*****************************************************************
09/19/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.222
*****************************************************************
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: Iran Defends Nuke Programme at General
2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Tries to Save Its Iran Plan
3 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran Defiance Has Little Cost
4 Guardian Unlimited: Chirac Doesn't Want New Iran Deadline
5 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Warns Iran Anew Over Nuclear Plans
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Aqazadeh, Elbaradei meet in Vienna
7 AFP: EU's Solana to hold pivotal talks with Iran on nuclear crisis -
8 AFP: Iran charges West abuses U.N. nuclear role
9 AFP: Bush and Ahmadinejad to make rival cases in nuclear dispute at
10 AFP: Bush and Ahmadinejad to make rival cases in nuclear dispute at
11 AFP: 'Dialogue must prevail' in Iran nuclear standoff - Chirac
12 AFP: Iran favors asymmetric strategy in joust with US - general -
13 UPI: U.N. convenes on Iran-U.S. nuclear clash
14 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says EU, Iran Holding Nuclear Talks
15 Guardian Unlimited: Japan, Australia OK N. Korea Sanctions
16 Hankyoreh: S.K. has singular role in resolving N.K. issue - presiden
17 Korea Herald: Seoul and Washington at odds over North Korea
18 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [OUTLOOK]Roh must stop acting recklessly
19 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [EDITORIALS]Real facts need to come out
20 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Australia, Japan roll out curbs on Pyongyang
21 BBC: New sanctions target North Korea
22 AFP: Japan, Australia slap fresh sanctions on N.Korea -
23 AU ABC: Australia puts new sanctions on N Korea.
24 AFP: US urges others to follow Australian, Japanese sanctions on NKo
25 Guardian Unlimited: Japan, Australia Sanction North Korea
26 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pushes Democracy in U.N. Speech
27 Guardian Unlimited: Bush to Engage Skeptical U.N. on Mideast
28 US: CSM: US to cut funds for two renewable energy sources |
29 UPI: Analysis: A second U.S.-Pakistan wedding?:
30 [NYTr] Russia: Putin Emphasizes Importance of IAEA
31 UN Atomic Chief Calls For Multilateral Facility To Supply Enriched U
32 Hankyoreh: [Editorial]: S.K.'s role one year after the 9/19 statemen
33 BBC: Former weapons base is restored
34 AFP: World powers propose nuclear fuel scheme to avoid proliferation
NUCLEAR REACTORS
35 US: [NukeNet] Reactors Prone to Long Closings, Study Finds
36 The Hindu: NTPC plans to triple generation capacity
37 US: NRC: NRC Conducting Special Inspection at Seabrook Nuclear Power
38 Times of India: NTPC plans nuclear plants
39 Times of India: Saran in US to get nuke deal past Senate
40 US: newsobserver.com: Shearon Harris nuclear plant shuts down
41 MDN: Japan to upgrade earthquake safety standards at nuclear plants
42 US: APP.COM: Top NRC regulator inspects reactor |
43 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Notice
44 Russia-InfoCentre: Russia launching Iranian APP in Autumn 2007
45 US: Arizona Republic: Palo Verde unit shut down today
46 US: Hudson Valley News: Security exercises planned at Indian Point
47 US: Portsmouth Herald: NRC to review nuclear plant
48 Novastar Resources Ltd.: Thorium Power Discusses Possible Nuclear
49 Dallas Morning News: Mexico may double nuclear plant output
50 US: Hampton Union: Officials look into event at nuke plant
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
51 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $9,600 Fine to Sterigenics International
52 US: Philadelphia Daily News: WHEN WAR MAKES SOLDIERS SICK
53 US: KUAM: Underwood: radiation letters distort the truth
54 US: Oped News: Kill The Messenger
55 PAM: Nuclear Giants and Ethical Infants: Confronting Global Nuclear
56 Athlone Advertiser: Athlone under threat from nuclear fallout
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
57 US: [NukeNet] Making Nuclear Waste Less Harmful
58 US: Guardian Unlimited: Group Pledges $50M for Nuclear Fuel
59 Guardian Unlimited: New Thorp delay deals blow to BNG
60 US: gainesvilletimes.com: Coal can harm environment more than nuclea
61 US: NRC: In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services L.P. (National
62 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Identifying 'absolute corruption'
