pressuring Iran despite Tehran's
assertions it is not working on nuclear weapons, as Washington
and its key allies contend. Iran says its enrichment work is
intended solely to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that will
generate electricity.
``Arrogant powers and the U.S. are putting their utmost pressure
on Iran while knowing Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons,''
Khamenei said.
Iran said Sunday that it would offer a ``multifaceted response''
to the incentives proposal but already insisted a full
enrichment freeze was out of the question.
In Washington, President Bush said Iran already was giving an
inkling of its response. ``Dates are fine,'' he said, ``but what
really matters is will. And one of the things I will continue to
remind our friends and allies is the danger of a nulear-armed
Iran.''
A State Department spokesman, Gonzalo Gallegos, said, ``We await
their final decision.''
German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed for a ``solid answer''
from Iran. ``I still hope that it will be positive, although
some signals have been very confused,'' she said.
Tehran says uranium enrichment does not violate any of its
obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
But U.N. officials suggested the refusal to allow IAEA
inspectors access to the underground nuclear site being built at
Natanz was in itself a violation of the treaty because it
contravenes Tehran's commitment to inform the agency of the
progress of such projects.
Iranian officials have said the country intended to move toward
large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 interconnected
centrifuges in underground halls at Natanz, in central Iran, by
late this year and would later expand the program to 54,000
centrifuges.
Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright, president of the
Washington-based Institute for Science and International
Security, describes the site as a vast complex 75 feet
underground, covered by layers of materials. It is unclear
whether that includes concrete.
---
Associated Press writers George Jahn reported this story from
Vienna, Austria, and Nasser Karimi from Tehran, Iran.
---
On the Net:
International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: Response Will Clear Path for Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 22, 2006 1:01 PM
AP Photo XTH102
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran hinted Tuesday that its response to a
Western incentive package aimed at persuading it to roll back
its nuclear program would include constructive ideas that it
hopes will open the way for negotiations.
Tehran reiterated Tuesday its intention to meet its self-imposed
deadline later Tuesday to reply to the package. The official
Iranian News Agency said it would deliver its response at 4 p.m.
local time (8:30 a.m. EDT).
Tehran was expected to give its answer on the package to
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who delivered
it in June.
A top Iranian nuclear official said Tehran's response will
provide ``an exceptional opportunity'' for a return to the
negotiating table for a compromise.
``Iran's response to the package is a comprehensive reply that
can open the way for resumption of talks for a final
agreement,'' Mohammed Saeedi, deputy head of the Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran, said in comments published Tuesday.
Even so, Iran on Monday twice showed its determination to push
ahead with its nuclear program, which continues under the
possible threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed by
the U.N. Security council if it does not halt uranium enrichment
by Aug. 31.
It turned away International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors
from an underground site meant to shelter its uranium enrichment
program from attack and its top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
declared that Tehran will continue to pursue its nuclear
activities.
Iran has rejected the resolution passed by the council last
month as ``illegal,'' saying a compromise can only emerge from
talks.
Likewise, Saeedi's optimistic words Tuesday were tempered by his
assessment of the proposed packaged as containing ``serious
ambiguities'' that need to be clarified in talks.
The package does not mention the part of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty that affirms signatories' right to
pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, Saeedi said.
``One ambiguity is the deliberate failure to mention Article 4
of the NPT in the package. Instead, it has repeatedly referred
to other parts of the treaty that are mainly deterrent. Why
Article 4 has not been mentioned?'' Saeedi asked.
Iran promised Sunday to offer a ``multifaceted response'' to the
package of incentives, proposed in June by the five permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.
The council's July 31 resolution came in response to Tehran's
delay in replying to the proposal.
The United States and some of its Western allies accuse Iran of
seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied the charges saying
its nuclear program is merely aimed at generating electricity,
not bombs.
The Islamic republic has repeatedly said it will never give up
its right to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, but has
indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to
ease tensions.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Wants to Talk but Keep Nuke Program
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday August 23, 2006 1:16 AM
AP Photo WX106
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Tuesday it was ready for ``serious
negotiations'' on its nuclear program, offering a new formula to
resolve a crisis with the West. A semiofficial news agency said
the government was unwilling to abandon uranium enrichment - the
key U.S. demand.
Iran delivered its written response to a package of incentives
offered by the United States and five other world powers to
persuade Iran to roll back on its nuclear program - and
punishments if it does not. The world powers, the five permanent
U.N. Security Council members plus Germany, have given Iran
until Aug. 31 to accept the package.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said
Washington will ``study the Iranian response carefully'' but was
prepared to move forward with sanctions against Tehran if it was
not positive. The White House held off commenting until it had
studied the text. The European Union's foreign policy chief,
Javier Solana, said the document was ``extensive'' and required
``a detailed and careful analysis.''
Iranian officials offered no details of the response, but it
appeared geared at enticing those countries into further
negotiations by offering a broad set of proposals vague enough
to hold out hope of progress in resolving the standoff.
If the Iranians leave the door open to halting enrichment as
talks progress, that would drive a wedge in the Security Council
between the Americans, British and French on one side and the
Russians and Chinese on the other. Last month, Russia said the
Council was in no rush to pressure Iran, striking a more
conciliatory tone than the United States.
Tuesday's announcement was the latest development in the
yearlong standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. Iran says it
wants to master the technology to generate nuclear power. But
critics say Iran is interested in uranium enrichment because it
can also be used to make the fissile core of nuclear weapons.
The current drama is playing out in the wake of fears that the
ability of the pro-Iranian Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon to
withstand 34 days of Israeli bombardment has emboldened
hard-liners in Tehran to risk a showdown with the Americans, who
are bogged down in neighboring Iraq. There has also been
speculation in the West that Iran encouraged Hezbollah to
provoke the Israelis to distract attention from its nuclear
ambitions.
Iran has pursued a confrontational stance on the nuclear issue
since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last year.
The hard-line president has used the nuclear issue to encourage
a sense of national pride among Iranians by standing up to the
United States and other Western countries.
On Tuesday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani,
hand-delivered his government's response to ambassadors of
Britain, China, Russia, France, Germany and Switzerland - which
represents U.S. interests - nine days before a Security Council
deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment or face economic
and political sanctions.
Larijani refused to disclose whether the response included an
offer to suspend uranium enrichment. But the semiofficial Fars
news agency reported that Iran rejected calls to suspend
``nuclear activities'' - or uranium enrichment - and ``instead
has offered a new formula to resolve the issues through
dialogue.''
The state-run television quoted Larijani as telling the
diplomats Iran ``is prepared as of Aug. 23rd (Wednesday) to
enter serious negotiations'' with the countries that proposed
the incentives package.
The Irna official news agency reported that ``Larijani said
Iran's answer has logically, fairly and constructively addressed
demands of the proposed package, recommending the P5+1 group to
return to the negotiation table immediately despite the false
atmosphere created against Iran that it was buying time.''
Last month, the Security Council set an Aug. 31 deadline for
Iran to halt uranium enrichment or face economic and political
sanctions. Iran called the resolution ``illegal'' but had said
it was willing to offer a ``multifaceted response'' to an
incentives package that the six powers offered in June.
Iranian officials familiar with Larijani's response said Tehran
offered a ``new formula'' to resolve the dispute. The officials
spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of
the information.
``Iran has provided a comprehensive response to everything said
in the Western package. In addition, Iran, in its formal
response, has asked some questions to be answered,'' one
official said without providing more details.
But the Iranians have been signaling they are not prepared to
abandon uranium enrichment as a precondition to talks. Last
month, a senior Iranian lawmaker said the country's parliament
was preparing to debate withdrawal from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty if the U.N. Security Council adopts a
resolution to force Tehran to suspend enrichment.
On Monday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said
the Islamic Republic ``has made its own decision and in the
nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will
continue its path.'' Khamenei accused the United States of
putting pressure on Iran despite Tehran's assertions that its
nuclear program was peaceful.
Iran's former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, who is now a
top adviser to Khamenei, said Iran's national interests, not the
West's demands, should be the basis for Iran's decision.
``What we have achieved in nuclear technology is worth more than
the pressures against us at the international stage,'' the
semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency quoted Velayati as
saying Tuesday.
In February, Iran for the first time produced its first batch of
low-enriched uranium, using a cascade of 164 centrifuges.
In the last few weeks, Iran prevented U.N. nuclear agency
inspectors from inspecting an underground site meant to shelter
its uranium enrichment program from attack, diplomats said
Monday.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed
ElBaradei, is to report by Sept. 11 to the agency's board on
Iran's compliance with the U.N. deadline to freeze enrichment
and other aspects of Tehran's cooperation with U.N. inspectors.
The Western incentives package has not been made public but some
details have leaked. They include an offer to lift a ban on
sales of Boeing passenger aircraft, providing Iran with some
nuclear technology to build reactors for civilian purposes and
guaranteeing a supply of nuclear fuel.
Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
21 Korea Herald: N.K. threatens to ignore the cease-fire treaty
North Korea yesterday called a joint military exercise by South
Korea and the United States "an act of war," saying it would
take pre-emptive action if necessary in spite of the 53-year-old
cease-fire treaty.
"We deem the United States' war exercise an act of war that
annuls the cease-fire treaty. The Korean People's Army will take
any military measures needed for protecting the security and
sovereignty of the country," a statement released by the Korean
People's Army said.
It added, "We declare that we will not be bound to the
cease-fire treaty."
The two Koreas are still technically at war after the 1950-1953
Korean War that ended with a cease-fire treaty, not a peace
treaty.
The statement followed the resumption of regular joint military
drills by the South and the United States this week.
The latest threat by the North appears to have taken a stronger
note this time, which could reflect the communist state's
agitation over the unstable security circumstances, observers
said.
North Korea usually slams the drills, which it calls a prelude
to a U.S.-led war.
Instability looms over the Korean Peninsula following the July
5 missile launches by the North. The six-party talks on the
nuclear program have also been on hold since November last year.
"The pre-emptive military action is not something that can be
monopolized by the United States. We have declared numerous
times that our People's Army also holds the right to execute a
self-defense pre-emptive action if our security is threatened,"
the North Korean statement read.
About 20,000 South Korean and U.S. troops are participating in
the annual computer-based exercise, dubbed the Ulchi Focus Lens.
The exercise, which has been held annually since 1975, will
continue until Sept. 1.
The Combined Forces Command notified North Korea of the drills
last month.
The reclusive state often uses the joint drills as an excuse to
build up its deterrence measures, such as nuclear programs.
It also uses the regular exercise as a reason to reject
dialogues with South Korea.
The North said in the statement that it was paying close
attention to how the drills were being carried out with aircraft
carriers standing by.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2006.08.23
*****************************************************************
22 AFP: NKorea condemns South's drills with US
by Jun Kwanwoo Tue Aug 22, 6:13 AM ET
SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea" /> has condemned the annual joint US-
South Korea" /> military drills, saying the exercises could lead
to an actual war and warning it had the right to take
"preemptive" measures in self-defense.
A North Korean People's Army (KPA) spokesman described the
wargames -- dubbed Ulchi Focus Lens and under way in South Korea
since Monday -- as an "undisguised military threat and blackmail"
against Pyongyang.
"No one can vouch that it would not go over to an actual war,"
read the statement carried by the official Korean Central News
Agency on Tuesday.
It repeated the North's regular warning that "preemptive
military action against the other side is not a monopoly of the
US".
"The KPA side therefore reserves the right to undertake a
preemptive action for self-defense against the enemy ... due to
the US hostile policy towards the DPRK (North Korea)," it said.
Minju Joson newspaper, run by the Pyongyang government, also
said that the military exercises could become "an all-out
nuclear war against the DPRK any moment," citing what it called
US hopes to seize North Korea by force.
Seoul and Washington say the exercises, which have been held
annually since 1975, are for defense. US President George W.
Bush" /> has linked North Korea with Iran" /> and Saddam
Hussein" /> 's Iraq" /> as an "axis of evil."
Since the 1950-1953 Korean war, US troops have been stationed in
the South to help its 650,000-strong army face up to North
Korea's 1.2 million-strong army.
This year's exercise, which will continue until September 1,
involves 9,000 US troops and an undisclosed number of South
Korean soldiers, according to military officials from both
sides.
"They are purely defensive, defense-oriented drills," Kim
Yong-Kyu, a spokesman of the US-South Korea Combined Forces
Command in Seoul, said Monday.
The drills largely feature computer-simulated wargames conducted
at command posts and not field maneuvers, he said.
Some 4,000 US troops -- more than the 3,000 initially announced
-- were brought in from the Pacific and elsewhere to join
another 5,000 US troops, part of the American contingent
permanently stationed here, he said.
The drills came amid tension heightened by North Korea's missile
tests last month and reports that is preparing a nuclear test.
North Korea, in defiance of international warnings, launched
seven ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan (East Sea) on
July 5.
The UN Security Council unanimously condemned the move and
imposed sanctions on Pyongyang. North Korea warned it could take
"stronger physical actions" in response.
North Korea announced in February 2005 that it had manufactured
nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons tests have never been
reported.
US television network ABC said Thursday that Pyongyang may be
preparing an underground nuclear test, citing US intelliegence
on "suspicious" activities, including the unloading of large
reels of cable outside a suspected underground test site called
Pungyee-yok in northeast North Korea.
The governments in both Seoul and Washington remain cautious
about the authenticity of the report.
The North's army spokesman repeated Tuesday that the communist
state would no longer respect the armistice agreement (AA)
reached after the Korean War.
"The KPA side would not be bound to the AA ...considering the
ongoing war maneuvers as a war action declaring the AA null and
void," the spokesman said in the statement.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
23 RIA NovostiJ: Court returns ex-nuclear minister graft case to prosecutors
22/ 08/ 2006
MOSCOW, August 22 (RIA Novosti) - A Moscow court returned
Wednesday a case against a former nuclear power minister to
prosecutors to eliminate shortcomings in the investigation.
Yevgeny Adamov, 67, is charged with embezzlement and abuse of
office. Prosecutors said the former minister, who served from
1998 to 2001, was the leader of an organized criminal group that
inflicted damage worth over 3 billion rubles (about $110
million) on the Russian budget, enterprises and organizations.
A spokesman for the prosecution said an appeal would be lodged
against the ruling as early as Wednesday.
"It is not the first time we have encountered such things,"
Viktor Antipov said. "I consider that the ruling runs counter to
the law."
Adamov said prosecutors would unlikely be able to eliminate the
shortcomings.
"Changing the word order of the indictment will not improve it,"
Adamov said. "The reputation of the country as a whole has been
hurt by this case."
Adamov's lawyer, Genri Reznik, said prosecutors had failed to
specify charges in the indictment.
"The point is that a lack of concrete charges infringes the
rights of the defense," he said. "The charges are so generalized
that they make mounting a defense impossible."
He said prosecutors would unlikely be able to change the
indictment in five days but the case could not be dismissed if
they failed to meet the deadline.
"Exceeding a procedural deadline is not a legal reason to
dismiss the case," he said
Adamov was originally arrested in Switzerland last May on the
request of the United States, where authorities suspected him of
misappropriating $9 million given to Russia for nuclear safety
projects, but was extradited to his homeland in early 2006 to
face charges. He could have faced 60 years in prison if
convicted in the U.S.
Adamov was released from custody July 21 to await trial.
2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
24 AFP: Scandal-hit Pakistan nuclear scientist has cancer -
By Danny Kemp
[Abdul Qadeer Khan]
ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, at the
centre of an international nuclear proliferation scandal
involving North Korea, Libya and Iran, has prostate cancer, the
government has said.
Officials said Tuesday the disease was not at an advanced stage.
But if 70-year-old Khan dies it will be the final frustration
for foreign authorities who have been barred by Islamabad from
questioning him.
Signs of the disease were detected during a routine test in
early August and (Advertisement)
[ src=] confirmed by a detailed ultrasound examination at the
Khan Research Laboratory hospital near Islamabad, a government
statement said.
"The results have unfortunately indicated adino-carcinoma
(cancer) of prostate. Further investigations are being conducted
by a board of doctors," the statement said.
"Since the state of health of Dr A.Q. Khan is of public
interest, the government of Pakistan would like to hold out an
assurance that the best specialist medical care is being
provided to Dr A.Q. Khan in consultation with his family and
personal doctors."
A government source told AFP: "He is fine, the disease is not at
a threatening stage."
Khan is still revered as a hero in military-ruled Pakistan as
the father of the Islamic world's first atomic bomb.
In January 2004 he made a televised confession in which he
admitted passing nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea,
placing him in the thick of a global atomic black market.
President Pervez Musharraf pardoned him the following month. But
Khan has since lived under virtual house arrest in a leafy
diplomatic sector in Islamabad and makes no public appearances.
Musharraf refuses to let foreign investigators meet Khan, saying
that Pakistan was able to interrogate him without the assistance
of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency or other world
organizations.
A family friend of Khan said the scientist should be allowed to
go abroad for treatment despite the restrictions on him.
Pakistan's medical facilities are generally poor.