63 US: FIA: Nuclear Fuel Waste from the Institute of Nuclear Sciences i
64 CMENO: SA states it case for uranium-enrichment at IAEA
65 BS: Will Yucca Mountain Ever Hold Nuclear Waste?
66 US: EasyBourse actualité: US Nuclear Waste Problem Divides Lawmakers
67 StockInterview.com: Congress Needs to Wake Up To Nuclear Waste Dispo
68 UPI: Serbia transports nuclear waste to Russia
69 UPI: Radioactive material removed from Chechnya
70 US: UPI: Analysis: Nuclear waste safe on site
71 times and star: No restart for Thorp until next year
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
72 Construction and Maintenance: Areva-led team responds to DOE Nuclear
73 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford workers' medical care compromise
74 Local News 8: Audit Finds Contractor for INL Received Bloated Bonuse
75 DOE: Secretary Bodman Addresses IAEA General Conference in Vienna
76 Tri-City Herald: DOE science manager retiring
77 Hanford News: Hanford cleanup surpasses milestone
78 Hanford News: Fluor's layoffs don't hit as hard
79 toledoblade.com: Ottawa County selected for beryllium plant
80 Inside Bay Area: Scientists discuss urgency of energy solutions
81 Times-News Online: Audit finds contractor for INL received bloated b
82 KNDO/KNDU: Hanford 300-Area Buildings may not be Destroyed
83 SR.com: State seeks fine for toxic spill at Hanford
84 KNDO/KNDU: Department of Ecology Issues Notice of Violation for Hanf
85 NewsBlaze: Remarks on behalf of U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. B
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English POLITICS: Iran Defends Nuke Programme at General
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:11:58 -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 WD HD IP BW ML NU=20
POLITICS: Iran Defends Nuke Programme at General Assembly
Haider Rizvi
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 19 (IPS) - =94If the governments of the United States=
or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council=
, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which=
of the organs of the United Nations can take them to account?=94
The question came from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his s=
peech to the world body's General Assembly Tuesday. Instead of merely def=
ending his nation's nuclear programme, which the U.S. and its European al=
lies suspect is aimed at building weapons, he questioned the very legitim=
acy of the 15-member Security Council itself.
=94Can the Council in which they are privileged members address their vio=
lations? Has this ever happened?=94 he asked. =94If they have differences=
with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council as claimant=
s, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge a=
nd executioners. Is this a just order?=94
Though the Iranian leader's questions about the nature of international d=
ecision-making mechanisms are not new, they certainly represent the views=
and aspirations of a vast majority of the 192-member U.N. General Assemb=
ly that does not enjoy the privilege of implementing its decisions as do =
the members of the Security Council.
Ahmadinejad, whose nation is currently under the scrutiny of the Council =
over its nuclear programme, said the governments that benefit from nuclea=
r energy have themselves abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends,=
including the production of nuclear weapons.
=94All our national activities are transparent, peaceful and under the wa=
tchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),=94 he said.=
=94Why then are there objections to our legally recognised rights?=94
All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, =
Russia, Britain, France and China -- possess thousands of nuclear weapons=
, and unwilling to reduce or dismantle their arsenals.
Earlier, in his own speech to the General Assembly, U.S. President George=
W. Bush reiterated the charge that Iran was trying to build nuclear weap=
ons and warned that it =94must abandon its nuclear ambitions.=94
However, in contrast to past statements, Bush assumed a somewhat softer t=
one, adding that he was willing to work on =94a diplomatic solution=94 to=
the Iranian nuclear programme.
Bush did not say that he wanted a =94regime change=94 in Tehran, but accu=
sed the Islamic Shia government of denying =94liberty=94 to its citizens =
and using national resources to =94fund terrorism, fuel extremism and pur=
sue nuclear weapons.=94
=94We look to the day when you can live in freedom,=94 said the U.S. pres=
ident, addressing the Iranian people directly. =94America and Iran can be=
good friends (then) and close partners in the cause of peace.=94
Last month, when Iran failed to abide by a U.N. Security Council resoluti=
on calling for suspension of uranium enrichment-related activities, Washi=
ngton tried hard to gather support for possible sanctions against Tehran,=
but failed.
In the past, both Russia and China have expressed their reservations abou=
t sanctions, arguing that only diplomatic dialogue could resolve the cont=
roversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme.
On Monday, France, a permanent veto-wielding member of the Council, also =
signaled its opposition to sanctions when President Jacques Chirac said h=
e did not believe that suspension of uranium enrichment should be a preco=
ndition for dialogue with Iran.
But he changed his mind a day after meeting with Bush, saying: =94We cann=
ot have negotiations if we do not have suspension of (uranium enrichment)=
beforehand.=94
Recently, Bush, who considers Iran part of the =94axis of evil,=94 descri=
bed Iran's failure to meet the Security Council deadline as an act of =94=
defiance=94 and warned Tehran of =94consequences=94.
Chirac's remarks before the General Assembly suggested that France was no=
t fully in line with Washington regarding the administration's desire to =
see a change of political leadership in Tehran.
=94We do not call regimes into question,=94 he said. =94We aim to ensure =
security in accordance with international law and with due regard for the=
sovereignty of all countries.=94
France is part of the European Union troika, along with Germany and Brita=
in, which tried to use a package of economic incentives in return for the=
suspension of Tehran's uranium enrichment, but in vain.
Though critical of Iran's refusal to stop uranium-related activities, the=
Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has so far been u=
nable to substantiate the U.S. and European suspicions about the military=
nature of Iran's nuclear programme.
Unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, three unofficial nuclear-armed states,=
Iran has ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and thus is=
bound to abide by its rules. Iran justifies its nuclear programme becaus=
e the treaty allows non-nuclear weapons states to pursue nuclear technolo=
gy for peaceful purposes.
As expected, Bush's speech before the General Assembly was laden with the=
themes of =94terrorism,=94 =94freedom=94 and =94democracy=94. He defende=
d his administration's policy on the Middle East and claimed that democra=
cy was gaining ground in the region.
=94From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom,=94 h=
e said. =94The nations gathered in this chamber must make a choice, as we=
ll...We will stand with the moderates and reformers.=94
Reacting to the speech, critics described Bush's claims for success in th=
e war on terror and advances in democracy as superficial and hollow.
=94Fine words are cheap,=94 said Professor Noam Chomsky, a leading social=
critic and author of several books. =94What the Bush administration has =
done, more characteristically, is to destroy hope, bring prosperity to a =
few and terror to the many.=94
On Tuesday, as Bush was on his way to the world body's headquarters, thou=
sands of New Yorkers assembled a few blocks away shouting slogans demandi=
ng an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
=94Hey, hey, ho, ho, Bush regime has got to go,=94 shouted the crowds, wi=
th placards and banners demanding unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops=
from Iraq.