"He used to feel problems but it has developed suddenly," said
the friend, who did not want to be identified.
"If he needs to be sent abroad he should be sent abroad. It is
very disturbing news for the whole of the nation and Muslim
Ummah (community).
"He is the icon of our power as a nation."
Musharraf denies that Pakistani authorities were involved in the
proliferation or were aware of it.
Pakistan confirmed in March 2005 that Khan provided Iran with
centrifuges but again insisted the government was not involved
in the deal. Centrifuges are needed to enrich uranium for atomic
warheads.
Khan also provided North Korea with centrifuges and their
designs, Musharraf admitted in August 2005.
On his personal website, Musharraf says that "discovering the
involvement of Dr. A.Q. Khan in the nuclear proliferation
scandal," was the most embarrassing moment of his life.
Rumours have circulated for some time about Khan's possible
ill-health.
In June 2005 he was taken to hospital suffering from chest pains
but was given the all-clear after undergoing a procedure to
check arteries for blockages.
Copyright 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP '); [ src=]
*****************************************************************
25 BNN: Nuclear fuel still missing from U.S. plant
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:44:32 -0700
Big News Network.com Tuesday 22nd August, 2006 (UPI)
Southern Nuclear confirmed late Monday that a small quantity of spent
nuclear fuel was still missing from a power plant in Baxley, Ga.
The company said in a statement that an in-depth inventory at the Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant failed to account for 18 inches of used fuel, which
amounts to a little over an ounce, and discounted the possibility of theft.
While small portions of the 18 inches may have been inadvertently shipped
to a licensed waste disposal facility, Southern Nuclear believes that the
balance of the unaccounted for material remains in the spent fuel pools in
areas that are either unobservable by camera or otherwise inaccessible, the
company said.
Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company, launched the inventory
after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a notification in late 2005
that there was a discrepancy between the plant's records and the actual
spent-fuel supply.
The original discrepancy was pegged at 68 inches; however all but 18 inches
of material was found by technicians who went over the plant's nuclear
segment with a fine-tooth comb. Much of it apparently got loose during a
corrosion incident in the 1980s.
Spent fuel is measured in inches. A single fuel rod measures 150 inches,
and each of Hatch's two reactor cores uses 49,000 fuel rods. The total fuel
inventory at the 924-megawatt plant totals more than 77 million inches.
*****************************************************************
26 The Hindu: No security breach at Kakrapar nuke plant
Tuesday, August 22, 2006 : 2200 Hrs
Surat/New Delhi, Aug. 22 (PTI): A massive search operation was
launched today at Kakrapar Atomic Power Station near Surat after
villagers reported seeing two armed men in its vicinity, but
security forces found no intruders.
The CISF, which is responsible for guarding all nuclear
facilities, informed the home ministry that no persons were
found in or around the Kakrapar station following an intensive
search by its personnel and the Gujarat Police. CISF chief S I S
Ahmed, in his message to the home ministry, said "everything is
clear and no one was found in the premises, which were
completely safe", according to the ministry's spokesman.
Home Secretary V K Duggal said information was received by the
CISF that two men dressed as sadhus and probably carrying
weapons were spotted at a place between the outer and inner
fences of the complex.
However, on scanning the entire area, the security forces found
nothing. Duggal said the Kakrapar station was absolutely safe
and there was nothing to worry about.
Immediately after villagers reported the presence of the two men
to the authorities, state police and CISF troops launched a
combing operation while commandos took position in the control
room of the nuclear reactors.
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Chairman S K Jain, who was in
New Delhi, said the multi-layered security at the station was
capable of dealing with any intrusion. The station, which has
two 220MW plants, has protection systems to shut down the
reactors in any eventuality, he said.
"If at all they...entered the plant, they cannot do anything.
The plants can withstand any conventional attack," Jain
asserted. Security at nuclear facilities across the country was
recently stepped up following reports that terrorists could
target them.
The security at the Kakrapar station includes dog squads,
commandos and hi-tech gadgets to prevent intrusions, officials
said.
"There is no cause for worry. I can assure you nothing can go
wrong. We are confident about the (security measures) in the
area," Jain said.
Surat SP (Rural) B K Jha said the entire inner area of the
atomic power plant was searched and no intruders nor any weapons
reportedly carried by them was found.
CISF PRO Wertul Singh said search operation inside the plant was
called off and "we treat the alarm as a hoax".
However, local police continued to search the outer premises of
the plant, he said.
Jha said one Mahesh Vasava saw two suspiciously-moving persons
near the plant. When they saw Mahesh, they started running and he
in turn informed concerned authorities.
Copyright 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
27 Philadelphia Inquirer: Oyster Creek nuclear plant operators seek extension
| 08/22/2006 |
By Tina Seeley Bloomberg News
Exelon Corp. can operate its Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in
New Jersey for 20 more years if it resolves certain issues,
regulatory staff said.
Chicago-based Exelon is seeking permission from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to extend the operating life of Oyster
Creek, the nation's oldest operating reactor.
The 636-megawatt reactor, in Ocean County, has been operating
since 1969 under a 40-year license that expires in April 2009.
The relicensing request has drawn criticism from environmental
groups and from Gov. Corzine. Protesters have raised questions
about corrosion of the reactor's "drywell," a steel structure
that prevents radioactive steam from escaping during an accident.
The commission's staff is asking Exelon for more information and
further testing of the drywell liner, which is between half an
inch and more than 21/2 inches thick, Neil Sheehan, spokesman for
the commission, said in a telephone interview yesterday.
"By and large, we've determined that the plant can safely
operate for an additional 20 years; however, they first have to
deal with these items we consider unresolved," Sheehan said.
"We would like them to go back and test more than they were
planning on testing," including using "ultrasound to test the
thickness of the drywell liner," he said.
The commission said in a staff evaluation report it also needed
a "better understanding of how they're able to validate that
corrosion is not an issue," Sheehan said.
"From what we see, there were no surprises," said Pete Resler,
spokesman for Exelon, parent of Philadelphia's Peco Energy Co.
"There were some open items in there that we've been working
with NRC to close."
Resler said the company expected to be able to resolve the
issues in time for the issuance of the final safety report
before the end of the year.
A commission decision on the application is expected in 2007 or
early in 2008. The Inquirer
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: Southern Nuclear Notifies NRC of Completion of its Spent Fuel Investigation at
Hatch Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region II - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-037
August 21, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D.
Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
Southern Nuclear Operating Company notified the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission today that it had completed its efforts to
determine the disposition of spent nuclear fuel which cannot be
accounted for in the spent fuel storage pools at the Hatch
nuclear power plant near Baxley, Ga.
The NRC staff began an inspection looking into those records two
weeks ago at the companys headquarters in Birmingham, Ala., and
concluded that inspection last week at the Hatch plant.
In November of last year, the Hatch plant staff reported to the
NRC that it had been unable to reconcile its inventory based on
an initial review of records of spent fuel storage locations and
visual verifications of fuel within the plants spent fuel pools.
The spent fuel is stored as large assemblies of slender rods in
a deep pool of water.
The company initially estimated that, collectively, the fuel rod
pieces that were unaccounted for totaled about 68 inches.
Southern Nuclears further examinations of its records and small
fuel pieces in the spent fuel pool reduced that estimate to less
than 20 inches. The total length of all the spent fuel rods at
the Hatch plant including those in the spent fuel pools and the
two operating reactors is estimated at about 77 million inches.
Because of extensive radiological and security measures in
place, the company indicated that it is highly unlikely that any
of the material was removed from the plant or is at an
uncontrolled location. Both the NRC and Southern Nuclear believe
the fuel pieces that cannot be accounted for likely remain in
the spent fuel pool.
NRC officials said agency inspectors have monitored the companys
efforts as fuel pieces were found and collected from the spent
fuel pools, beginning with the first indication of an accounting
problem more than a year ago.
The NRC conducted an inspection in 2005 before the company had
completed its own investigation, and the NRC inspection
concluding last week completes the agencys examination of what
may have happened to the fuel pieces and what may have caused
the problem. The review of information from the inspection will
take several weeks and any decisions about apparent violations
or possible enforcement action will be made by NRC officials at
a later time.
Last revised Tuesday, August 22, 2006
*****************************************************************
29 POAC: NRC report: Oyster Creek liner corrosion needs more attention
Provided that is done, the commission concluded that it found no
safety concerns that should prevent the nuclear facility from
continuing to operate, according to its Safety Evaluation Report
— the second of two required reports in the renewal process. "
[The Press of Atlantic City On The Web]
Otherwise, no safety concerns for license renewal
By ZACH PATBERG Staff Writer,
(609) 978-2010 Published: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report released
Monday that the Oyster Creek Generating Station needs to commit
more testing and attention to the possible corrosion of the
reactor's liner before the plant can be granted a 20-year license
renewal.
Provided that is done, the commission concluded that it found no
safety concerns that should prevent the nuclear facility from
continuing to operate, according to its Safety Evaluation Report
— the second of two required reports in the renewal process.
The questions surrounding the liner, which the NRC lists as five
“open items,” parallels concerns long held by a coalition of
environmentalists who believe the liner, or drywell, should be
inspected more closely and that the two decades of corrosion
could present a safety hazard.
The six-group coalition is currently waiting for an NRC panel to
decide whether to grant a hearing on the issue.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission is requesting
more information on the plant's efforts to mitigate the
corrosion. It is also asking that specific steps be taken to
confirm the thickness and integrity of the drywell.
“The drywell definitely needs more attention and here are
ways to go about it,” Sheehan said in describing the purpose
of the open items.
Rachelle Benson, spokeswoman for Oyster Creek, said the plant
is reviewing the report and will provide the NRC with comments
over the next few months.
Sheehan said a public meeting regarding the report is scheduled
for Sept. 13.
The NRC expects responses to the open items by Oct. 20.
The drywell, a steel shell surrounding the reactor, is designed
to confine steam that would be released during a severe accident
and direct it upwards to a pool where it would cool and blend
with the water.
The nearly 900-page report primarily addresses how any aging of
equipment, such as buried piping, is managed so to operate
safely for another 20 years. It comes after the NRC's
environmental impact report, which found no reason to not renew
the plant's license when it expires in April 2009.
Both reports are still waiting for a final draft.
*****************************************************************
30 The Herald: The nuclear power loophole
Web Issue 2600 August 23 2006
Editorial Comment August 23 2006
Is there a hole in the law designed to protect the environment
when plans that could damage it come up for consideration? The
Greens think so. They believe the Environmental Assessment
(Scotland) Act 2005 is something of a sham. It was not meant to
be. It was intended to build on EU directives which said
developments should not be allowed without considering the
environmental impact.
According to Ross Finnie, the Environment Minister, the
Scottish law is good for people, places and developments as it
raises awareness of the impact of public plans on habitats,
culture, landscape, climate change and the health of people. But
not in the thorny area of nuclear development, according to the
Greens. Allan Wilson, the Environment Minister, has confirmed to
the party that an application to build a nuclear power station
in Scotland would fall under older, weaker UK laws. This is
because nuclear policy is reserved for the Westminster
government, which recently concluded a wide-ranging energy
review.
While Scottish Ministers have a say in UK energy strategy, Mr
Wilson also confirmed that the commercial developer of a nuclear
plant would decide whether its plans should be subject to an
assessment under the more stringent Scottish law. Bearing in
mind that turkeys tend not to vote for Christmas, we think we
know the answer. At the same time, however, the executive would
apply the Holyrood legislation to any business planning a
development which required an assessment in Scotland, for
instance in renewable energy. The aim is to force public bodies
to look strategically at Scotland's use of resources and the
impact on the environment. There would be no opt-out for
business.
This raises important considerations. Building a new generation
of nuclear power stations is on the UK government's agenda as a
result of the energy review. In Scotland, the Holyrood
government has a challenging target to meet for electricity
generated by renewable sources (40% of the total by 2020).
Future windfarm, wave- and tidal-power developments would face a
tough assessment on all counts identified by Mr Finnie, and
would be analysed strategically to take account of their
cumulative impact. Building a new nuclear plant in Scotland
potentially would be momentous for the environment. Yet, if
developers opted out of the Scottish test (as Mr Wilson says
they can) the environmental impact would be assessed on softer
law superseded in and by Scotland. Also, the strategic overview
would be British. With Scotland's energy needs being met by
increasingly diverse non-nuclear sources, that would seem
unusual, to say the least. The anomaly should be addressed.
Copyright Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
31 The Herald: New nuclear plants are to be exempt from pollution law
Web Issue 2600 August 23 2006
ROBBIE DINWOODIE, Chief Scottish Political Correspondent
August 23 2006
Tough new environmental laws will not apply to any expansion
of nuclear power in Scotland, a minister confirmed yesterday,
prompting anger from green campaigners.
They expressed disappointment that, because energy policy is
reserved to Westminster, the Scottish Executive will not be able
to compel a strategic environmental assessment to be carried out
if the nuclear industry wants to build a new plant north of the
border.
Such assessments, introduced under the Environmental Assessment
(Scotland) Act 2005, were portrayed by ministers as a major
advance on previous legislation and hailed by Ross Finnie, the
environment minister, as "good for people, good for places and
good for development," extending "environmental assessment to
all public plans and strategies".
But in an answer to a parliamentary question, deputy enterprise
minister Allan Wilson confirmed that a nuclear application would
be treated under the older, weaker laws because it would "come
from the commercial sector" and because the UK government had
already conducted a strategic energy review.
He added: "It would be for the commercial developer to consider
whether the proposal would also require a strategic
environmental assessment under the act."
Green MSP Chris Ballance said: "It is disappointing that this
legislation be so weak, yet be talked up so strongly by
ministers," adding: "The admission that it is up to a commercial
company to decide is bizarre in the extreme. It's akin to the
privatisation of public accountability.
"We should be looking at a proper energy strategy for Scotland,
and to suggest that the decision over nuclear power is considered
to be separate from that is totally unacceptable."
Duncan McLaren, of Friends of the Earth, said: "Developments by
a private company 'in fulfilment of a public duty' ought to be
included."
An executive spokesman said: "We don't believe this is a
loophole. The act widened the scope of strategic environmental
impacts to put public policy on a new footing. Private or
commercial applications with planning strategies and programmes
with significant effects were fully assessed to minimise their
environmental impact."
Copyright Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
32 PRN: Southern Company: Southern Nuclear's Plant Hatch Completes Used Fuel Inventory
BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Aug. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southern
Nuclear, a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlanta-based Southern
Company, today informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
that it has completed its reconciliation of the physical
inventory of spent nuclear fuel with its special nuclear material
inventory records at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant near
Baxley, Ga. The announcement concludes an extensive inventory
conducted as a follow-up to a November, 2005, initial
notification to the NRC of a discrepancy between the amount of
spent fuel in inventory versus the amount on record. The results
have concluded that fuel material equivalent to approximately 18
inches remains unaccounted for. The fuel inventory at Plant Hatch
totals more than 77 million inches.
The audit of spent fuel inventory was conducted because of
fuel-inventory discrepancies at three other U. S. nuclear power
facilities and a subsequent NRC Bulletin requiring that all
nuclear power plants verify their spent fuel inventories.
In its November, 2005, notice, Southern Nuclear reported its
preliminary findings of approximately 68 inches of unaccounted
for special nuclear material. In the intervening nine months,
Southern Nuclear continued its extensive search and retrieval
program, using specialized equipment and cameras to visually
inspect and retrieve additional material in the spent fuel
pools. The retrieved material consists of fuel rod segments,
fragments, chips, and small granules resulting from rod breakage
which occurred in the early- 1980s as a result of unanticipated
corrosion of fuel cladding -- the material surrounding the fuel
pellets. This corrosion issue, affecting only boiling water
reactor fuel, has been resolved and has not recurred since at
Plant Hatch.
From a volume perspective, the amount of unaccounted for used
fuel is less that 1.5 fluid ounces -- or less than one-fourth of
a cup. While small portions of the 18 inches may have been
inadvertently shipped to a licensed waste disposal facility,
Southern Nuclear believes that the balance of the unaccounted
for material remains in the spent fuel pools in areas that are
either unobservable by camera or otherwise inaccessible. Future
plant activities and preparations for low-level waste shipments
will take into account the possibility of the material's
presence in the pools, and any residual amount will be retrieved
when the plant is decommissioned.
Nuclear fuel within a reactor vessel is located within fuel
assemblies. During a normal power cycle, there are 560 fuel
assemblies in each of the two reactors at Plant Hatch. Each
reactor core contains over 49,000 fuel rods. Within these rods,
fuel pellets are stacked. A single fuel rod may contain
approximately 150 inches of fuel in the form of fuel pellets
less than one- half inch in length and less than one-fourth inch
in diameter.
Theft or diversion is not plausible because of plant defense in
depth provided by various physical barriers, procedures and
measures such as: sophisticated radiation monitoring
instrumentation, extensive security, and the size and type of
container required for transporting nuclear material of this
nature.
State and local officials have also been notified of the
conclusion of the inventory reconciliation.
Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company operates the
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant in Baxley, Ga., the Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant in Dothan, Al., and the Alvin W. Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, located near Waynesboro, Ga.
With 4.3 million customers and more than 40,000 megawatts of
generating capacity, Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO)
is the premier energy company serving the Southeast, one of
America's fastest-growing regions. A leading U.S. producer of
electricity, Southern Company owns electric utilities in four
states and a growing competitive generation company, as well as
fiber optics and wireless communications. Southern Company
brands are known for excellent customer service, high
reliability and retail electric prices that are significantly
below the national average. Southern Company has received the
highest ranking in customer satisfaction among U.S. electric
service providers for seven consecutive years by the American
Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Visit our Web site at
http://www.southerncompany.com/. Website:
http://www.southerncompany.com/
Copyright 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved. A United Business Media company.
*****************************************************************
33 NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice
FR Doc 06-7089
[Federal Register: August 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 162)]
[Notices] [Page 48957] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au06-102]
Agency Holding The Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
DATES: Weeks of August 21, 28; September 4, 11, 18, 25, 2006.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and Closed.
Matters to be Considered: Week of August 21, 2006 There are no
meetings scheduled for the Week of August 21, 2006.
Week of August 28, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 28, 2006.
Week of September 4, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, September 6, 2006
1:50 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public) (Tentative), a. Pa'ina
Hawaii, LLC, LBP-06-4, 63 NRC 99 (2006) and LBP-06-63, NRC 409
(2006).
(Tentative).
Week of September 11, 2006--Tentative Monday, September 11, 2006
9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). 1:30
p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Tuesday,
September 12, 2006 9:30 a.m. Meeting with Organization of
Agreement States (OAS) and Conference of Radiation Control
Program Directors (CRCPD), (Public Meeting) (Contact: Shawn
Smith, 301-415-2620).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- p.m.
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of September
18, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week
of September 18, 2006.
Week of September 25, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of September 25, 2006.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information:
Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: Additional Information: Affirmation of (1) Pacific Gas &
Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon ISFSI), Docket No. 72-26-ISFSI ``Motion
by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Sierra Club, and Peg Pinard
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief with respect to Diablo
Canyon ISFSI'' and (2) AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (License
Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) Docket No.
50-0219, Legal challenges to LBP-06-07 and LBP-06-11, tentatively
scheduled on Thursday, August 17, 2006, was postponed and will be
rescheduled.
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from
the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator.
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to .
Dated: August 17, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-7089 Filed 8-18-06; 10:11 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
34 Daily Press: Dominion is wisely planning more reactors, but safety must be addressed
Opinion Today
Hampton Roads, Virginia - August 23, 2006 12:56 AM
New nukes
But the case for nuclear power is becoming more and more
attractive. And it may, at some point in the future, take
physical form in new reactors in Virginia.
Dominion Virginia Power is laying the groundwork for one or two
new reactors at its North Anna power station in Louisa County.
Predictably, opponents are taking aim at those plans, for a
variety of reasons. Predictably, the turnout was large at recent
hearings by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state
Department of Environmental Quality.
But the case for nuclear power is a convincing one:
It doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses. Given the increasing
volume at which the alarm bells over global warming are clanging,
that's no small benefit.
It doesn't produce mercury, soot and other pollution that takes
its toll on the environment.
It can be cost-effective, especially when prices for the
alternative sources of energy - natural gas, oil and coal - are
rising or unpredictable or supplies are under pressure. New
incentives in the federal budget can also help make nukes'
numbers work.
The big bugaboo of nuclear power, of course, is safety. Concerns
fall into three areas:
As the 9/11 Commission observed, terrorists are on to nuclear
plants and have considered them as targets. But, then, liquefied
natural gas and chemical plants are vulnerable, too. Existing
nuclear plants weren't designed to withstand the kind of attacks
we now know could take place. Future plants should be.
Spent fuel is a problem - for a very, very, very long time. When
nukes first appeared on the scene, the promise was that the
federal government would devise a way to dispose of radioactive
leftovers. But the Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada still
hasn't become a reality. Until it does, spent fuel will hang
around in sites across the nation. Which, when you think of it,
at least means it's not out on the road somewhere, bound across
the nation.
Even though it's been a long time since Chernobyl and Three
Mile Island, fears of catastrophic accidents are enough to keep
some folks in the no-nukes camp.
Dominion can address the first concern, in its design. The
second is beyond its control, except to the extent that it
incorporates plans to store spent fuel semi-permanently - even
if that's less ideal than burying it below a mountain far
removed from settlements. As to the third, that, too, is largely
in Dominion's control, including educating the public about the
safety of nuclear plants.
The company is wise to take the path it's now on: getting on
with plans for new reactors. They were part of the long-term
expectation when North Anna was conceived. The utility has not
committed to actually building them; it just wants to get some
permits and site approval in place so that option is open if and
when it decides to pursue it.
The process, though, has one dimension that is ... what's the
word? Bizarre, ironic? Dominion has been forced to revise its
plans so it will not use Lake Anna for cooling. A cooling tower
will be built, at an expense of a couple of million dollars,
rather than drawing lots of cooling water from the lake and then
discharging it into cooling lagoons, from which it makes its way
back to the main lake.
What's bizarre is that manmade Lake Anna was originally created
to provide cooling water for the North Anna reactors, including
the two now being planned. But since then, thousands of people
have congregated around it, and it has turned into a popular
recreation spot. The folks who have taken advantage of
Dominion's cooling mechanism want to deny the company the
ability to use it for its intended purpose. Wisely choosing its
battles, Dominion found another alternative. Still, you have to
wonder.
Copyright ©2006 Daily Press
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-13834
[Federal Register: August 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 162)]
[Notices] [Page 48952-48953] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au06-99]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source
Materials License No. Stc-133 Authorizing the Use of
Site-Specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels for
Unrestricted Release of the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense
Nuclear Supply Center Depot in Binghamton, NY AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist,
Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania;
telephone 610- 337-5366; fax number 610-337-5393; or by e-mail:
drl1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
considering the issuance of a license amendment to Source
Materials License No.
STC- 133. This license is held by Defense Logistics Agency (DLA
or the Licensee) at multiple sites. The site at issue is its
Defense National Stockpile Center located at Hoyt Avenue in
Binghamton, New York (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment
would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use
using site specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels
(DCGLs). The use of the site specific DCGLs requires an exemption
to the definition of weighting factors in 10 CFR 20.1003. The
Licensee requested this action in a letter dated October 19,
2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in
support of this proposed action in accordance with the
requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part
51 (10 CFR Part 51).
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the
proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee
following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal
Register.
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's October 19,
2005, license amendment request for site-specific DCGL
unrestricted use release criteria at DNSC Binghamton through
issuance of an exemption to the definition of weighting factors
in 10 CFR 20.1003. License No. STC- 133 was issued on July 23,
1983, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, and has been amended
periodically since that time. This license authorized the
Licensee to use unsealed source material for purposes of storage,
sampling, repackaging, and transfer.
Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the
conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only
routine decontamination activities, in accordance with its
NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were
required. The Licensee was not required to submit a
decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities
and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine
operations. The Licensee will conduct surveys of the Facility and
provide information to the NRC to demonstrate that the Facility
meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for
unrestricted release by using the approved DCGL.
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the approval of
site-specific DCGLs through issuance of an exemption to the
definition of weighting factors in 10 CFR 20.1003. The licensee
needs these site specific DCGL values to release the Facility for
unrestricted use. NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under
the Atomic Energy Act to make a timely decision on a proposed
license amendment that ensures protection of public health and
safety and the environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical
review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows
that such activities involved use
[[Page 48953]] of the following radionuclides with half-lives
greater than 120 days: Natural uranium and thorium mixtures.
The Licensee is electing to demonstrate compliance with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10
CFR 20.1402 by developing DCGLs for its Facility. The Licensee
conducted site-specific dose modeling using input parameters
specific to the Facility and a conservative assumption that all
residual radioactivity is in equilibrium. Federal Guidance Report
Number 13 was used to modify the dose conversion factors because
it is based on an improved, more realistic dosimetry model. The
selected critical age group is adults as the expected future use
of this facility will be industrial.
Based on the type of building railroad distribution and truck
access, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that the
building will be used for other than industrial activities. The
NRC has reviewed the Licensee's methodology and proposed DCGLs
and concluded that the proposed DCGLs are acceptable for use as
release criteria at the Facility.
Federal Guidance Report Number 13, as an updated dosimetry model,
uses different weighting factors than is published in 10 CFR Part
20.
The weighting factors are used to determine effective dose
equivalent and total dose equivalent. Therefore, an exemption to
the definition of weighting factors in 10 CFR 20.1003 is required
to use Federal Guidance Report Number 13. The use of Federal
Guidance Report Number 13 for dose modeling and weighting factors
is acceptable for this Facility.
Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected
environment and any environmental impacts associated and
concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action,
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only
alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative,
under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply
denying the amendment request. Additionally, denying the
amendment request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and
the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action
is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this
Environmental Assessment to the State of New York's Department of
Environmental Conservation for review on June 21, 2006. On July
27, 2006, the State of New York responded by electronic mail. The
State agreed with the conclusions of the EA and otherwise had no
comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties.
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for license amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. The documents related to this action are listed below,
along with their ADAMS accession numbers.
1. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;'' 2.
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' 3. Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;'' 4. Letter dated October 19, 2005, ``Amendment to
Source Materials License'' [Adams Accession No. ML053060017] 5.
Letter dated December 29, 2005, ``Amendment to Source Material
License STC-133--Request to use Commodity Specific DCGLs at
Binghamton and Somerville Depots'' [ML060040304] 6. Letter dated
February 7, 2006, ``Amendment to Source Material License
STC-133--Request to Use Commodity Specific DCGLs at Binghamton
and Somerville Depots'' [ML060410319] 7. Letter dated April 26,
2006, ``Defense Logistics Agency, Request for Additional
Information Concerning Application for Amendment to License''
[ML061220479] 8. ``Radiological Historical Site Assessment
Report, Defense National Stockpile Center, Somerville Depot,
Hillsborough, NJ'' dated January 2006 [ML060730422] 9.
``Radiological Historical Site Assessment Report, Defense
National Stockpile Center, Binghamton Depot, Binghamton, NY''
dated February 2006 [ML060730408] If you do not have access to
ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on
the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia this 15th
day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1.
[FR Doc. E6-13834 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-13835
[Federal Register: August 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 162)]
[Notices] [Page 48955-48957] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au06-101]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct
Materials License No. 52-01986-04, for the Unrestricted Release
of a Tree at the University of Puerto Rico's El Verde Research
Station, Puerto Rico AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Senior Health
Physicist, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania 19406; telephone (610)-337-5040; fax number
(610)-337-5269; or by e- mail: exu@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a
license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 52-
01896-04. This license is held by the University of Puerto Rico,
College of Natural Sciences (the Licensee), for its University of
Puerto Rico Rio Pedras Campus in San Juan, Puerto Rico and a tree
at the El Verde Research Station, located in the Luquillo Forest
of the Caribbean National Forest. Issuance of the amendment would
authorize release of the tree at the El Verde Research Station
from any further license requirements. The Licensee requested
this action in a letter dated November 16, 2005. The NRC has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this
proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51).
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the
proposed action. The NRC plans to take the proposed action
following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal
Register.
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's November 16,
2005, license amendment request and would release the tree at the
El Verde Research
[[Page 48956]] Station from further license requirements. License
No. 52-01986-04 was issued on March 18, 1969, pursuant to 10 CFR
Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time.
Amendment 13 of this license, issued June 21, 2001, authorized
the Licensee to possess the tree at the El Verde Research Station
that was previously authorized under License No. 52-19434-02.
License No. 52-19434-02 was issued March 9, 1982, and terminated
on June 21, 2001. The tree had been injected with 460 microcuries
of cesium-137 (Cs-137) in 1968 during a study that was sponsored
by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission and performed by the Puerto
Rico Nuclear Center at the University of Puerto Rico. The U. S.
Department of Energy (DOE) decommissioned the El Verde Research
Station early in the 1980's and transferred responsibility for
it, including the tree, to the University of Puerto Rico.
The tree is situated in Study Area 4 of the El Verde Research
Station in the Luquillo Forest. The tree is located in a remote
area that is accessible only by a trail which includes steep
climbs and a cable suspension bridge. The affected area extends
about 5 meters from the tree, and includes surface soil and the
root system in addition to the tree itself.
The Licensee has provided oversight of the tree since 1982 with
assistance from the DOE. In the 1990's, DOE performed additional
surveys and remediation activities in the area of the tree.
Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the
conditions of the tree and its affected area, the Licensee
determined that no additional decommissioning activities were
required. The Licensee provided information to the NRC to
demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR
Part 20 for unrestricted release of the tree.
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee seeks to remove the
tree from further license requirements. Release of the tree would
relieve the Licensee of requirements for maintaining fences and
postings of the area for the purposes of radiation protection.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical
review of licensed activities conducted on the tree shows that
such activities involved injection into the tree of 460
microcuries of Cs-137 in 1968. Prior to performing the final
status survey, the DOE conducted decontamination activities, as
necessary, in the areas of the tree affected by Cs-137, on behalf
of the Licensee.
The DOE conducted various surveys of the tree and its affected
areas in the 1980's and 1990's. The survey reports were attached
to the Licensee's amendment request dated November 16, 2005. The
Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological
criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402
by providing the site-specific dose modeling performed by the
DOE, using input parameters specific to the tree based on the
results of DOE surveys. The Licensee thus determined the maximum
amount of residual radioactivity on materials and soils that will
satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for
unrestricted release.
The NRC performed independent calculations to determine if the
residual material in the tree and its affected environment would
meet Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. Based
on its review, the staff has determined that the affected
environment and any environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking
on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492,
ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no
significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive
material in the tree. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file
records and the survey reports to identify any non-radiological
hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the
tree. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were
identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or
non-radiological activities in the area that could result in
cumulative environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the tree for
unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on
its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual
radioactivity at the tree and concluded that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action,
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only
alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative,
under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply
denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not
feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring
that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be
completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities
cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's survey data confirmed
that the tree and its affected area meet the requirements of 10
CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the
amendment request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and
the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action
is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this
Environmental Assessment to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Puerto Rico Health Department, Radiological Health Division, for
review on June 21, 2006. On July 31, 2006, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico responded by electronic mail. The Commonwealth agreed
with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties.
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined
[[Page 48957]] that a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for license amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. The documents related to this action are listed below,
along with their ADAMS accession numbers.
(1) University or Puerto Rico, Amendment request dated November
16, 2005, with supporting documents [ML053550475].
(2) Department of Energy, letter dated August 16, 1993
[ML060470455].
(3) Department of Energy, letter dated March 19, 1993
[ML060470461].
(4) NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;''
(5) Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' (6) Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;'' (7). NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' If you
do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at
the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will
copy documents for a fee.
Dated at King of Prussia this 15th day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1.
[FR Doc. E6-13835 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
37 NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for
FR Doc E6-13836
[Federal Register: August 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 162)]
[Notices] [Page 48951-48952] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au06-98]
Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission/NRC) has granted the
request of Union Electric Company (the licensee) to withdraw its
application dated July 19, 2006, for the proposed exigent
amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30 for the
Callaway Plant, Unit 1,located in Callaway County, Missouri.
By letter dated July 19, 2006, Union Electric Company (the
licensee)
[[Page 48952]] submitted an exigent license amendment request to
remove the containment condensate monitoring system and
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation.'' The licensee stated that it was
uncertain that the containment cooler condensate system could
detect an RCS leak rate of 1 gallon per minute in 1 hour, which
is the requirement for the instrumentation listed in TS 3.4.15 to
be considered operable, and the condensate monitoring system was
declared inoperable on July 10, 2006. With the containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor already declared
inoperable and the condensate monitoring system now being
inoperable, TS 3.4.15 required the licensee to shut down the
Callaway Plant within 30 days of July 10, 2006, if the condensate
monitoring could not be made operable. The exigent amendment
request was to prevent a plant shutdown.
The licensee also stated that the previous application dated
August 26, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated December 16,
2005, and June 29, 2006, to revise TS 3.4.15 were superceded by
the letter dated July 19, 2006.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on July
25, 2006 (71 FR 42134). However, by letter dated August 7, 2006,
the licensee withdrew its exigent license amendment request dated
July 19, 2006, and re-instated the previous application dated
August 26, 2005, and the supplemental letters. The licensee
declared the containment condensate monitoring system operable on
August 3, 2006, and TS 3.4.15 no longer required a plant
shutdown.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated July 19, 2006, and the licensee's
letter dated August 7, 2006, which withdrew the application for
license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index/html. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th
day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack N. Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-13836 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
38 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-13837
[Federal Register: August 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 162)]
[Notices] [Page 48954-48955] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au06-100] [[Page
48954]]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct
Materials License No. 29-10211-01, for Termination of the License
and Unrestricted Release of the Fisher Scientific Company's
Facilities in Fair Lawn, NJ and Somerville, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hammann, Health Physicist,
Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania;
telephone (610) 337-5399; fax number (610) 337-5269: or by
e-mail: sth2@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a
license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 29-
10211-01. This license is held by Fisher Scientific Company (the
Licensee), for its facilities located at 1 Reagent Lane in Fair
Lawn, New Jersey and 755 State Highway 202 in Somerville, New
Jersey (the Facilities). Issuance of the amendment would
authorize release of the Facilities for unrestricted use and
termination of the NRC license. The Licensee requested this
action in a letter dated December 5, 2005. The NRC has prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed
action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the
EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The
NRC plans to take the proposed action following the publication
of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register.