=94We want an immediate end to this war,=94 Susan Chenelle of the nationa=
l anti-war coalition United for Peace and Justice, which organised the ra=
lly, told IPS. =94This is a protest against Bush's 'freedom agenda' becau=
se we believe that occupying other countries is not the path to freedom.=94
While Bush spoke of freedom and democracy, leaders of some key developing=
nations emphasised that the issue of war and peace cannot be separated f=
rom efforts to address the inequalities between and within nations.
=94The true path to peace is shared development,=94 said Brazilian Presid=
ent Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva. =94If we do not want war to go global, jus=
tice must go global.=94
Speaking on behalf of China and the G77 group, the largest bloc of develo=
ping nations at the U.N., South African President Thabo Mbeki lashed out =
at rich nations for failing to take responsibility to eradicate hunger, d=
isease and poverty from the world.
=94Although the rich and powerful know the miserable life circumstances o=
f the poor,=94 said Mbeki, =94their attitude and response resemble that o=
f the Biblical Cain, who killed his brother, Abel. When the Lord asked hi=
m, 'where is Abel, your brother?' he replied: 'I don't know. Am I my brot=
her's keeper?'=94
Mbeki said a global partnership for development is =94impossible=94 in th=
e absence of a pact of mutual responsibility between the giver and the re=
cipient. =94It is impossible when the rich demand the right, unilaterally=
, to set the agenda and conditions for the implementation of commonly agr=
eed programmes,=94 he said.
*****
+POLITICS-US: Bush Clears Task Force to Meet With Iranians (http://ipsnew=
s.net/news.asp?idnews=3D34786)
+United Nations General Assembly (http://www.un.org/ga/61/)
(END/IPS/WD/MM/NA/IP/HD/NU/BW/ML/HR/KS/06)
=20
=3D 09200411 ORP008
NNNN
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Tries to Save Its Iran Plan
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 11:16 PM
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - The United States tried Tuesday to salvage its
plan to punish Iran with sanctions if it won't back down in a
nuclear standoff with the West, even as President Bush told
Iranians he hopes that one day ``America and Iran can be good
friends.''
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice convened nations that have
offered Iran a bargain to head off what the United States and
others fear is a drive to build a bomb. The United States had
hoped to use the gathering to move decisively toward political
and economic sanctions on Iran now that it has missed a U.N.
deadline to shelve disputed nuclear activities, but cold feet
among allies this month has made that possibility remote.
Rice warned that the world will have a credibility problem if it
does not act. She also acknowledged that talks are already under
way between the European Union and Tehran without preconditions.
That is a concession for the United States, which has led a
drive to force Iran to choose between looming U.N. sanctions or
talks that could reward it for scaling back its nuclear program.
``Those talks are going on now,'' Rice said on the CBS ``Early
Show,'' referring to discussions between the European Union's
foreign policy chief and Iran's nuclear negotiator. ``But we are
still pursuing the path of sanctions should Iran not follow the
U.N. Security Council resolution'' demanding a temporary end to
its uranium enrichment program. The deadline had been set for
Aug. 31.
Bush and Iran's unpredictable hard-line President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad were addressing the United Nations on the same day,
and the White House tried to make sure the two did not cross
paths.
``Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,'' Bush told
the annual U.N. opening session. He added a direct appeal to the
Iranian people, telling them to look past what their leaders say
about the United States.
The Bush administration saw the diplomatic ground shift beneath
it this month as Iran maneuvered to avoid sanctions that even
close U.S. allies such as France were never keen to impose.
Two members of the coalition, France and Russia, cast doubt on
the idea of sanctions over the past week, and Rice and her aides
have been lowering expectations for action this week.
French President Jacques Chirac proposed a compromise on Monday.
The world would suspend the threat of sanctions, he suggested,
if Tehran agreed to halt uranium enrichment and return to
negotiations.
After a meeting with Bush on Tuesday, however, Chirac said twice
that the two leaders see ``eye to eye'' on Iran. Bush said he
and Chirac ``share the same objective and we're going to
continue to strategize together.''
Interviewed on morning news shows Tuesday, Rice stressed that
the United States will not join any negotiations until Iran has
at least temporarily stopped its accelerated uranium program.
``I would meet anywhere with my counterpart at any time,'' once
Iran has met that precondition, Rice said on ABC's ``Good
Morning America.''
Enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear energy, as Iran
claims it wants to do. It can also fuel nuclear weapons, as the
United States claims Iran intends.
If the separate European-Iranian talks ``can get us to a
suspension, that would be terrific,'' Rice said on CBS.
Any face-to-face discussions between Iran and the United States
would be the most significant warming of relations in nearly
three decades of estrangement.
The United States has had extensive unilateral economic
sanctions against Iran since shortly after the 1979 revolution
and the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Although the U.S. remains Iran's main adversary because of
America's military, political, cultural and economic dominance,
Washington has little economic leverage against Tehran on its
own. The U.S. needs Europe, at least, to impose any meaningful
economic penalty on Iran, but tough sanctions on the oil
exporter would hurt America's international partners as well as
Iran.
The prospect of U.S.-Iran talks was meant to be a powerful lure
for Iran, but Rice also dangled the offer of talks earlier this
year as a means to shore up a shaky international coalition
against Iran.