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's December 5,
2005, license amendment request, resulting in release of the
Facilities for unrestricted use and the termination of its NRC
materials license. License No. 29-10211-01 was issued on August
4, 1964, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended
periodically since that time.
This license authorized the Licensee to use sealed and unsealed
byproduct material for purposes of conducting research and
development, instrument calibration, and sample analysis
activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods.
The Facilities occupy a total of 133,800 square feet (80,800
square feet in Fair Lawn, New Jersey and 53,000 square feet in
Somerville, New Jersey) and both consist of office space,
laboratories, and storage space. The Fair Lawn, New Jersey
location is in an industrial zone and the Somerville, New Jersey
location is in a mixed residential/ commercial area.
In 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a
survey and decontamination of the Facilities. Based on the
Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of
the Facilities, the Licensee determined that only routine
decontamination activities, in accordance with their
NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were
required. The Licensee was not required to submit a
decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities
and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine
operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facilities and
provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the
criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release
and for license termination.
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities at the Facilities, and seeks the unrestricted
use of its Facilities and the termination of its NRC materials
license. Termination of its license would end the Licensee's
obligation to pay annual license fees to the NRC.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical
review of licensed activities conducted at the Facilities show
that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides
with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3, carbon-14,
nickel-63, and cesium-137. Prior to performing the final status
survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as
necessary, in the areas of the Facilities affected by these
radionuclides.
The Licensee conducted a final status survey on June 19, 2006.
The final status survey report was submitted in support of the
Licensee's amendment request dated December 5, 2005. The Licensee
elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria
for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using
the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated
NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the
radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels
(DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose
criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum
amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment,
and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC
requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted
release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below
these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus
finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are
acceptable.
Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected
environment and any environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking
on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492,
ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no
significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive
material at the Facilities. The NRC staff reviewed the docket
file records and the final status survey report to identify any
non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment
surrounding the Facilities. No such hazards or impacts to the
environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other
radiological or non-radiological activities in the areas
surrounding the Facilities that could result in cumulative
environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facilities
for unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials
license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its
review, the staff considered the impact of the residual
radioactivity at the Facilities and concluded that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action,
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only
alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative,
[[Page 48955]] under which the staff would leave things as they
are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action
alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR
30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material
facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed
activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final
status survey data confirmed that the Facilities meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release and for
license termination. Additionally, denying the amendment request
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no- action
alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative
is accordingly not further considered.
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action
is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this
Environmental Assessment to the New Jersey Bureau of
Environmental Radiation for review on July 13, 2006. On July 20,
2006, New Jersey Bureau of Environmental Radiation responded by
letter. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and
otherwise had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties.
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for license amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. The documents related to this action are listed below,
along with their ADAMS accession numbers.
1. Amendment request dated December 5, 2005 (ML053500284); 2.
Request for Additional Information dated January 5, 2006
(ML060090118); 3. Response dated January 25, 2006 (ML060340478);
4. Final Status Survey Report dated March 9, 2006 (ML060800678);
5. Request For Additional Information dated April 12, 2006
(ML061070606); 6. Final Status Survey Report dated June 15, 2006
(ML061740168); 7. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning
Guidance''; 8. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20,
Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination''; 9.
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related
Regulatory Functions''; 10. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear
Facilities''.
If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at
the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will
copy documents for a fee.
Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this
15th day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-13837 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
39 Bellona: A Global Nuclear Renaissance?
Commentary:
+ Nuclear USA--> -->
WASHINGTON - Since the Three Mile Island incident in 1973 no new
nuclear reactors have been planned in the United States. The new
Energy Policy Act has renewed and extended the so-called
Price-Andersen Act which in effect relieves operators of nuclear
power plants of clean-up costs if a major accident should occur.
Clean up will be paid by US taxpayers. We are left to speculate
who will cover the cost of accidents caused by the next
generation of reactors and moreover for accidents caused by
reactors deployed in developing countries. Svend Søyland,
21/08-2006
GNEP last chance or death wish?
In glossy brochures, a new website and well-rehearsed
presentations from all the research directors of National
Laboratories likely to be involved in the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) assessment program, the US Department of
Energy (DOE) is out selling the GNEP as an answer to global
warming and energy dependency. It is truly a bold vision: the
GNEP shall provide cheap compact nuclear power-plants to meet the
needs of developing countries, reactors shall be more
proliferation-resistant and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) reprocessing
will dramatically reduce the amount of SNF, leaving no liquid
nuclear waste as a by-product. Needless to say, the current
administration wants to reduce world dependency on fossil fuel
and at the same time give the nuclear suppliers group a more
important role and influence on the world energy market.
Exotic and expensive technology
The DOE realizes that it is not in the drivers seat either when
it comes to reprocessing technology or developing small
cost-effective reactors. The United States is also lagging behind
when it comes to expertise, having a graying cadre of nuclear
physicists. Their ambition is to retain a global leadership
position that was lost decades ago. The unpleasant reality for
reprocessing advocates is that nobody (Japan, UK, France and
Russia) has demonstrated anything remotely close to a successful
reprocessing cycle. The UKs Sellafield reprocessing facility is
in dire financial straights, Russian operations are far from safe
and Japan is struggling. Reprocessing has been beset with
technical difficulties, a failing economy due to stable uranium
prices and modest volumes of reprocessed spent nuclear fuel. The
total amount of recycled commercial SNF as of this writing is
90,000 tonnes, with an annual worldwide capacity for 5,000
tonnes. How many years and reactors would it take to recycle
already existing spent nuclear waste?
Thirty-seven US states have expressed an interest in housing an
experimental reactor. In our view this is mostly an illustration
of rural Americas desperate need for new employment opportunities
than popular support for nuclear energy. Two abandoned
reprocessing experiments have still not been cleaned up.
Nuclear Energy - Too cheap to measure?
Bellona shares the belief that future energy needs can only be
met by a wide variety of sources. But we should carefully
consider which energy sources can deliver environmentally benign
energy at the lowest cost. The first year of a three-year
assessment will cost $250 million alone. Research efforts aim to
establish a recommendation to go ahead with, or to scrap the
project by 2008. Rough estimates that are not contested by DOE
seem to indicate that a fully developed system of new reactors,
transportation and reprocessing would cost $40-60 billion. How
much alternative energy with no Green House Gas emissions could
be developed with such an amount? The DOE is not even willing to
indicate what would be an acceptable energy price, and according
to financial analysts finding access to the deep pockets of
highly regulated markets is necessary to make new reactors
profitable.
G stands for Global
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has been presented as a
truly global enterprise. So far, it seems like the united States
has been touring other nuclear energy supplier states without
getting more than vague promises. It is highly unlikely that
commercial entities abroad will serve the United States their
technology on a silver platter. Providing developing countries
with cheap, reliable energy seems like a generous offer. Many of
these countries are the home to rather unstable regimes, with
coups and social unrest as a general rule. Regardless of how well
protected and designed small compact nuclear reactors are, they
can become targets for terrorist attacks. If countries fail to
live up to their commitments to international financial
institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
the World Bank - or perhaps a bit more speculative - run afoul of
the US-administration, can developing nations truly rely on
foreign operated power plants?
What is class D resistance?
The DOE propose the refinement of existing technologies such as
URIX1a. This technology is basically the mixing of highly
radioactive by-products such as Americum and Berkelium to create
mixtures that are literally too hot to handle without heavy
machinery and remote forklifts. Independent nuclear physicists
argue that the mix is only nominally more self-protecting than
other available technologies.
What is the alternative?
Firstly, all energy options must be compared on both on the level
of environmental impact and on total cost per kilowatt. If we put
a cost on carbon emissions, power generation from coal with
carbon capture and storage may turn out to provide a rising share
of grid electricity. Secondly, we should also strive for energy
conservation and stricter efficiency standards and see how we may
reduce future energy projections.
Bellona believes that the immediate waste problems and the delay
of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository can be solved
locally by using dry cask storage at various reactor sites for at
least 50-100 years.
Mer bakgrunn --> Support Bellona's work for the environment -
Phone +47 23 23 46 00 | E-MAIL: info@bellona.no
*****************************************************************
40 Telegraph: Anger as nuclear sell-off is shelved
Wednesday 23 August 2006
[telegraph.co.uk]
By Katherine Griffiths, City Correspondent (Filed: 23/08/2006)
+ Sellafield workers may walk out over pensions
+ Gas prices soar this winter, says minister
+ No Peel bid for UK Coal
The government has performed a U-turn on plans to sell British
Nuclear Group, which is in charge of cleaning up the UK's largest
nuclear site at Sellafield, and will instead break the business
up and sell it off piecemeal.
The decision to shelve for the time being the sale of the main
part of BNG, which decommissions nuclear waste, and instead press
ahead with an auction of smaller parts of its business was struck
at a three-hour board meeting of British Nuclear Fuels yesterday.
[Power struggle: the UK's largest nuclear site at Sellafield,
which is at the centre of the row over the decommissioning of
waste]
Power struggle: Sellafield is at the centre of the row over the
decommissioning of waste
The move astounded the nuclear industry and prompted a round of
mud-slinging between the various parties involved. It also led
to an outcry from Prospect, the union which represents 6,000
workers at BNFL, which wanted BNG to be sold as a going concern
in order to maximise its chances to compete with other nuclear
companies from around the world.
One source close to the nuclear industry said BNFL - which
oversees BNG and has been charged by the Government with selling
it - and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the industry
watchdog responsible for handing out decommissioning contracts
at the UK's spent nuclear sites, were blaming each other for the
failure to reach an agreement on the BNG sale. "It is a complete
shambles. People at the top of BNFL are blaming the NDA and vice
versa," one person said.
BNFL, which is owned by the Government and run by a board led by
chief executive Mike Parker, will now press ahead with the sale
of Project Services, a specialist nuclear consulting business,
and the one-third stake BNG owns in AWE Management, which does
work for the Ministry of Defence.
Industry analysts believe Project Services could be worth
between 80m and 100m, against the 500m BNFL had hoped to make
from selling BNG whole.
Sources said at the root of the delay was vying between the two
US engineering giants, Bechtel and Fluor, which are seen as two
of the strongest competitors to buy BNG. It is understood that
several senior people within BNG are keen to see the business
sold to Fluor, while some people at the NDA look favourably on
Bechtel.
Both Fluor and Bechtel have employed political lobbying of
firms with close links to the Labour government and Fluor
financed a 7,000 trip for MP Jamie Reed, whose constituency
includes Sellafield, to see its sites in the US earlier this
year.
One of the issues being slugged out is BNFL's wish to get the
highest price for BNG on the one hand, against the NDA's desire
to see whoever is chosen is best-placed to carry on the
decommissioning work at Sellafield.
At the moment, there is an agreement that whoever buys BNG will
get a five-year dowry of decommissioning work at Sellafield.
After that point, the contract will be open for full
competition.
The NDA said in a statement: "The NDA wants to see a new
contract in place at Sellafield as soon as possible in order to
drive improvements in safe performance at our biggest site, and
to enable competition to be introduced to the rest of our
sites."
BNFL said its board had concluded "the best value for the
Government would be delivered if Project Services and the AWE
shareholding were sold separately from the nuclear
decommissioning businesses".
Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
41 Newsday.com: Feds: Oyster Creek can run for 20 more years if concerns resolved -
AP New Jersey
August 22, 2006, 9:28 AM EDT
LACEY, N.J. (AP) _ The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant can
operate for an additional 20 years if concerns about corrosion on
a radiation barrier are resolved, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission said in a new report on the nation's longest-running
plant.
Oyster Creek's 40-year operating license will expire in April
2009, but the federal report found nothing that would bar
extending the license for 20 years if the corrosion worries are
tackled.
The report's finding moves AmerGen Energy Co. closer to a license
renewal for the plant, though another NRC safety evaluation is to
be issued by Dec. 1 and other regulatory approvals are needed.
Oyster Creek's reactor can power 600,000 homes and employs 475
workers, but residents and activists want it closed.
Janet Tauro, a Brick resident and member of the renewal
opposition group Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy
Safety, told the Asbury Park Press for Tuesday's newspapers she
was upset by the report's conclusion but encouraged the barrier
was getting attention.
"They had no intention of evaluating the drywell liner, which is
razor-thin in parts, until citizens groups brought up the
issue," Tauro said.
The barrier is a steel shell designed to capture steam released
during a severe accident and direct it to a pool that would cool
and condense it.
The NRC wants information about efforts to resolve corrosion on
the barrier and confirm its thickness and integrity.
A water leak caused the barrier's exterior to rust and thin. The
damage was discovered in the early 1980s. AmerGen insists a
coating applied to it in 1993 halted corrosion.
"These are items that we expected, that we knew would be open
and we are having ongoing work sessions with the NRC on closing
those items," said plant spokeswoman Rachelle Benson.
*****************************************************************
42 PEDDLING PLUTONIUM
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:25:18 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
Hello friends,
Many of us are deeply concerned about attempts to revive the moribund
nuclear power industry in the U.S. and around the world. While nuclear
power, in its current incarnation (light water reactors and a once-through
fuel cycle) presents daunting safety, waste, security, proliferation and
cost problems, all of these are exacerbated dramatically if the world was to
move down a path now being proposed by the Bush administration.
The so-called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is a plan to create a
Plutonium Economy by developing and deploying very dangerous and extremely
expensive new technologies. It is incumbent upon all of us to learn more
about the proposed GNEP before more of our tax dollars are appropriated and
this initiative actually develops momentum.
Tuesday evening (6-7 p.m.) I will be having Dr. Thomas Cochran Director of
the Natural Resources Defense Council's Nuclear Program as my guest on
Evening Edition, my weekly show on KOPN (89.5 FM). I invite those of you
receiving this in the local area to tune in, and, if you have questions or
comments, to call in.
Those of you out of the local area, and those who are not free to tune in on
Tuesday evening when the show airs, will be able to listen to it after the
fact on your computers. Just go to
http://kopn.publicbroadcasting.net/archive.html scroll down to Evening
Edition and click on the show. Usually to show is put up on the website by
the day after it airs.
Below is the Summary of a report entitled "PEDDLING PLUTONIUM: Nuclear
Energy Plan Would Make the World More Dangerous" co-authored by my guest,
Dr. Thomas Cochran, and Christopher Paine. The full report can be read
on-line at: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/gnep/agnep.pdf
I hope you will take the time to learn more about the GNEP and make your
voice heard. I also hope you will join Missourians for Safe Energy and
others around the nation in taking action to oppose current efforts to build
new light water reactors. This is a very retrograde step in the direction of
an extremely dangerous, plutonium-fueled future.
All the best,
Mark Haim
PEDDLING PLUTONIUM:
Nuclear Energy Plan Would Make the World More Dangerous
Summary
President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) plan is certainly
bold. But boldness should never be mistaken for wisdom, or even as evidence
of rationality. The president wants U.S. taxpayers to foot a $100 billion
plus bill to develop, over the course of the next several decades, a global
nuclear enterprise to extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel and
recycle it as fresh fuel, first in current light-water reactors, and then
later in a new generation of liquid-metal cooled fast burner reactors. The
arguments against this plan can be summarized as follows.
?? GNEP is an extravagant, unaffordable excursion into nuclear
state-socialism on a global scale. Implementing just the initial
demonstration phase of the GNEP will cost taxpayers $30 billion to $40
billion over the next 15 years without generating a single kilowatt of
commercially available electric power. Funding requests for plutonium
recycle related programs total more than $1 billion dollars in fiscal year
2007. The entire scheme represents a bizarre departure for a president and
party professing abhorrence of excessive federal spending and reverence for
the workings of the free market.
?? Spent-fuel reprocessing and plutonium-fueled fast reactors are
well-proven commercial disasters. The United States, Europe and Japan spent
tens of billions of dollars in the 1970s and 1980s trying to develop
plutonium fast breeder reactors (like the proposed GNEP "advanced burner
reactors," but with uranium "blankets" added to "breed" more plutonium than
is consumed in the reactor). These fast reactors proved to be uneconomical,
highly unreliable, and prone to fires due to
leaking liquid sodium coolant, which burns spontaneously when it comes in
contact with air or water.
?? There is no technical silver bullet available that will appreciably
diminish the risks of widespread plutonium use in the civil sector. Contrary
to the assertions of GNEP proponents, the proposed nuclear fuel cycle will
increase the proliferation risks relative to the fuel cycle used in the
United States, in which the spent fuel is never reprocessed and the
plutonium is never re-used commercially. GNEP proponents maintain that a new
reprocessing technique, called UREX-plus, offers increased "proliferation
resistance" However, the technique produces a mixture of plutonium and minor
transuranic elements with a total radiation dose-rate far below the
International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) threshold for "self-protection"
(i.e. a level of radioactivity making even short exposures to the material
very hazardous to human health). Moreover, the critical mass of the
UREX-plus mixed product is intermediate between weapon-grade plutonium and
highly-enriched
uranium, and therefore can be used in nuclear weapons.
?? Current international safeguards cannot monitor and measure the flow of
nuclear material in reprocessing and enrichment plants with the continuity
and accuracy required to promptly detect diversion from peaceful uses.
Current techniques applied to these nuclear "bulk-handling" facilities are
insufficient to meet the IAEA's standard for "timely warning" of a lost,
stolen or diverted bomb-quantity of nuclear material. Moreover, the IAEA's
thresholds for defining such "significant quantities" are four to eight
times higher than the technically correct minimum values, suggesting that it
is virtually impossible for the agency to determine that nuclear material is
missing from such a facility within the time period required to convert it
into a weapon.
?? By rashly launching the GNEP, President Bush is jumping the gun by a
century or more. Given the inherent complexities, massive costs,
environmental hazards, and security risks involved in plutonium recycling,
programs like GNEP should be attempted only when, and if, there is an
overwhelming economic and urgent climate-change case for doing so. That is
not the case today, when alternative nuclear and new alternative energy
technologies are available at dramatically lower
cost. Given the rapid technical and economic progress of renewable energy
technologies, distributed cogeneration and biofuels, and continuing
improvements in the efficiency and cost of uranium enrichment services for
conventional nuclear fuels, the sun may never rise on the "plutonium
economy."
In sum, an energy technology that creates millions of gallons of highly
radioactive mixed wastes requiring expensive treatment and disposal, can
hardly be called "clean." A plutonium fuel-cycle plagued by radiation leaks,
sodium fires, and periodic alarms about missing plutonium in its material
balance accounts, can hardly be called "safe." And a "global partnership"
that further develops, disseminates, and trains tens of thousands of people
in the complex chemical techniques for separating long-lived weaponusable
materials, like plutonium, from self-protecting, intensely radioactive
fission byproducts such as cesium and strontium, can hardly be called
"proliferation-resistant."
No doubt, the plutonium lobby will persist in ignoring these risks and
proffering its relentless forecasts of a golden era of technological
progress and declining costs, somewhere just over the rainbow. This kind of
salesmanship has been going on for more than 50 years.
The plutonium pork barrel is back again, but it's more cosmopolitan this
time around. French, Russian and Japanese government agencies and
corporations (in the state-socialist plutonium economy, bureaucrats and
businessmen are often one and the same) are now part of the mix. And if news
reports are to be believed, President Bush has just promised Indian
officials that they, too, can join the GNEP, soaking up whatever the
"partnership" has to offer in the way of novel reprocessing and fast-reactor
technology, so they can put it to good use in their parallel civil and
military breeder-reactor programs.
One can only hope that most members of Congress will have the good sense to
stay out of the barrel this time around. For those who don't, just remember,
this pork barrel is packed with funny numbers and phony technical promises,
making the political footing a bit slippery. Legislators could wind up
wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in the likely event the GNEP scheme
proves infeasible, but even more money should the scheme "succeed" in
becoming the massive, money-losing government enterprise that peddling
plutonium on a global scale requires.
Mid-Missouri Peaceworks
804-C E. Broadway
Columbia, MO 65201
573-875-0539
E-mail: mail@midmopeaceworks.org
Web site: http://peaceworks.missouri.org
"Acquiescence in Bush's monstrous war in Iraq has amply demonstrated the
political elite's limited capacity for introspection, independent thought
and civic courage." Stephen F. Cohen, The Nation, July 10, 2006
You are receiving this posting from Mid-Missouri Peaceworks because you've
signed up to receive our activist updates. If you'd ever like to be taken
off the list, please reply to this posting or send an e-mail to
mail@midmopeaceworks.org putting "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Activist_List2 mailing list
Activist_List2@midmopeaceworks.org
http://lists.midmopeaceworks.org/mailman/listinfo/activist_list2
*****************************************************************
43 [NYTr] Peddling Plutonium: Bush Plan Poses Grave Dangers
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Mark Haim (activ-l) - Aug 22, 2006
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KOPNListeners/
Hello friends,
Many of us are deeply concerned about attempts to revive the moribund
nuclear power industry in the U.S. and around the world. While nuclear
power, in its current incarnation (light water reactors and a once-through
fuel cycle) presents daunting safety, waste, security, proliferation and
cost problems, all of these are exacerbated dramatically if the world was to
move down a path now being proposed by the Bush administration.
The so-called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is a plan to create a
Plutonium Economy by developing and deploying very dangerous and extremely
expensive new technologies. It is incumbent upon all of us to learn more
about the proposed GNEP before more of our tax dollars are appropriated and
this initiative actually develops momentum.
Tuesday evening (6-7 p.m.) I will be having Dr. Thomas Cochran Director of
the Natural Resources Defense Council's Nuclear Program as my guest on
Evening Edition, my weekly show on KOPN (89.5 FM). I invite you to tune in,
and, if you have questions or comments, to call in. Those of you who are not
free to tune in on Tuesday evening when the show airs, will be able to
listen to it after the fact on your computers. Just go to
http://kopn.publicbroadcasting.net/archive.html scroll down to Evening
Edition and click on the show. Usually to show is put up on the website by
the day after it airs.
Below is the Summary of a report entitled "PEDDLING PLUTONIUM: Nuclear
Energy Plan Would Make the World More Dangerous" co-authored by my guest,
Dr. Thomas Cochran, and Christopher Paine. The full report can be read
on-line at: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/gnep/agnep.pdf
I hope you will take the time to learn more about the GNEP and make your
voice heard. I also hope you will join Missourians for Safe Energy and
others around the nation in taking action to oppose current efforts to build
new light water reactors. This is a very retrograde step in the direction of
an extremely dangerous, plutonium-fueled future.
All the best,
Mark Haim
PEDDLING PLUTONIUM:
Nuclear Energy Plan Would Make the World More Dangerous
Summary
President Bushs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) plan is certainly
bold. But boldness should never be mistaken for wisdom, or even as evidence
of rationality. The president wants U.S. taxpayers to foot a $100 billion
plus bill to develop, over the course of the next several decades, a global
nuclear enterprise to extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel and
recycle it as fresh fuel, first in current light-water reactors, and then
later in a new generation of liquid-metal cooled fast burner reactors. The
arguments against this plan can be summarized as follows.
?? GNEP is an extravagant, unaffordable excursion into nuclear
state-socialism on a global scale. Implementing just the initial
demonstration phase of the GNEP will cost taxpayers $30 billion to $40
billion over the next 15 years without generating a single kilowatt of
commercially available electric power. Funding requests for plutonium
recycle related programs total more than $1 billion dollars in fiscal year
2007. The entire scheme represents a bizarre departure for a president and
party professing abhorrence of excessive federal spending and reverence for
the workings of the free market.
?? Spent-fuel reprocessing and plutonium-fueled fast reactors are
well-proven commercial disasters. The United States, Europe and Japan spent
tens of billions of dollars in the 1970s and 1980s trying to develop
plutonium fast breeder reactors (like the proposed GNEP advanced burner
reactors, but with uranium blankets added to breed more plutonium than
is consumed in the reactor). These fast reactors proved to be uneconomical,
highly unreliable, and prone to fires due to
leaking liquid sodium coolant, which burns spontaneously when it comes in
contact with air or water.
?? There is no technical silver bullet available that will appreciably
diminish the risks of widespread plutonium use in the civil sector. Contrary
to the assertions of GNEP proponents, the proposed nuclear fuel cycle will
increase the proliferation risks relative to the fuel cycle used in the
United States, in which the spent fuel is never reprocessed and the
plutonium is never re-used commercially. GNEP proponents maintain that a new
reprocessing technique, called UREX-plus, offers increased proliferation
resistance However, the technique produces a mixture of plutonium and minor
transuranic elements with a total radiation dose-rate far below the
International Atomic Energy Agencys (IAEA) threshold for self-protection
(i.e. a level of radioactivity making even short exposures to the material
very hazardous to human health). Moreover, the critical mass of the
UREX-plus mixed product is intermediate between weapon-grade plutonium and
highly-enriched uranium, and therefore can be used in nuclear weapons.
?? Current international safeguards cannot monitor and measure the flow of
nuclear material in reprocessing and enrichment plants with the continuity
and accuracy required to promptly detect diversion from peaceful uses.
Current techniques applied to these nuclear bulk-handling facilities are
insufficient to meet the IAEAs standard for timely warning of a lost,
stolen or diverted bomb-quantity of nuclear material. Moreover, the IAEAs
thresholds for defining such significant quantities are four to eight
times higher than the technically correct minimum values, suggesting that it
is virtually impossible for the agency to determine that nuclear material is
missing from such a facility within the time period required to convert it
into a weapon.
?? By rashly launching the GNEP, President Bush is jumping the gun by a
century or more. Given the inherent complexities, massive costs,
environmental hazards, and security risks involved in plutonium recycling,
programs like GNEP should be attempted only when, and if, there is an
overwhelming economic and urgent climate-change case for doing so. That is
not the case today, when alternative nuclear and new alternative energy
technologies are available at dramatically lower
cost. Given the rapid technical and economic progress of renewable energy
technologies, distributed cogeneration and biofuels, and continuing
improvements in the efficiency and cost of uranium enrichment services for
conventional nuclear fuels, the sun may never rise on the plutonium
economy.
In sum, an energy technology that creates millions of gallons of highly
radioactive mixed wastes requiring expensive treatment and disposal, can
hardly be called clean. A plutonium fuel-cycle plagued by radiation leaks,
sodium fires, and periodic alarms about missing plutonium in its material
balance accounts, can hardly be called safe. And a global partnership
that further develops, disseminates, and trains tens of thousands of people
in the complex chemical techniques for separating long-lived weaponusable
materials, like plutonium, from self-protecting, intensely radioactive
fission byproducts such as cesium and strontium, can hardly be called
proliferation-resistant.
No doubt, the plutonium lobby will persist in ignoring these risks and
proffering its relentless forecasts of a golden era of technological
progress and declining costs, somewhere just over the rainbow. This kind of
salesmanship has been going on for more than 50 years.
The plutonium pork barrel is back again, but its more cosmopolitan this
time around. French, Russian and Japanese government agencies and
corporations (in the state-socialist plutonium economy, bureaucrats and
businessmen are often one and the same) are now part of the mix. And if news
reports are to be believed, President Bush has just promised Indian
officials that they, too, can join the GNEP, soaking up whatever the
partnership has to offer in the way of novel reprocessing and fast-reactor
technology, so they can put it to good use in their parallel civil and
military breeder-reactor programs.
One can only hope that most members of Congress will have the good sense to
stay out of the barrel this time around. For those who dont, just remember,
this pork barrel is packed with funny numbers and phony technical promises,
making the political footing a bit slippery. Legislators could wind up
wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in the likely event the GNEP scheme
proves infeasible, but even more money should the scheme succeed in
becoming the massive, money-losing government enterprise that peddling
plutonium on a global scale requires.
Mark Haim
Columbia, MO
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
44 IAEA: Trafficking in Nuclear and Radioactive Material in 2005
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
IAEA Releases Latest Illicit Trafficking Database Statistics
Staff Report
21 August 2006
+ Story Resources
+ Full Report: 2005 Nuclear Trafficking Statistics [pdf]
+ Security of Radioactive Sources
+ IAEA and Nuclear Security
+ IAEA Office of Nuclear Security
There were 103 confirmed incidents of illicit trafficking and
other unauthorized activities involving nuclear and radioactive
materials in 2005, newly released statistics from the Agencys
Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB) show.
The ITDB covers a broad range of cases from illegal possession,
attempted sale and smuggling, to unauthorized disposal of
materials and discoveries of lost radiological sources.
Eighteen of the confirmed incidents in 2005 involved nuclear
materials; 76 involved radioactive material, mainly radioactive
sources; two involved both nuclear and other radioactive
materials, and seven involved radioactively contaminated
materials.
Another 57 incidents from previous years were reported. They
involved illicit trafficking and other unauthorized activities
and had occurred earlier, mainly in 2004.
Two reported cases in 2005 involved small quantities of
high-enriched uranium (HEU) which is a fissile material. In New
Jersey, USA, a package containing 3.3 grams of HEU was reported
lost. The second incident occurred in Fukui, Japan, when a
neutron flux detector containing 0.017 grams was lost at a
nuclear power plant.
"From the terrorism threat standpoint, these cases are of little
concern but they show security vulnerabilities at facilities
handling HEU," the latest report from the ITDB said. Indeed the
majority of cases reported in 2005 showed no evidence of
criminal activity.
The ITDB facilitates the exchange of authoritative information
on incidents of trafficking in nuclear and radioactive
materials. There are 91 countries that report to the IAEAs
database. See Story Resources for the full report, which covers
the past 13 years.
The Past 13 Years: 1993 - 2005
Nuclear Materials
During the thirteen year period, there were 16 confirmed
incidents that involved trafficking in HEU and plutonium - which
are fissile materials needed to make a nuclear weapon. A few of
these incidents involved seizures of kilogram quantities of
weapons-usable nuclear material, but most involved very small
quantities.
View Chart: Incidents Involving HEU and Pu (1993-2005) [pdf]
The majority of confirmed cases with nuclear materials involved
low-grade nuclear materials, i.e. low enriched uranium (LEU)
mostly in the form of reactor fuel pellets, and natural uranium,
depleted uranium, and thorium. "Where information on motives is
available, it indicates that profit seeking is the principal
motive behind such events," the ITDB report said.
View Chart: Incidents Involving Nuclear Materials (1993-2005)
[pdf]
Other Radioactive Materials
During 1993-2005, just over 60 incidents involved high-risk
"dangerous" radioactive sources, which present considerable
radiological danger if used in a malicious act. "In the hands of
terrorists or other criminals, some radioactive sources could be
used for malicious purposes, e.g. in a radiological dispersal
device (RDD) or dirty bomb," the ITDB said. The overwhelming
majority of incidents concerning "dangerous" sources were
reported over the last six years. The majority of all incidents
involved the radioisotope Caesium 137.
View Chart: Incidents Involving Radioactive Sources, by Type of
Radioisotope (1993-2005) [pdf]
View Chart: Incidents Involving Radioactive Sources, by Type of
Application (1993-2005) [pdf]
See Story Resources for more information. Copyright ,
International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer
Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mail@iaea.org
*****************************************************************
45 UPI: Nuclear fuel still missing from U.S. plant
United Press International - NewsTrack -
8/22/2006 12:04:00 AM -0400
BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Aug. 21 (UPI) -- Southern Nuclear confirmed
late Monday that a small quantity of spent nuclear fuel was still
missing from a power plant in Baxley, Ga.
The company said in a statement that an in-depth inventory at the
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant failed to account for 18 inches of
used fuel, which amounts to a little over an ounce, and
discounted the possibility of theft.
"While small portions of the 18 inches may have been
inadvertently shipped to a licensed waste disposal facility,
Southern Nuclear believes that the balance of the unaccounted for
material remains in the spent fuel pools in areas that are either
unobservable by camera or otherwise inaccessible," the company
said.
Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company, launched the
inventory after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a
notification in late 2005 that there was a discrepancy between
the plant's records and the actual spent-fuel supply.
The original discrepancy was pegged at 68 inches; however all but
18 inches of material was found by technicians who went over the
plant's nuclear segment with a fine-tooth comb. Much of it
apparently got loose during a corrosion incident in the 1980s.
Spent fuel is measured in inches. A single fuel rod measures 150
inches, and each of Hatch's two reactor cores uses 49,000 fuel
rods. The total fuel inventory at the 924-megawatt plant totals
more than 77 million inches.
Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
46 [DU List] doing the wrong thing in afghanistan: depleted
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:39:53 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/10095727.html?thread=2060399#t2060399
Doing the Wrong Thing in Afghanistan: Depleted
Uranium: The Definitive Moral Paradox
Friday, July 07 2006 @ 10:06 AM MDT
Environment
Contributed by: mjclarke
By Michael Clarke
It is Canada Day evening, and I can barely hear the
whistles, booms and bangs of the fireworks. It sounds
a bit like distant bombs exploding, reminding me of
the incredible moral paradox our federal governments
aggressive military role in Afghanistan has created
for all Canadians.
Our government, military, newspapers, television and
radio media are efficiently dispersing the official
sound bytes: our troops in Afghanistan have the moral
authority; Canada is doing the right thing; its a
noble mission; and, we are just spreading
freedom
and democracy.
But, they are not telling us that there is something
else we are spreading around Afghanistan that any
truly moral person would instinctively consider
immoral and evil. It is something very real, but some
governments refuse to recognize it even exists.