It worked, at least for awhile. This summer, world powers signed
on to the principle that Iran would face at least mild initial
sanctions if it blew the August deadline.
Iran responded by hinting that it might be willing to shelve
uranium enrichment, without ever saying so directly. That was
enough to sow new division in the U.S.-build coalition, with the
likely result that sanctions are either a dead letter or a long
way off.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran Defiance Has Little Cost
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 8:16 PM
AP Photo XFLL104
By ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press Writer
The deadlines are all past, yet Iran remains defiant over its
nuclear program.
Despite stern warnings from President Bush as the U.N. General
Assembly opened Tuesday, the Islamic republic appears safe from
tough sanctions anytime soon, having skillfully played Europe,
Russia and China off and leaving the Bush administration
scrambling for options.
Publicly, the United States insists that Iran first suspend
enriching uranium - a process that can produce material for
nuclear weapons - before Washington will agree to talks. The
price of defiance could be punitive sanctions, the Bush
administration says.
``Should they continue to stall, we will then discuss the
consequences of their stalling,'' Bush said Tuesday in New York.
In comments apparently directed at America's partners, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice reminded the world that ``the
international community also has a credibility issue'' at stake
as Iran defies a U.N. Security Council order to halt enrichment.
``We said - as of August 31st - suspend or we will pursue
sanctions,'' Rice said on CBS's ``Early Show.'' ``And so we are
talking with our partners about that course as well.''
But it appears increasingly unlikely that the United States can
muster enough support in the 15-member U.N. Security Council to
make good on that threat.
Most of its allies, alarmed at the deteriorating situation in
Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and an uncertain future in Lebanon,
have little stomach for yet another Middle East showdown.
So that Aug. 31 U.N. deadline to halt uranium enrichment or face
sanctions has turned out to mean little. And some experts
believe Iran may be able to fend off serious international
action for years more - as it continues its nuclear program.
The oil-rich nation insists the program has the peaceful purpose
of producing fuel for nuclear reactors that generate
electricity. But the United States and other countries fear
Iran's goal is to build a nuclear arsenal and transform the
balance of power in the Middle East.
``It's disappointing the United States doesn't seem to be able
to develop a consensus and maintain that consensus,'' David
Albright, an expert on Iran's nuclear program, said in a recent
interview with the Council on Foreign Affairs.
French President Jacques Chirac said this week that he was
``never in favor of sanctions'' and instead proposed that the
U.S. and its partners suspend the sanctions threat in exchange
for Iran halting its enrichment program. And on Tuesday, he said
he does not want to set a new deadline for Iran to suspend
nuclear activities, despite Tehran's defiance of Security
Council demands.
China and Russia have consistently expressed reservations about
imposing sanctions. Like France, both countries have the power
as permanent members of the Security Council to veto any
sanctions resolution.
That leaves the United States with little choice but to stand
aside and see if European diplomacy can persuade the Iranians to
meet its demands. It could always impose its own sanctions, or
join with selected allies, but any such action would have far
less punch.
All this represents a sharp reversal of fortunes for the United
States.
Just two months ago, Washington had convinced the Security
Council to demand that Iran roll back on its nuclear program by
first suspending uranium enrichment or face the threat of
sanctions.
But the Iranians responded with a clever strategy. They hinted
at a willingness to meet those demands - without committing
themselves.
On Sept. 10, Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani,
suggested in talks with a European Union official that Iran
might be willing to freeze uranium enrichment, at least
temporarily, as part of a deal to defuse the standoff.
Publicly, the Iranians backed away from any commitment, and
Washington made clear that Larijani's purported offer wasn't
enough.
But the very prospect of talks rather than confrontation was
enough to crack the international front that Washington had
built over the past year. ``Iran is a master at working these
splits among the European Union and Russia, China and the United
States,'' Albright said. They are ``a master at trying to widen
splits.''
---
Robert H. Reid, a former U.N. correspondent, is
correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press and has reported
from the Middle East since 2003.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Chirac Doesn't Want New Iran Deadline
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday September 20, 2006 12:16 AM
AP Photo UNMA108
By ANGELA CHARLTON
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - French President Jacques Chirac said
Tuesday that he does not want to set a new deadline for Iran to
suspend nuclear activities, which could be used to develop
atomic weapons, despite Tehran's defiance of U.N. Security
Council demands.
Speaking at the United Nations, Chirac also appeared to soften
an earlier proposal to drop talk of sanctions against Iran over
its uranium enrichment, an issue high on the agenda at this
year's U.N. General Assembly.
``We are committed to negotiations and therefore to dialogue. So
we're not going to start by setting deadlines that are a few
hours long,'' Chirac told reporters. ``This is a process that is
under way and I hope it will run its course.''
This summer, world powers signed on to the principle that Iran
would face at least mild initial sanctions if it blew an Aug. 31
deadline to suspend uranium enrichment. With the deadline
elapsed and Iran offering no concessions, the nations have been
holding talks on what the consequences should be.
Iran insists its nuclear program is intended for peaceful
purposes only.
While the United States has consistently pushed to punish Iran
for defying Security Council demands, Chirac spoke out Monday
against sanctions.
The French president has sought out the spotlight on this trip
to New York as part of a larger bid to carve out a lasting
legacy on world affairs. It is likely his last such performance
- while Chirac has been secretive about his career plans, most
assume he will step down next year after 12 years in power.