Despite their duplicity, it certainly brings to the
table a supreme criminal culpability that historians
may someday benchmark as the definitive moral paradox
marking the failure of Western democracies to resist
the rise of global corporate fascism.
After the Taleban resistance fighters ambush in May
killed Capt. Nichola Goddard, Canadian troops called
in a U.S. B-1 Lancer stealth bomber which dropped a
500-pound bomb on a nearby residential compound,
killing an estimated 15 to 20 people. According to the
U.S. Air Force, that was just one of nearly 2,000 air
strikes that were conducted in Afghanistan between
March and May
2006.
Tragically, every air strike uses bombs and missiles
that are encased and ballasted with depleted uranium
(DU) which aerosolizes upon impact, instantaneously
being released into the atmosphere as insoluble
ceramic uranium oxide nanoparticles. Its gaseous
characteristics allow DU to remain suspended in the
air and be distributed around the earth as a
radioactive component of atmospheric dust,
contaminating the environment and indiscriminately
killing, maiming and causing disease in all living
things wherever rain, snow and moisture remove it from
the atmosphere.
Nuclear experts agree that DU is a weapon for killing
lots of people that keeps on killing forever. It meets
the U.S. governments own definitions of weapons of
mass destruction. And there is no way to ever clean it
up.
An estimated 900 tons of DU was released in the
initial 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The
approximately 2,000 air strikes
this spring could
easily have released another 250 tons of DU into the
air and onto the ground, water and crops. According to
the White House website a total of 24,000 bombs were
used in the first year of operations in Afghanistan,
which would suggest a minimum of 3,000 tons of DU was
aerosolized in only the first 12 months of conflict.
There is a lot of deadly radioactive DU around there.
According to one nuclear expert, Leuren Moret, the
United States and its willing accomplices like Canada
have effectively staged a nuclear war in Afghanistan
by using dirty bombs and missiles that slip the nukes
under the wire. As quickly as the DU aerosols are
produced they will permanently contaminate vast areas
and slowly destroy the genetic future of populations
throughout the region. The permanent radioactive
contamination and environmental devastation is
unprecedented, resulting in huge increases in cancer
and birth
defects which will increase over time due to
chronic exposure, increasing internal levels of
radiation from DU dust and permanent genetic effects
passed on to future generations. Of course, DU weapons
have also been used in Yugoslavia and the Iraq wars
with the same devastating consequences.
Studies to monitor the Afghanis have been carried out
by the Uranium Medical Research Center, which has sent
several field teams to Afghanistan since 2002 to check
the contamination and health conditions around
specific locations that are known to have been bombed.
Approximately 30% of those interviewed in the affected
areas displayed symptoms of radiation sickness,
including congenital problems in newborns. In Kabul
those who were exposed to US-British precision
bombing showed extreme signs of contamination
consistent with uranium exposure. In Nangarhar every
person donating urine specimens tested positive for
uranium
contamination. The researchers were stunned by
the astoundingly high levels of widespread
contamination. Their report warned, The UMRC field
team was shocked by the breadth of public health
impacts coincident with the bombing. Without
exception, at every bombsite investigated, people are
ill. A significant portion of the civilian population
presents symptoms consistent with internal
contamination by uranium.
Using the same calculation method that the U.K. Atomic
Energy Authority employed in their 1990 projection of
potential DU consequences in Iraq, the estimated 250
tons of DU from the 2,000 recent air strikes carried
out in Afghanistan from March to May 2006 could result
in as many as 2,500,000 cancers within the next ten
years. The bomb dropped near Capt. Goddard produced
250 pounds of DU that could cause as many as 1,250
cases of cancer in that village within the next ten
years. But, the bombing in the initial
2001 invasion
could cause as many as 9,000,000 additional cancers
within ten years. These horrible estimates tend to
support Leuren Morets contention that this has been a
genocidal plan from the start; this was not a war in
Afghanistan, but a war against Afghanistan. And Iraq,
and Yugoslavia.
However, the laws of war prohibit the use of weapons
that have deadly and inhumane effects beyond the field
of battle, or remain active or cause harm after
hostilities cease. The military use of DU weapons
violates international humanitarian law (Hague &
Geneva), violates the principles of international
environmental protection and contradicts the right to
life established by the UN Subcommittee on Human
Rights. The UN Human Rights Commission determined a
decade ago that DU is a weapon of mass destruction
that should never be used. These rulings mean that the
use of DU is intrinsically immoral as well as illegal.
Of
course, there will always be wags who insist that
DU is harmless so there really is no problem. Robert
Jensen, a professor of journalism at UT Austin,
recently delivered a speech at the Brisbane
(Australia) Social Forum titled The Threats to
Sustainable Democracy in which he said, there is no
power so convinced of its own benevolence as the
United States. The culture is delusional in its
commitment to this mythology, which is why today one
can find on the other side of the world peasant
farmers with no formal education who understand better
the nature of U.S. power than many faculty members at
elite U.S. universities.
Leuren Moret dramatically proved his point in an
article published in World Affairs the Journal of
International Issues (July 2004) when she wrote,
even uneducated Afghanis understand the impact these
[DU] weapons have had on their children and on future
generations:
After the
Americans destroyed our village and killed
many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing
to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries
and even accepted them, if the Americans had not
sentenced us all to death. When I saw my deformed
grandson, I realized that my hopes of the future have
vanished for good, different from the hopelessness of
the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost
my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know
we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by
America, a silent death from which I know we will not
escape. (Jooma Khan of Laghman province, March 2003)
Genocide? The word fits too perfectly! The statistical
potential for numbers of DU cancer deaths in
Afghanistan with the passage of time easily surpasses
the Holocaust victim total and sets new upper limits
for satanic crimes against humanity. When government
tells us that we are in Afghanistan with
full moral
authority they are being disingenuous, because
genocide can only spring from immoral authority. Dr.
K. Yagasaki has calculated that the U.S. has used more
DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000
Nagasaki bombs, and it has been spread all around the
planet. Despite the fact that Depleted Uranium
weaponry will eventually annihilate all species on
earth, our leaders continue to deploy it with full
knowledge of its destructive potential, even as they
say there is no DU problem. Throughout the history of
this world there has been no greater atrocity against
the people and the planet. Dr. Bartell coined the term
omnicide to reflect DUs supreme immorality. Jooma
Khan will never believe that the foreign troops
occupying his province have any moral authority. It is
no coincidence that a major international Pew poll
last month showed that the majority of Muslim society
around the world believes
Western countries are
immoral.
So, heres the moral paradox for all Canadians: How
can the Conservatives, the military, the corporate
media and the regressive Liberals possibly be correct
when they tell us that Canadas mission in Afghanistan
is noble and moral if our soldiers initiate the
deployment of illegal nuclear DU weapons that deliver
horrific radioactive genocide and cause the permanent
destruction of the environment?
The paradox is instantly resolved. Simply by
requesting air strikes with illegal radioactive DU
weaponry Canadian soldiers are, by definition,
perpetrating immoral crimes against humanity.
Therefore, it is logically impossible that our mission
in Afghanistan is the right thing to do. To the
contrary, Canada has become a state sponsor of terror
just like America which is the very wrong thing to do,
and the DU problem we have become involved with due to
our unwise military commitments
to the U.S. and NATO
implicate us in terrorist acts much worse than 9/11.
The Muslim world is astute. Western society is
immoral. Our supposedly superior democratic
institutions have allowed the DU atrocities to be
perpetrated globally free from any threat of
international prosecution. In fact, the Canadian
government has suppressed those who would attempt to
bring war crime charges of torture against the United
States, a far lesser crime in comparison.
Take action now. Demand an international public
enquiry about DU war crimes and demand that Canada
bring our troops home immediately and stop expanding
the killing fields.
But, be wary, because democracy around the world has
had a complete breakdown. The Depleted Uranium
insanity is the definitive moral paradox that marks
the triumph of global corporate fascism over the
worlds weak and easily corrupted democratic
institutions. Those who understand that
fundamental
morality must begin with serving humanity and stopping
the destruction of Gaia must rise up in resistance.
And they will call us terrorists even though we strive
for the highest moral standards and the greatest good
and, ironically, respect the Nuremburg Principles.
As Robert Jensen warned the Brisbane Social Forum,
The world is at risk.
To Learn More - Main sources used in this commentary
that readers are encouraged to consult:
August 2004 World Affairs Journal. Leuren Moret:
Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War,
www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm
May 2006 Vital Truths and Information Clearing House.
Doug Westerman: Depleted Uranium Far Worse than
9/11,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060503&articleId=2374
May 2006 Brisbane Social Forum, Australia: Robert
Jensen: The Threats to Sustainable Democracy
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen05302006.html
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060706210639293
*****************************************************************
47 [du-list] Scientists suspect Israeli arms used in South
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:26:14 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
Scientists suspect Israeli arms used in South contain radioactive matter
By Mohammed Zaatari
Lebanon Daily Star staff
Monday, August 21, 2006
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74891
MARJAYOUN: Mohammad Ali Qobeissi, a member of the National Council for
Scientific Research, said on Sunday that a crater caused by an Israeli
munition in Khiam contained "a high degree of unidentified radioactive
materials." Qobeissi, along with Ibrahim Rashidi from the Faculty of
Sciences at the Lebanese University, have inspected the crater - which is 3
meters deep and has a diameter of 10 meters - in the Jlahiyyeh quarter in
Khiam, with a Geiger-Muller radioactivity counter and nuclear material
detector.
"A team from the council will test a sample from the crater in order to
find out what kinds of radioactive materials it contains," Qobeisi told The
Daily Star.
He added that the Israeli weapons launched on Khiam and the neighboring
areas of South Lebanon "probably contained a high level of uranium."
The scientific team doubted, however, that the dust caused by these weapons
was likely to contain the kind of radioactive materials which would later
lead to cancers.
--
Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~
NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net
Looking for solutions? http://prop1.org/prop1/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
48 [NukeNet] Tritium contamination shuts down Pembroke plant
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:26:16 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2006/08/21/tritium-mon.html
Tritium contamination shuts down Pembroke plant
Last Updated: Monday, August 21, 2006 | 10:18 AM ET
CBC News
A Pembroke, Ont., company has been ordered to cease production after
nuclear regulators found abnormally high levels of radioactive tritium in
the local soil and groundwater.
But SRB Technologies said it faces financial ruin and the loss of 40 jobs
unless Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission allows it to resume business.
SRB Technologies uses tritium gas a radioactive isotope of hydrogen to
make lights and glow-in-the-dark signs. They are used on road signs, at
airports and other places where signs are needed after dark, and electric
power is difficult to get.
The company has made them for years, with the approval of the nuclear
safety commission, the group that inspects all companies that use
radioactive materials.
But recent inspections have shown and the company's own studies have
confirmed that the groundwater and soil immediately around the plant is
heavily contaminated by radioactive tritium, in some cases at 80 times the
recommended levels.
The tritium seems to be coming from the company's smokestack, and then
falling back to earth.
The safety commission told CBC News there's no sign that either workers or
neighbours of the plant have been exposed to danger. But the commission
issued a cease-and-desist order because it said SRB Technologies hasn't
taken all reasonable steps to prevent contamination and protect the
environment.
There may be an issue with tritium affecting plants and vegetables grown
near the plant, and the smokestack plume may be carrying tritium
contamination an unknown distance.
SRB president Stephane Levesque told CBC News that the company has made
improvements in recent months. And it is hoping to get a new hearing as
soon as possible.
In the meantime, SRB is trying to keep its 40 employees on the job
assembling products that have already been manufactured.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard
existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of
freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime." - Albert
Einstein, who would accumulate nearly 100,000 pages of FBI files before he
died.
"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with
innocent blood": Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War, 1948
Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
Cell: 805 296-0524
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
49 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Judge OKs nuclear waste storage
| 08/22/2006 |
Move could extend Xcel power plant's life
BY DENNIS LIEN Pioneer Press
An administrative law judge recommended allowing Xcel Energy to
store highly radioactive nuclear waste in above-ground
containers at its Monticello, Minn., power plant.
The judge's recommendation sends the matter to the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission, which is expected to take it up
next month. Its decision will be final next year unless the
Legislature gets involved.
Minneapolis-based Xcel wants to store fuel in as many as 30
steel and concrete containers at the Monticello plant as part of
its application for a 20-year license extension. Xcel uses a
similar "dry cask'' system at its Prairie Island nuclear plant
near Red Wing, Minn.
More storage is key to extending the life of the Monticello
plant, located about 50 miles northwest of the Twin Cities. The
plant's 40-year license expires in 2010.
Reprocessing the spent fuel or storing it elsewhere aren't
options, Judge Steve Mihalchick decided. Moreover, he said,
closing the plant would hurt Xcel's customers and the public.
Replacing the plant with other types of power generation would
drive up prices and result in more pollution, he added.
At hearings in February, several people and groups questioned
the health, safety and environmental effects of storing spent
fuel in the casks. But others called the approach safe and said
the plant is a critical source of low-cost electricity.
Xcel has contended that keeping the plant open is the best
option for supplying low-priced electricity and for avoiding air
pollution from plants that burn coal or natural gas.
Since 1994, the Legislature has twice endorsed storing spent
fuel in casks at the Prairie Island plant.
A permanent site to store the nation's spent fuel has been
proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nev., but that site won't be
available soon enough to take the Monticello plant's fuel. Xcel
also is pursuing a private-storage option in Utah, but that
option is being challenged.
Dennis Lien can be reached at r 651-228-5588.
*****************************************************************
50 Bradenton Herald: Scientist wants Lockheed held accountable
08/22/2006 |
Review says state should not let company 'off the hook' for
Tallevast contamination
DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer
TALLEVAST - Scientist wants Lockheed held accountable: Review
says state should not let company 'off the hook' for Tallevast
contamination
Don't let Lockheed Martin Corp. "off the hook" for contamination
the defense giant says is not its responsibility, an independent
scientist warned.
State regulators must hold Lockheed accountable for all Tallevast
pollution, including private contaminated wells the defense giant
says are not connected to the Tallevast plume, said Wilma Subra,
a Louisiana environmental activist and chemist.
A nationally known environmental activist who specializes in
contamination spills, Subra provided an independent review of
Lockheed's data on the 200-acre Tallevast plume for The Herald.
That plume, which has been traced back to the old Loral American
Beryllium Company plant, contains contaminants known to cause
cancer.
As the former owner of the beryllium plant when the
contamination was found in 2000, Lockheed is responsible for
determining the size of the plume and cleaning the mess up under
the supervision of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
In its latest report to the DEP, Lockheed stood by its claims
that some contaminated private drinking water wells that were
the primary source of water for some Tallevast families up to
2004 are beyond the boundaries of the Tallevast plume.
While admitting those contaminated wells are a serious concern,
Lockheed claimed that pollution falls outside of its
responsibility.
Lockheed based its conclusion on sampling data from monitoring
wells between the private wells and the area Lockheed defines as
the plume. Because those monitoring wells do not show any
contamination, Lockheed said the private wells cannot be part of
the plume.
Subra disagreed.
She pointed to other areas within Lockheed's defined plume where
samples vary between between clean monitoring wells and those
that are contaminated.
If those mixed results are found with the defined plume, Subra
reasoned, then how can Lockheed say the contaminated private
wells are not connected?
"They still have not gone deep enough to define the plume,"
Subra said. "It can be moving at a different level. Lockheed
Martin must be required to evaluate and identify the contaminant
sources before they can claim that they are not responsible for
the contamination."
Moreover, the contamination in the private wells includes the
same toxins found in the Tallevast plume, Subra said.
"It matches their fingerprint and until they can prove it is not
theirs and it matches another source, they should not be left
off the hook," Subra said.
The DEP, Subra said, has the authority to demand that Lockheed
prove the contaminated private wells are not connected to the
beryllium plant plume, as well as identifying the source of the
pollution in the private wells.
But a DEP spokeswoman said Monday that regulators cannot yet
confirm if they have that authority.
"The department is still reviewing Lockheed Martin's (data),"
said Pamala Vazquez, DEP spokeswoman. "Once the department's
final comments are complete, we'll be better able to address
specific questions."
Lockheed spokeswoman Gail Rymer stood behind the company's
reports after reading a copy of Subra's report supplied to
Lockheed by The Herald.
"Lockheed Martin has provided the state with all the pertinent
data necessary to determine the nature and extent of the
groundwater plume in order to design and implement a final
remedy for cleaning up the groundwater," Rymer said.
"If the state requests additional data be obtained, obviously
Lockheed Martin will comply with the state's request," Rymer
said. "We are confident that we have delineated the plume and
addressed all regulatory requirements in order to move forward
with preparing the Remedial Action Plan that will address how
the plume will be cleaned up."
The DEP required the latest report from Lockheed to answer
questions raised by Subra and other independent reviewers. Those
reviews were submitted to the DEP in June by Tim Varney,
technical consultant to the Tallevast community, and Michael
Graves, a geologist who has done testing on the private wells.
Subra, Varney and Graves agreed that Lockheed failed in its last
site assessment to define the vertical depth of the plume or to
adequately show how groundwater was moving beneath Tallevast.
All three raised serious concerns about Lockheed's claims that
some contaminated private wells are not connected to the
beryllium site plume.
Prompted by those concerns, the DEP, at a July 14 meeting, asked
Lockheed to address the independent reviews.
But none of the independent reviewers were invited to that
meeting.
The DEP's failure to include them, Subra said, is telling.
"It would seem appropriate to have included, in the meeting, the
individuals and/or companies that submitted the independent
comments that were the topic of discussion," Subra said.
On July 27 Lockheed Martin submitted a supplemental report to
the DEP that the company said answered the DEP's questions
sparked by the independent reviews.
In that supplemental report, Lockheed said, once again, that it
has confirmed the final plume boundaries.
Once again, Subra said no, after reviewing Lockheed's latest
data.
Subra pointed to specific areas where data are lacking in
Lockheed's reports to the DEP.
Those areas lie in close proximity to the former beryllium plant
at 1600 Tallevast Road, south of the plant in the area of the
airport golf course, also 17th Street East, south of the
facility and 17th Street Court, south of 76th Avenue, as well as
south of 17th Street Court East near the railroad track.
In each one of those sites, contaminants are present in excess
of targeted clean-up levels, Subra said. But Lockheed has not
dug deep enough monitoring wells to define how far the vertical
contamination extends, Subra said.
The vertical extent of the plume is of concern because of
possible contamination of Floridan aquifer, the source of public
drinking water, Subra said in previous reviews of Lockheed data.
Other weaknesses in the supplemental information the DEP
required Lockheed to submit include:
Lack of surface water sediment samples.
Lockheed's failure to address vapor intrusion and volatile
organics being transported from the shallow groundwater into
homes, churches, businesses and the community center.
Until the DEP requires Lockheed to address all of these
concerns, the full extent of the Tallevast plume and the danger
it poses will not be known, Subra said.
Vazquez said the department is reviewing Subra's latest report
and will consider her comments in its response to Lockheed.
Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com.
*****************************************************************
51 San Bernardino County Sun: Critics blast slow perchlorate cleanup
Article Launched: 08/22/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT
State senator questions break given to polluter
Andrew Silva, Staff Writer
+ Read up on the agenda- Read about item 25 on the agenda for the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors regarding perchlorate
cleanup in the water supply -->
+ Read more on perchlorate- This state Web site has the all the
orders and other information from the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board re: perchlorate in Rialto, Colton and
Fontana
The cleanup of contaminated groundwater in Rialto, Colton and
Fontana has been moving too slowly, critics contended during a
state Senate hearing Monday.
However, they stopped short of demanding that three members of
the board overseeing the issue lose their seats.
"This is dragging on 10 years," local activist Penny Newman
told the Senate Rules Committee. "The cost is being passed by
the city of Rialto to its ratepayers."
Newman is executive director of the Center for Community Action
and Environmental Justice, which has been involved in
environmental issues in San Bernardino and Riverside counties.
The issue landed in front of the committee after Sen. Nell
Soto, D-Ontario, demanded Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's three
appointees to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
appear in person because she is frustrated with how the board
had addressed the issue. The appointments are usually routine
and don't require hearings.
Perchlorate, a rocket-fuel ingredient also used in flares,
fireworks and other products, has seeped into the soil from
north Rialto where defense-related businesses and fireworks
companies have operated for more than five decades.
The chemical has contaminated 22 wells serving Rialto, Colton
and Fontana, although at least nine of them now have treatment
equipment in place that scrubs the perchlorate from the water.
Carole Beswick, a former mayor of Redlands and now chair of the
Santa Ana board, defended the board's actions as it has sought a
way to clean up the mess.
Perchlorate is a top priority of the board, which has been
conducting a long-running investigation to determine the extent
of the problem and who is responsible, she said.
The board issued a cleanup and abatement order against B.F.
Goodrich Corp. in 2002 but rescinded the order after the company
agreed to pay $4 million to begin treating contaminated water.
That deal expires in October, and the board can reissue the
order at that time.
Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, asked why the board
rescinded the order instead of continuing to pursue Goodrich.
Beswick argued Goodrich and the other suspected polluter, a
corporate relative of Black and Decker, were aggressively
fighting the orders, and it was almost certain to wind up in
court.
The board was interested in protecting the water as quickly as
possible, and the deal allowed the cities to start installing
wellhead treatments right away, she said.
"I'm very disturbed by this," Cedillo said. "You can't buy
yourself out of a deal."
Beswick countered that it seemed the best course of action at
the time to get water cleaned quickly.
Rialto is suing about 40 potentially responsible parties to
recover the cost of treating and replacing water and attorneys
working with Rialto said the matter is very complex, and is made
even more difficult because the suspected polluters are fighting
so hard.
Activists said they met with Beswick last week and received
assurances she is committed to the clean up and forcing the
polluters to pay.
"We will give this board another chance," said Sujatha
Jahagirdar, of Environment California.
The board is already three members short and without the current
board members, the body wouldn't have a quorum.
The other appointees are Mary Cramer of Anaheim, and Deborah
Neev of Laguna Beach.
At the end of the hearing the rules committee voted unanimously
to recommend confirmation by the Senate.
Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
52 MIT: Regional storage facilities could handle nuclear waste
22-Aug-2006
Contact: Elizabeth Thomson thomson@mit.edu 617-258-5402
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The Bush administration is eagerly pushing
nuclear power as a way to help solve the U.S. energy crisis. But
in its new plan for nuclear waste management, the administration
is taking the wrong approach, says an MIT professor who studies
the nuclear energy industry.
"My hope is that over time, the administration will rethink its
priorities in this area," says Richard Lester, professor of
nuclear engineering and director of the Industrial Performance
Center.
In a recent article published in Issues in Science and
Technology, Lester argued that the Bush administration's plan,
known as GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership), is not the
best way to encourage further development of nuclear energy.
GNEP, which President Bush announced earlier this year, is meant
to stimulate the nuclear industry by coming up with better ways
to manage spent nuclear fuel. The plan focuses on reprocessing
spent fuel, but Lester believes the administration should focus
on finding regional storage facilities for the nuclear waste.
Right now, uncertainty over how to deal with spent fuel, which
remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, is one
of the major obstacles to the construction of new plants.
Thousands of spent fuel rods are now stored in secure pools or
concrete casks located near nuclear plants, which is not
considered a long-term solution.
The administration has been pushing a plan to move all of the
nation's spent fuel to a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
but that facility is not scheduled to open until at least 2017.
Many years and billions of dollars have gone into planning for
the repository there, over the protests of Nevada residents, and
success is still not assured. If the project fails, an
alternative will be needed. And even if it succeeds, spent fuel
will remain at nuclear power plants for decades before it can be
removed.
Several nuclear energy companies have sued the federal
government for failing to fulfill its contractual obligation to
remove spent nuclear fuel from their plants. That failure does
not bode well for construction of new plants, Lester said.
"If electric power companies can't believe the government is
going to fulfill its obligations, it's going to be a real
deterrent for them to go ahead with new power plants," he said.
In the meantime, the Bush plan calls for developing new
technology to reprocess spent fuel to recover usable plutonium
and uranium and eliminate other long-lived radioactive elements
known as actinides. But according to Lester, the government's
efforts would be better focused on other solutions, such as
establishing a small number of regional facilities, where
nuclear plants could send their spent fuel to be stored safely
for several decades.
GNEP does not address the utilities' spent fuel storage problem.
Instead, it "is being sold as a technical fix for three other
problems," Lester said, but "each of these problems is either
not as serious as the administration suggests or could be solved
in a different way that is less costly and less risky."
Those perceived problems are lack of space at Yucca Mountain;
the long life of radioactive material; and a potential shortage
of uranium.
Yucca Mountain, a ridgeline geological formation about 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, has already been tunneled in preparation
for waste storage. When Congress approved the Yucca Mountain
site, it put a 70,000-metric-ton limit on the amount of waste
that could be stored there, but there is room for much more if
Congress wants to raise the limit, Lester said.
Any effort to remove the long-lived radioactivity from the waste
would require construction of reprocessing plants, special
"burner" reactors and other nuclear facilities, which would be
costly and difficult to site. And even if these plants were
successfully built, it would be nearly impossible to eliminate
all of the long-lived radioisotopes in the waste, Lester says.
"When you really look at the technical feasibility of reducing
the toxic lifetime of waste, it has less potential than the
administration is claiming, and the costs and shorter-term risks
of doing it are significant," he said. Moreover, according to
Lester, there are other, less costly ways to reduce the
long-term risks of nuclear waste disposal that the
administration has ignored.
Supporters of GNEP also say that reprocessing spent fuel could
be necessary in the future if uranium becomes scarce, but
according to the 2003 MIT report, "The Future of Nuclear Power,"
there is enough uranium to last for several decades, even if
many new nuclear plants are built.
Lester said he is not opposed to research on new fuel cycle
technologies, but he argues that reprocessing will not be needed
for several decades, if then, and that to spend billions of
dollars over the next few years on demonstrating reprocessing
and related technologies, as the administration is proposing,
would not be a wise use of resources.
###
Written by Anne Trafton
EurekAlert!
*****************************************************************
53 News & Star: NDA wants £1bn contract slowed
Published on 22/08/2006
Sellafield: Facing a skills shortage
By Andrea Thompson
THE Nuclear Decommissioning Authority wants more time to prepare
a £1 billion-a-year clean-up contract for Sellafield.
The contract would provide the main value for current site
operators British Nuclear Group, which is assumed will win the
deal, when the company is put up for sale.
The original timetable called for the formal sales process to get
under way in 2007, but it is now more likely to be 2008.
Nuclear industry sources have played down talk of a rift between
the BNFL board and the NDA saying that the Sellafield clean-up
and the privatisation were complex and neither side wanted them
rushed.
But according to The Guardian newspaper, there are fears inside
BNFL that the sale of BNG should not be delayed too long for fear
that staff will leave. There is a huge skills shortage in the
sector even though it is seeing a resurgence of activity.
The first contract to hand over management of the low-level
waste repository near Drigg to private-sector companies has also
started, but is behind schedule.
The board of BNFL is to meet today in reaction to mounting
pressure from the NDA to put back the privatisation of BNG.
AThompson@cngroup.co.uk
*****************************************************************
54 Whitehaven News: Madonna magic to clean-up nuclear waste
Published on 22/08/2006
POP star Madonna believes a magic potion can solve the problem of
nuclear waste.
The American superstar and her British film director husband Guy
Ritchie lobbied the Government to neutralise radioactive dangers
with the mystery fluid.
The celebrity couple, who have homes in London and Wiltshire,
believe the water-based substance has neutralised a radioactive
lake in Russia.
Both devotees of Kabbalah, the pair approached Downing Street,
Whitehall and British Nuclear Fuels eagerly backing the fluid.
According to the Jewish spiritual movement water is a uniquely
important substance which can be imbued with magic healing powers
through meditation.
Based in California, Kabbalah was set up by former insurance
salesman Philip Berg in Los Angeles.
Civil servants at the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI)
were forced to take the celebrity couple’s claims seriously.
However a panel of BNFL experts failed to find any scientific
evidence to back up the claims.
An official said: “It was like a crank call . . . the
scientific mechanisms and principles were just b------s
basically.”
It is understood the singer approached Downing Street where she
was referred to the DTI.
A former DTI civil servant said: “She relentlessly pursued
people. She wanted to get this Russian scientist to explain this
to civil servants.”
Guy Ritchie called BNFL and wrote several letters along with
scientific papers as part of his wife’s campaign a few years
ago.
At the time she believed her mission was to solve the problem of
nuclear waste.
Undercover reports claim to have seen Madonna and Ritchie at a
Kabbalah Centre dinner in London joining in chanting to combat
nuclear waste.
Followers call the name of Chernobyl and other nuclear plant
names in the belief it will ‘heal’ the problem.
Three years ago a research centre called Oroz, believed to have
been sponsored by Kabbalah, claimed it had experimented with a
“revolutionary” decontaminant called Orodyne.
Grand claims for Orodyne are not only that it can treat
gynaecological problems in cows and sheep but that it has
decontaminated water in Lake Glyboke near Chernobyl.
BNFL admits it was approached by a Mr Ritchie.
A spokesman for British Nuclear Group said: “If Mr Ritchie, or
anyone else for that matter, has such a solution we would be more
than happy to speak to them.”
Madonna is touring in Germany and unable to comment.
*****************************************************************
55 TCEQ: Waste Control Specialists LLC License Application for Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal
www.tceq.state.tx.us
[Texas Commission on Environmental Quality]
Questions or Comments: wastperm@tceq.state.tx.us
On August 4, 2004, Waste
Control Specialists LLC[Exit the TCEQ] submitted to
the TCEQ an application for a license[Exit the TCEQ] to
authorize near-surface land disposal of low-level radioactive
waste (LLRW). This license application seeks authorization to
construct and operate in Andrews County a facility that will
receive both compact states[Exit the TCEQ] waste and federal
waste for disposal.
+ Current Status of This Application[Information Has Been
Updated]
+ Licensing Rules
+ Application Review Timeline
+ Related Documents
Waste Control Specialist Requests Additional Time to Respond to
Second TNOD (Current Status)[New Information]
In a letter sent August 8, 2006, WCS requested an extension to
the licensing process until May 31, 2007 in order to fully
respond to the outstanding issues from the Second Technical
Notice of Deficiency. The WCS request is made pursuant to 30 TAC
281.19(c). TCEQ is in the process of reviewing and responding
to the WCS request.
Licensing Rules
Under House Bill 1567, 78th Texas Legislature, Regular
Session,[Exit the TCEQ] a 30-day window was established from
July 8 through August 6, 2004 for parties that intended to
build low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in Texas
to submit an application to the TCEQ. Waste Control Specialists
LLC[Exit the TCEQ] submitted an application[Exit the TCEQ]
under this legislation.
To review this application, our staff follows the rules found in
these chapters of Title 30, Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC):
+ Chapter 336, Radioactive Substance Rule[Exit the TCEQ]
+ Chapter 281, Application Processing[Exit the TCEQ]
+ Chapter 39, Public Notice[Exit the TCEQ]
Among other factors, a successful application must demonstrate
with reasonable assurance that the facility and its operators
will comply with these sections of 30 TAC:
+ 336.709, Technical and Environmental Analyses[Exit the TCEQ]
+ 336.723, Performance Objectives[Exit the TCEQ]
+ 336.724, Protection of the General Population from Releases
of Radioactivity[Exit the TCEQ]
+ 336.725, Protection of Individuals from Inadvertent
Intrusion[Exit the TCEQ]
+ 336.726, Protection of Individuals during Operations[Exit
the TCEQ]
+ 336.727, Stability of the Disposal Site after Closure[Exit
the TCEQ]
Application Review Timeline
Date Event
July 8, 2004 30-day period begins in which HB1567, 78th
Texas Legislature, Regular Session,[Exit the TCEQ] allows
parties to file applications for licenses to build and operate
near-surface LLRW disposal facilities in Texas
Aug. 4, 2004 Waste Control
Specialists LLC[Exit the TCEQ] (WCS) files
license application[Exit the TCEQ] with TCEQ for a planned
facility in Andrews County
Aug. 6, 2004 30-day application window ends
Sept. 17, 2004 TCEQ issues First Notice of Administrative
Deficiency to WCS
Oct. 18, 2004 WCS submits its response to first notice of
administrative deficiency
Nov. 17, 2004 TCEQ finds that application remains
incomplete and issues Second Notice of Administrative Deficiency
to WCS
Dec. 17, 2004 WCS submits its response to second notice of
administrative deficiency
Jan. 14, 2005 TCEQ finds that application remains
incomplete and issues Third Notice of Administrative Deficiency
to WCS
Jan. 31, 2005 WCS submits its response to third notice of
administrative deficiency
Feb. 18, 2005 TCEQ finds WCS license application to be
administratively complete and issues Notice of Declaration of
Administrative Completeness, which describes subsequent public
notice and evaluation phases for the application
Mar. 31, 2005 TCEQ holds public meeting at Andrews High
School to receive comments on this application
May 2, 2005 TCEQ publishes Evaluation of Merit Report
evaluating applications merit and responding to public comments
July 20, 2005 TCEQ issues a courtesy letter to WCS
providing an early notification of issues that are of
fundamental importance to the consideration of the WCS
application.
September 16, 2005 TCEQ issues the First Technical Notice
of Deficiency which provides comments and requests additional
actions to resolve the noted deficiencies in the WCS
application. Under separate cover, labeled "CONFIDENTIAL," the
TCEQ submitting two additional attachments which request
information to resolve deficiencies regarding financial
information that WCS designated as "CONFIDENTIAL."
September 20, 2005 TCEQ issues a Revision to Attachment 3
of the First Technical Notice of Deficiency. The revision adds
comments that were inadvertently omitted by an editing error.