On Monday, Chirac shook up diplomatic circles with a compromise
proposal to kickstart talks between Iran and the international
community by suspending the threat of U.N. sanctions if Tehran
suspends uranium enrichment at the same time. Such a proposal is
unlikely to win the support of Washington.
On Tuesday, President Bush, after sideline talks with Chirac at
the United Nations, pressed Iran again to immediately begin
negotiations, warning that any delay on the part of Tehran would
bring consequences - including sanctions.
Chirac insisted that his compromise proposal was just a
reiteration of France's position. He said he and Bush see
``eye-to-eye'' on Iran and insisted U.S.-French relations were
close and friendly.
But then, in his speech to the General Assembly, he avoided
mention of sanctions, saying only: ``Our goal is not to call
regimes into question.''
``Dialogue must prevail,'' Chirac said. ``The international
community must stand firm and united.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Warns Iran Anew Over Nuclear Plans
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 4:01 PM
AP Photo NYGH102
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - President Bush, poised to outline to world
leaders his vision of a 21st century framework for global
security, pressed Iran once more Tuesday to immediately begin
negotiations on its nuclear program.
Just before going to the United Nations to address the General
Assembly, Bush warned that any delay on the part of Tehran would
bring consequences.
Iran's defiant pursuit of a nuclear program was at the top of
the agenda when Bush talked with French President Jacques Chirac
on the sidelines of the three-day U.N. General Assembly meeting.
The French leader is balking at the U.S. drive to sanction Iran
for defying Security Council demands that it freeze uranium
enrichment.
``Should they continue to stall,'' Bush said of Iranian leaders,
``we will then discuss the consequences of their stalling.'' The
president, speaking after his meeting with Chirac, said those
consequences would include the possibility of sanctions.
Chirac proposed on Monday that the international community
compromise by suspending the threat of sanctions if Tehran
agrees to halt its uranium enrichment program and return to
negotiations. The U.S. and other countries fear Iran is trying
to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its uranium
enrichment program is to make fuel for nuclear power plants.
Bush said that Iran must first suspend uranium enrichment ``in
which case the U.S. will come to the table.''
But he also stressed that he and Chirac ``share the same
objective and we're going to continue to strategize together.''
``Time is of the essence,'' the president said. ``Now is the
time for the Iranians to come to the table.''
Both Bush and Chirac stressed they are working together, and the
French president said twice that they see ``eye to eye.''
Chirac said there never has been any ambiguity in the European
Union's position toward Iran's nuclear program.
The French leader also said the European Union would not
negotiate with Iran until it suspends uranium enrichment. ``We
cannot have negotiations if we do not have on one hand prior
suspension,'' Chirac said.
Bush said that he and Chirac also discussed the bloodshed in the
Darfur region of Sudan, and hostilities between Israel and
Palestinians.
Bush readied a speech for later Tuesday, seeking to persuade
skeptical world leaders to embrace his vision for the Middle
East. He was to call on the world to ``stand up for peace'' in
the face of violent extremism.
Bush's challenge is to build international support to confront
multiple problems in the region: unabated violence in Iraq, a
stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, armed Hezbollah
militants in Lebanon and the Iran issue.
Besides Chirac, Bush also was meeting with Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and General Assembly
President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa.
Bush's speech was the last in a series on the war on terror,
timed to surround last week's fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11
attacks and to set the tone for the final weeks of the U.S.
midterm elections.
Bush was allotted 15 minutes for his annual address to the
General Assembly, and White House aides said he planned to use
the time to call on the world to support moderate governments
and help build up weak democracies in Iraq and Lebanon, as wells
as the Palestinian Authority.
With remarks aimed especially at people living in the Middle
East, Bush was drawing a distinction between the moderate
governments that want peace and extremists who want to spread
terror and violence.
He was describing his vision for moderates to choose the future
instead of the extremists, pointing out that the same principles
are in the U.N. charter and its declaration of human rights,
aides said.
He planned to describe how every nation in the civilized world
has a stake in the region, but especially the Muslim countries.
``The world must stand up for peace,'' Bush said in remarks
prepared for delivery.
Bush also planned to address the issue of Sudan, where three
years of fighting in the African nation's Darfur region has
killed more than 200,000 people. The president was scheduled to
announce that Andrew Natsios, the former head of the U.S. Agency
for International Development, will become Bush's special envoy
for Sudan to help end the fighting.
Bush was speaking in the same cavernous room where four years
and one week ago he made another plea for action in the Middle
East. On that day, Bush said Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of
deadly chemical and biological agents that the United Nations
must confront.
He was wrong, but still forged ahead with war against Iraq
without the support of many other nations. And he is still
trying to rebuild credibility with the body, experts say.
``The sense outside of the U.S. is that the United States is
responsible for many of the failures in Iraq, first by going in
mostly alone and then by incompetent administration,'' said Jon
Alterman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington.
``The problem with the way he's talked about democracy in the
Middle East is not that people see it as undesirable,'' Alterman
said, ``it's that people see it as naive. He needs to persuade
cynical people that not only is he sincere, but it's achievable,
and here's what they need to do to make it so.''
Interviewed on ABC's ``Good Morning America'' Tuesday, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice was asked about increasing indications
of hostility toward the United States and the Bush
administration in other parts of the world.
``We've had to do some difficult things,'' she replied. ``We've
had to make clear that the war on terrorism has to be fought,
has to be fought on the offense.''
``While people may not always agree with our policy, they love
the United States,'' Rice said. ``This is still a beacon of hope
for the world.''