November 30, 2005 WCS responds to the First Technical
Notice of Deficiency (TNOD). Changes to the WCS License
Application were enclosed as Revision 9. Responses to the first
TNOD's confidential financial information, dated September 16,
2005, were provided under separate cover directly to the TCEQ
Financial Administration Division.
January 30, 2006 TCEQ issues the Second Technical Notice
of Deficiency which provides comments and requests additional
actions to resolve the noted deficiencies in the WCS
application. Under separate cover, labeled "CONFIDENTIAL," the
TCEQ issues two additional attachments which request information
to resolve deficiencies regarding financial information that WCS
designated as "CONFIDENTIAL."
March 31, 2006 WCS responds to the Second Technical Notice
of Deficiency (TNOD). Changes to the WCS License Application
were enclosed as Revision 11. Responses to the second TNOD's
confidential financial information, dated March 31, 2006, were
provided under separate cover directly to the TCEQ Financial
Administration Division. The Radioactive Material Licensing Team
will now complete its technical review of the WCS application.
This review is scheduled to be completed by August 31, 2006.
June 5, 2006 TCEQ advises WCS that many significant
deficiencies in its application remain unresolved.
June 30, 2006 TCEQ issued a List of Concerns to WCS
regarding unresolved license application issues. This
information is needed before the application can be considered
complete. WCS is now determining whether to apply for an
extension of time and, if an extension is requested, what time
would be needed to prepare and submit the additional
information.
August 8, 2006 In a letter sent August 8, 2006, WCS
requested an extension to the licensing process until May 31,
2007 in order to fully respond to the outstanding issues from
the Second Technical Notice of Deficiency.
Related Documents
+ TCEQ Application Forms:
+ Application for License to Authorize Near-Surface Land
Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste:
+ in PDF
+ in Word
+ in WordPerfect
+ Form TCEQ-10052, Application for License to Possess
Disposed Radioactive Material and Decommission the Inactive
Site:
+ in PDF
+ in Word
+ in WordPerfect
+ Waste Control Specialists
LLC License Application for Low-Level
Radioactive Waste
Disposal[Exit the TCEQ]
+ TCEQ Guidance for Completing LLRW License Application. In
question-and-answer format, this guidance addresses the
administratively required elements of the application.
+ Performance Assessment: A Method to Quantitatively
Demonstrate Compliance with Performance Objectives for LLRW
Facilities (Draft). TCEQ draft document describing methods that
can be used to determine whether an LLRW disposal facility will
comply with statutory requirements to protect against potential
impacts to the general public and the environment:
+ draft in PDF
+ Merit Report and Related Attachments:
+ Evaluation of Merit Cover Letter
+ Att. A - TCEQ Evaluation Table
+ Att. B - Response to Public Comments
+ Att. C - Transcript of Proceedings, Public Meeting 3/31/05
+ Att. D - Written Comments
+ Courtesy Letter to WCS:
+ Courtesy Letter in PDF
+ First Technical Notice of Deficiency:
+ First Technical Notice of Deficiency, including revision
to Attachment 3, in PDF
+ Attachment 3 Revision Letter in PDF
+ WCS Response to First Technical Notice of Deficiency:
+ Attachment 1 (General Information)
+ Attachment 2 (Site Characteristics)
+ Attachment 3 (Design)
+ Attachment 4 (Construction)
+ Attachment 5 (Operation)
+ Attachment 6 (Closure)
+ Attachment 7 (Post-Closure and Institutional Care)
+ Attachment 8 (Performance Assessment)
+ Attachment 9 (Quality Assurance and Quality Control)
+ Attachment 10 (Personnel)
+ Attachment 11 (Environmental Report and Alternative
Management Techniques)
+ Attachment 12 (Financial Qualifications and Financial
Assurance)
+ TCEQ Second Technical Notice of Deficiency:
+ TCEQ Second Technical Notice of Deficiency in PDF
+ WCS Response to Second Technical Notice of Deficiency:
+ Attachment 1 (General Information)
+ Attachment 2 (Site Characteristics)
+ Attachment 3 (Design)
+ Attachment 4 (Construction)
+ Attachment 5 (Operation)
+ Attachment 6 (Closure)
+ Attachment 7 (Post-Closure and Institutional Care)
+ Attachment 8 (Performance Assessment)
+ Attachment 9 (Quality Assurance and Quality Control)
+ Attachment 10 (Personnel)
+ Attachment 11 (Environmental Report and Alternative
Management Techniques)
+ Attachment 12 (Financial Qualifications and Financial
Assurance)
+ TCEQ Response to Application Revisions 11 & 12:
+ TCEQ Response to Application Revisions 11 & 12 in PDF
+ TCEQ Issues List of Concerns Regarding Unresolved License
Application Issues:[New Information]
+ Attachment 1 (Cover Letter and General Information)
+ Attachment 2 (Site Characteristics)
+ Attachment 3 (Design)
+ Attachment 4 (Construction)
+ Attachment 5 (Operation)
+ Attachment 6 (Closure)
+ Attachment 7 (Post-Closure and Institutional Care)
+ Attachment 8 (Performance Assessment)
+ Attachment 9 (Quality Assurance and Quality Control)
+ Attachment 10 (Personnel)
+ Attachment 11 (Financial Qualifications and Financial
Assurance)
+ WCS Letter Requesting Additional Time to Respond to Second
Technical Notice of Deficiency:
+ WCS Letter Requesting Additional Time in PDF
Contact us if you have any questions.
Last Modified 8/9/062002-2005 Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. [Texas Homeland Security]
[TRAIL: Texas Records and Information Locator] [TexasOnline]
*****************************************************************
56 Guardian Unlimited: BNFL looks to avoid political row with subsidiary break-up
Terry Macalister
Wednesday August 23, 2006
The Guardian
The board of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) is trying to keep
government privatisation plans on track by proposing to break up
its British Nuclear Group subsidiary and sell off parts of that
business.
But the sale of the wider BNG company would be postponed until a
new clean-up contract can be finalised for the key Sellafield
site, which it manages for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
A special board meeting yesterday agreed that BNFL should ask for
government approval to proceed immediately with the sale of BNG's
project services unit and its third share in the Atomic Weapons
Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston.
"The sale of the remainder of British Nuclear Group and the
associated competition for the Sellafield and reactor sites will
continue to be discussed with the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority and a joint approach developed and agreed quickly," the
company said in a statement.
BNG's project services unit employs about 600 staff and has won
decommissioning contracts in Britain, Russia and Bulgaria. AWE
holds a contract from the Ministry of Defence to operate the
Aldermaston weapons research site and is jointly owned by BNG
with the private firms Serco and Lockheed Martin.
Both businesses could easily be sold to smaller, possibly
UK-based operators, BNFL believes. This would also ease political
concerns that a larger BNG would end up under the control of a
major US corporation such as Bechtel or Fluor.
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
*****************************************************************
57 Japan Times: Can't justify any use of A-bomb
japantimes.co.jp
Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006
READERS IN COUNCIL Can't justify any use of A-bomb
By ROBERT LEZZI Chiba
This month marked the 61st anniversary of the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and every year I learn a little more
about them. That's a lot more than I was taught in school, where
the events were summed up by the simple line "The bombs ended the
war with victory over Japan." True enough, but that's merely a
statement of cause and effect. Schoolchildren should be taught
about the horrors of nuclear explosions through photos and
discussion so that they can form opinions early. I wasn't, and
resent having been fed a simplistic line.
Considering how prominently the stark reasoning of cause and
effect plays in America, then why not use a nuclear device on
Tehran, or why didn't the United States detonate one over Hanoi?
After all, they were effective in 1945.
The reality is, the nuclear option is still on the table,
standing ready in defense or offense. Luckily, so far, public
sentiment has curbed politicians from using it again. But unless
America and other nuclear club members declare a policy that
unconditionally proscribes nuclear weapons as an option in
preemptive strikes or limited war, then the possibility of their
use remains.
Only by people taking to heart that dropping the bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong can the option be removed from
consideration. When this happens, the very people who cannot
condone an act 61 years ago will deem nuclear attacks
unacceptable today and in the future.
Conversely, refusal to acknowledge that the use of nuclear bombs
61 years ago was reprehensible renders them an acceptable option
today and for future conflicts. The opinions expressed in this
letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily
reflect the policies of The Japan Times.
The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved
in japantimes.co.jp.
This site is optimized for viewing with Netscape, version 7.1 or
Internet Explorer, version 6.0 or above.
The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
58 AP Wire: Logs show napalm, dioxin burned in Simi Valley Rocketdyne pit
| 08/22/2006 |
Associated Press
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - Napalm, dioxin and other highly toxic
materials were burned in an open pit at the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory, the former Rocketdyne facility now owned by Boeing
Co.
Once-secret logs detailing how Rocketdyne detonated and
destroyed hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic liquids and
gases at the site were in documents obtained Monday by the Daily
News of Los Angeles.
The 184 pages were sent last week by Boeing to the state
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
The list includes 50 gallons of napalm burned in 1969, three
gallons of dioxin burned in 1971, and the destruction of
flammable waste in 1990 that resulted in a 10-foot-high
fireball.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control halted plans to
remove 6,500 cubic yards of tainted soil from the pit pending
review of the historic burn records.
"With this new information we think we may need to fully
characterize this burn pit to figure out what went in there and
what was burned there," said Ron Baker, the state agency's
spokesman. "We can't move forward with a big question mark."
To give Boeing and state officials more time to investigate the
pit, Boeing was ordered to cap the pit with clay or grass to
prevent runoff from carrying contaminated soil away from the
hilltop lab along the border of Ventura and Los Angeles
counties.
Boeing spokeswoman Blythe Jameson said DTSC officials had
requested records of the burn pit. More documents were being
compiled.
"This site was primarily used to destroy rocket fuels, chemicals
to support rocket engine tests and other rocket engine waste,"
she said.
The 2,400-acre Santa Susana Field Lab was used in the 1940s by
the Department of Energy to experiment with 10 nuclear reactors,
one of which experienced a partial meltdown. The lab also tested
rocket engines under contracts with the Department of Defense
and NASA.
Information from: (Los Angeles) Daily News,
http://www.dailynews.com
*****************************************************************
59 CCT: Public comment opens on plan to cleanup Livermore Lab testing pits
Posted on Tue, Aug. 22, 2006
By Betsy Mason CONTRA COSTA TIMES
ALTAMONT HILLS - The public has 30 days to comment on a plan to
clean up an area of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's Site 300 near
Tracy used for research and testing of non-nuclear weapons,
testing that resulted in the release of contaminants to the
environment.
The Department of Energy's plan, released Monday, involves
cleaning up an area called Pit 7 in the northwestern part of Site
300, which is 13 miles southeast of the main Lawrence Livermore
lab facility. The unlined landfill pits there contain debris from
30 years of explosives tests that is contaminated with volatile
organic compounds, nitrate, perchlorate, tritium and depleted
uranium.
The DOE discovered in 1982 that during periods of heavy
rainfall, the groundwater level is high enough to reach the
bottom of the toxic landfills. Site 300 made the Environmental
Protection Agency's list of prioroites for cleanup in 1990.
The DOE's proposal includes cleaning tainted groundwater and
isolating polluted soil and landfill waste. Drainage diversions
would be built, and ground water would be pumped and treated.
The DOE estimates it could take 150 years for the ground water
to return to acceptable contaminant levels. However, tritium --
one of the worst pollutants in the landfill -- would take only
45 years.
Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach
her at or 925-847-2158.
WHERE TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS:
TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Discovery Center,
located off Greenville Road near Old Patterson Pass Road,
Livermore, CA (925) 422-3272.
Tracy Public Library, 20 East Eaton Avenue, Tracy, CA
(209)835-2221
Department of Toxic Substances Control, File Room, 700 Heinz
Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 540-3800
WHERE TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS:
TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL:
Send written comments by Sept. 21
Claire Holtzapple, National Environmental Policy Act Document
Manager
U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security
Administration
Livermore Site Office
M/S L-574, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551-0808
*****************************************************************
60 SF New Mexican: LANL comment period extended
In brief, 08/22/2006
By THE NEW MEXICAN
The public has been invited to comment on a draft
environmentalimpact statement for Los Alamos National Laboratory
through Sept. 20. The previous deadline was Sept. 5, before U.S.
Rep. Tom Udall, DN.M., asked the National Nuclear Security
Administration, which manages the lab, to extend the comment
period. The impact statement discusses the possibility of
expanded plutonium-pit production at the lab. Pits are triggers
for nuclear weapons. Also, the statement discusses ways the lab
could deal with waste associated with work completed there and
health effects to workers and the community. Contact Elizabeth
Withers at (877) 491-4957 for more information, or go to
www.doeal.gov/laso/ NEPASWEIS.aspx.
2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
61 LA Daily News: Field lab secret revealed
Article Last Updated: 08/21/2006 11:46:55 PM PDT
Napalm, dioxin burned in open pit at former Rocketdyne facility
BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
After decades of secrecy, Boeing officials have revealed that
the former owners of the Santa Susana Field Lab destroyed
napalm, dioxin and other highly toxic materials in open-air burn
pits, documents obtained Monday show.
The 184 pages of documents that Boeing delivered last week to
the Department of Toxic Substances Control include logs
detailing how Rocketdyne detonated and destroyed hundreds of
thousands of pounds of toxic liquids and gases at the so-called
Area 1 burn pit.
The list includes 50 gallons of napalm burned in 1969, three
gallons of dioxin burned in 1971, and the destruction of
flammable waste in 1990 that resulted in a 10-foot-high
fireball.
Concern about the potential health hazard to workers prompted
state officials to postpone a planned cleanup of the pit.
"With this new information we think we may need to fully
characterize this burn pit to figure out what went in there and
what was burned there," DTSC spokesman Ron Baker said. "We can't
move forward with a big question mark."
State officials have ordered Boeing to cap the pit with clay or
grass to prevent runoff from carrying contaminated soil off the
hilltop lab. That will give Boeing and state officials more time
to investigate the contamination in the pit.
The documents were prepared by the Rocketdyne Division of
Rockwell International, which was later purchased by the Boeing
Co. They show that Rocketdyne's Canoga Park facility also sent
material up to the lab for disposal - information that surprised
state regulators.
Boeing spokeswoman Blythe Jameson said DTSC officials had
requested records of the burn pit and that the company is
compiling even more historic documents on the pit usage.
"This site was primarily used to destroy rocket fuels, chemicals
to support rocket engine tests and other rocket engine waste,"
she said.
The Santa Susana Field Lab is a 2,800-acre facility at the top
of the Simi Hills in Ventura County, near the Los Angeles city
limits. Beginning in the 1940s, the Department of Energy
experimented with 10 nuclear reactors, one of which experienced
a partial meltdown. The lab also tested rocket engines under
contracts with the Department of Defense and NASA.
The Daily News first disclosed serious concerns about
contamination at the field lab in 1989, including questionable
practices involving disposal of toxic materials in the burn pit.
Since then, neighbors have pushed for a community health study.
Their calls grew louder after the University of California, Los
Angeles, released studies in 1997 and 1999 showing that workers
who handled radiation and a rocket-fuel chemical had higher
rates of cancer than those who had not.
Longtime Santa Susana watchdogs said the community has always
been told the open burning was highly regulated and monitored,
yet the logs indicate workers frequently destroyed containers of
unknown materials.
"Everybody has been made to believe the contamination stayed on
site, but when you look at the gallons and gallons of materials
that were burned and the clouds moved off site, I think the
public has been misled," said Mary Weisbrock of Save Open Space.
The documents include workers' notes on how they burned the
materials - pouring chemicals on sawdust, igniting the mixture,
then observing the smoke.
In one test conducted at 8:40 a.m. April 29, 1989, workers burned
a blue cylinder containing unknown material. A handwritten note
on the log notes: "Still off-gassing at 12:30! Probably F2," a
reference to fluorine, a poisonous, pale yellow gas.
According to a letter written by Rockwell officials in 1981, the
Area 1 burn pit was established in 1958 so workers could get rid
of chemical waste in order to "minimize potential public exposure
which could result from transport across public highways to
dispose in a conventional landfill."
That letter says workers burned 13,810 pounds of reactive
metals, such as sodium and magnesium; 450,000 gallons of fuel,
including hydrazine; and toxic gases such as chlorine.
The pit was supposed to close in 1971 because there were
concerns about air pollution, but records show that employees
burned waste through 1990.
Soil testing in 2003 and 2005 found high levels of rocket-fuel
ingredient perchlorate, chromium and highly toxic dioxins. The
cleanup became even more urgent as regulators began finding
dioxins and other contaminants in surface water running off the
lab into creeks.
The DTSC had planned to remove 6,500 cubic yards of tainted soil
from the pit but that effort is now on hold pending the review
of the historic burn records.
(213) 978-0390
IF YOU GO:
The state Department of Toxic Substances Control will hold an
informational meeting on the Santa Susana Field Lab, 3-5 p.m.
Aug. 31 at Simi Valley City Hall, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road. A
public meeting is set for 6:30 p.m.
Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************