---
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Aqazadeh, Elbaradei meet in Vienna
2006/09/19
Vice President and Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization
Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh and Director General of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammad ElBaradei met at the
Austria Center in Vienna on Tuesday.
The IAEA 50th Annual General Conference (September 18-22) opened
at the Austria Center in Vienna on Monday morning.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Aqazadeh said that each
time he visits the agency, he also meets ElBaradei, given the
topics to be discussed in association with the nuclear issue.
"Given our close cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, we
are not satisfied with ElBaradei for not reflecting such
cooperation properly. "We expect the agency's proper attention
to Iran's cooperation and avoid any conditions that would make
the situation difficult for us," he added.
The vice president said that meanwhile, ElBaradei was willing to
be informed of the outcome of our talks with the European Union
Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana and Western states, adding
that he briefed the IAEA chief on the issue.
"At the meeting, I also brought up our expectations from the
agency concerning technical matters and the country's
cooperation with it," he said.
Concerning nuclear fuel, which is one of the main issues on the
agenda of the agency's ongoing annual conference, the IAEO head
said that in his lecture at the inaugural ceremony of the event
on Monday he expounded on the matter in details.
"We believe that the rights of people and IAEA member states
cannot be limited by political tricks," he added.
He underlined that as far as he knows, today such moves are out
of context and that world countries have fully realized that it
is impossible to impose another limitation on them by the
promises on the Added Protocol for which they were encouraged to
vote 12 years ago.
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: EU's Solana to hold pivotal talks with Iran on nuclear crisis -
Tue Sep 19, 4:12 AM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana planned to
meet Iran" /> Iran's top nuclear negotiator this week in New
York, as the United States faced increasing reluctance among
European allies to impose sanctions on Tehran.
Solana, who has been negotiating for the six major powers over
Iran's uranium enrichment work, said Monday that he would meet
Iran's Ali Larijani at an unspecified time during the week and
that ongoing talks had produced progress.
"This meeting will be important, no doubt," Solana told
reporters before holding talks with Bolivia's President Evo
Morales on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
As world powers conferred on how to resolve the deadlock over
Iran's nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
was due to arrive in New York on Tuesday to deliver a speech to
the General Assembly, as was US President George W. Bush" />
President George W. Bush.
The United States and its allies believe that Iran's nuclear
program hides a bid to build a nuclear weapon. Iran has insisted
its nuclear activity is entirely peaceful and designed to
generate electricity.
Solana has recently expressed optimism about the possibility of
a negotiated settlement with Iran, despite a US drive to impose
sanctions.
Solana and Larijani last met on September 9-11 in Vienna, after
Iran failed to adhere to a UN resolution 1696 that called on the
country to halt uranium enrichment work by August 31 or face the
prospect of sanctions.
Referring to resolution 1696, Solana said: "It would be
reasonable not to have a new one (resolution) as long as the
door to dialogue is open."
He added: "It would be contradictory to do so while we continue
to negotiate."
Solana said there had recently been almost daily contacts with
the Iranian authorities. "It is during this time that we have
made the most progress since the start of negotiations several
years ago."
Solana is negotiating with the Iranians for the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States -- plus Germany to persuade Tehran
to accept political and economic incentives in return for
suspending its sensitive nuclear work.
Washington has argued for imposing sanctions but other world
powers have been reluctant to proceed. France said on Monday
negotiations could go ahead even if Tehran failed to halt
uranium enrichment activities.
In a policy shift, US officials signalled Monday that they were
willing to back European negotiations aimed at convincing Iran
to at least temporarily freeze its program to enrich uranium,
even though this will delay Washington's parallel drive for
sanctions.
"It's a strategy, to try to do everything possible to convince
Iran to take a positive pathway," State Department spokesman
Sean McCormack said of the approach.
"You have two activities that are going on here," he said,
referring to Solana's negotiations and the US lobbying for
sanctions at the Security Council.
Asked if sanctions against Iran could come before the end of the
year, McCormack said: "Absent any change of behaviour or
position from the Iranians, yes."
As recently as Friday, Bush criticised those arguing for further
negotiations with Iran and said he would tell fellow leaders in
New York this week that "stalling shouldn't be allowed."
But the Americans have found themselves increasingly isolated
among the six-nation coalition facing off with Iran, which in
the past has sought to divide the US and European governments.
In a sign of possible transatlantic discord, French President
Jacques Chirac" /> President Jacques Chiracsaid that world
powers should pursue talks with Iran without threatening
sanctions, even though Tehran has failed to halt uranium
enrichment work.
"I propose that, on the one hand, the six refrain from referring
the issue to the Security Council, and that Iran renounce during
the negotiation the enrichment of uranium," Chirac said.
Asked to comment on the emerging two-track approach, US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricewould
only say that it would be discussed Tuesday night at a foreign
ministers' meeting of the six major powers plus Italy.
But she said that the Security Council was not expected to
discuss a sanctions package this week, despite earlier
assurances from Washington that sanctions would be in place by
the end of the month.
Solana's talks this week with Larijani were expected to focus on
a compromise formula that would involve Iran agreeing to a
temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program.
But it was unclear whether Iran's leadership, which is
reportedly divided on the nuclear issue, would agree to even a
temporary halt to its enrichment program.
Speaking in Caracas on Monday, the Iranian president said
current negotiations should be finished before the United
Nations" /> United Nationsbecomes involved again.
Talks "are continuing, and I see no reason to speed them up," he
told a press conference before flying to New York.
"Iran's nuclear program is very clear and very transparent," he
said. "We have always said that we are willing to negotiate with
any country."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: Iran charges West abuses U.N. nuclear role
Tue Sep 19, 8:05 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
accused the West on Tuesday of abusing the United Nations" />
United Nationsto try to deny Iran" /> Iranthe right to peaceful
nuclear technology which Western states enjoyed.
"The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat
and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern," he told the
U.N. General Assembly.
He said the United States, Britain and others themselves
benefited from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. "Some of them
have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including
the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak
record of using them against humanity."
Earlier, President Bush" /> President Bushaccused Iran's rulers
of spending their resources on funding terrorists and pursuing
nuclear weapons and demanded that Iran abandon what he called
"its nuclear weapons ambitions."
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
9 AFP: Bush and Ahmadinejad to make rival cases in nuclear dispute at UN -
Tue Sep 19, 8:06 AM ET
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Presidents George W. Bush of the United
States and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran" /> Iranare expected to
take their nuclear dispute to the world stage, when both were to
give speeches to the United Nations" /> United NationsGeneral
Assembly.
Bush and Ahmadinejad were to be among keynote speakers on the
first day of debate by global leaders at the General Assembly --
the last for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> Kofi Annan, who
stands down at the end of the year.
The dispute over whether Iran is seeking to develop nuclear
weapons has become one of the main sources of international
tension in recent months, along with the wars in Lebanon and
Iraq" /> Iraqand the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Annan was to open the debate with his final speech to the
General Assembly.
The US president was scheduled to be one of the first speakers.
He was expected to use his speech to defend the US push for
sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
The United States accuses Iran of using it program to develop
civilian nuclear power as a cover to develop atomic weapons.
Tehran denies the charge.
Bush was also expected to defend US action in Iraq and hail the
US administration's efforts to spread democracy in the Middle
East as an antidote to the resentments that fuel extremism.
The Iranian leader, who has repeatedly condemned US attempts to
halt his country's nuclear program, was scheduled to be one of
the final speakers on the first day.
Speaking in Caracas before leaving for New York, Ahmadinejad on
Monday again rejected international pressure to suspend uranium
enrichment. Uranium, when enriched, can be used as fuel in
nuclear power reactors. When enriched much futher it can be used
to a make an atomic bomb.
Talks "are continuing, and I see no reason to speed them up," he
told a press conference.
"Iran's nuclear program is very clear and very transparent," the
president said. "We have always said that we are willing to
negotiate with any country."
If nuclear energy "is something good then everyone should have
it, and if it is bad then nobody should have it," he said at the
end of his two-day visit.
Ahmadinejad accused Western powers of wanting to control nuclear
technology "and when another country needs it they sell it at a
high price."
According to diplomats, however, there are signs that Iran is
ready to suspend its enrichment program, at least temporarily.
Efforts to counter Iran's nuclear program will be discussed
later in the day when the foreign ministers of Britain, China,
France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States hold a
working dinner on the nuclear dispute.
Darfur is another crisis casting a shadow over the UN debate,
mainly because of Sudan's refusal to allow a UN peacekeeping
force into a region where up to 300,000 people are said to have
died in the past three years.
President Jacques Chirac" /> President Jacques Chiracof France,
another of the key speakers Tuesday, raised his concerns about
"the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe" in Darfur during a
working dinner Monday night with the UN secretary general, said
his spokesman.
Chirac said that in his speech to the UN General Assembly he
would appeal for "the urgent deployment of a UN force to prevent
this humanitarian catastrophe."
The Sudan government opposes the deployment of a UN force but
has indicated it would agree to an extension of the mandate of
the African Union peacekeeping force already in Darfur.
White House officials said Bush would use his UN speech to
announced he is naming a special envoy to help end the bloodshed
in Sudan. A senior official said the likely choice was the
former head of the US Agency for International Development
(USAID), Andrew Natsios.
The New York Times on Tuesday said Bush could "make a
difference" if he discarded his usual UN script and "devoted
this speech to the horrors of Darfur and committed himself
personally to stopping the genocide."
Darfur is to be discussed at a ministerial meeting Wednesday on
the sidelines of the UN gathering.
Efforts to get Middle East peace efforts back on track are also
to be discussed this week at the UN Security Council and in
bilateral meetings on the sidelines.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
10 AFP: Bush and Ahmadinejad to make rival cases in nuclear dispute at UN -
Tue Sep 19, 1:23 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Presidents George W. Bush of the United
States and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran" /> are expected to take
their nuclear dispute to the world stage, when both were to give
speeches to the United Nations" /> General Assembly.
Bush and Ahmadinejad were to be among keynote speakers on the
first day of debate by global leaders at the General Assembly --
the last for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> , who stands
down at the end of the year.
The dispute over whether Iran is seeking to develop nuclear
weapons has become one of the main sources of international
tension in recent months, along with the wars in Lebanon and
Iraq" /> and the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Annan was to open the debate with his final speech to the
General Assembly.
The US president was scheduled to be one of the first speakers.
He was expected to use his speech to defend the US push for
sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
The United States accuses Iran of using it program to develop
civilian nuclear power as a cover to develop atomic weapons.
Tehran denies the charge.
Bush was also expected to defend US action in Iraq and hail the
US administration's efforts to spread democracy in the Middle
East as an antidote to the resentments that fuel extremism.
The Iranian leader, who has repeatedly condemned US attempts to
halt his country's nuclear program, was scheduled to be one of
the final speakers on the first day.
Speaking in Caracas before leaving for New York, Ahmadinejad on
Monday again rejected international pressure to suspend uranium
enrichment. Uranium, when enriched, can be used as fuel in
nuclear power reactors. When enriched much futher it can be used
to a make an atomic bomb.
Talks "are continuing, and I see no reason to speed them up," he
told a press conference.
"Iran's nuclear program is very clear and very transparent," the
president said. "We have always said that we are willing to
negotiate with any country."
If nuclear energy "is something good then everyone should have
it, and if it is bad then nobody should have it," he said at the
end of his two-day visit.
Ahmadinejad accused Western powers of wanting to control nuclear
technology "and when another country needs it they sell it at a
high price."
According to diplomats, however, there are signs that Iran is
ready to suspend its enrichment program, at least temporarily.
Efforts to counter Iran's nuclear program will be discussed
later in the day when the foreign ministers of Britain, China,
France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States hold a
working dinner on the nuclear dispute.
Darfur is another crisis casting a shadow over the UN debate,
mainly because of Sudan's refusal to allow a UN peacekeeping
force into a region where up to 300,000 people are said to have
died in the past three years.
President Jacques Chirac" /> of France, another of the key
speakers Tuesday, raised his concerns about "the threat of a
humanitarian catastrophe" in Darfur during a working dinner
Monday night with the UN secretary general, said his spokesman.
Chirac said that in his speech to the UN General Assembly he
would appeal for "the urgent deployment of a UN force to prevent
this humanitarian catastrophe."
The Sudan government opposes the deployment of a UN force but
has indicated it would agree to an extension of the mandate of
the African Union peacekeeping force already in Darfur.
White House officials said Bush would use his UN speech to
announced he is naming a special envoy to help end the bloodshed
in Sudan. A senior official said the likely choice was the
former head of the US Agency for International Development
(USAID), Andrew Natsios.
The New York Times on Tuesday said Bush could "make a
difference" if he discarded his usual UN script and "devoted
this speech to the horrors of Darfur and committed himself
personally to stopping the genocide."
Darfur is to be discussed at a ministerial meeting Wednesday on
the sidelines of the UN gathering.
Efforts to get Middle East peace efforts back on track are also
to be discussed this week at the UN Security Council and in
bilateral meetings on the sidelines.
Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: 'Dialogue must prevail' in Iran nuclear standoff - Chirac
Tue Sep 19, 2:43 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac" />
President Jacques Chiractold the UN General Assembly that
"dialogue must prevail" in the international standoff over Iran"
/> Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.
"Let us talk in order to enter into negotiations," Chirac said
in an address which coincided with US efforts to impose
sanctions on Iran for its refusal to comply with a UN resolution
requiring it to suspend uranium enrichment activities.
"Dialogue must prevail," he said.
But the French leader, who met earlier Tuesday with US President
George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushamid signs of a
widening rift in the UN coalition dealing with Iran, also warned
Tehran that it must respond to world concerns over its
enrichment program.
"International legality must prevail over the threats of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," he said.
Chirac held Tehran responsible damaging international confidence
in its aims by pursuing "illegal programs," and keeping its
nuclear activities secret for many years.
"Given the seriousness of what is at stake, the international
community must stand firm and united," he said in a clear bid to
smooth over differences which have emerged between the US and
its allies on the Security Council who have argued in favor of
continued negotiations with Iran rather than a rush to
sanctions.
Chirac also sought to reassure Iran that the goal was not to
challenge the authority of its Islamic government.
"We do not aim to call regimes into question," he said.
"We aim to ensure security in accordance with international law
and with due regard for the sovereignty of all countries," he
said.
Chirac surprised US officials on Monday by stating that he
opposed the use of sanctions and suggested negotiations could be
opened with Iran even before its suspended its enrichment
program -- a stance openly at odds with Washington's view.
But after their meeting Tuesday, Bush and Chirac insisted they
were on the same track.
The foreign ministers of France and the United States are due to
hold a working dinner Tuesday evening with their counterparts
from Britain, China, Italy, Germany and Russia to discuss
details of a sanctions package against Iran.
But US officials have acknowledged that they do not yet have the
support to bring a sanctions resolution before the Security
Council pending the outcome of continuing talks between the
European Union" /> European Unionand Iran.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 AFP: Iran favors asymmetric strategy in joust with US - general -
by Jim Mannion Tue Sep 19, 6:22 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran" /> has the most powerful military in the
Middle East, but is relying on unconventional means to counter
superior US military might in the region, a top US commander
said.
General John Abizaid, chief of the US Central Command, refused
to discuss US military planning in response to a mounting
confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program.
But in an hour-long session with defense reporters here, the
commander of US forces in the region laid out capabilities Iran
has that US military planners must reckon with.
"Number one, they have naval capacity to temporarily block the
Straits of Hormuz, and interfere with global commerce if they
should choose to do so," Abizaid said.
About 40 percent of the world's oil transits through the straits
at the entrance to the Gulf. Shutting it down would cause world
prices to skyrocket, analysts predict.
"Number two, they've got a substantial missile force that can do
a lot of damage to our friends and partners in the region," he
said.
"Number three, they have a pretty robust terrorist surrogate arm
that could in the event of hostilities cause problems not only
in the Middle East but globally.
"And number four, they have a very substantial land army that,
while it's not offensively worrying, is certainly capable of
conducting asymmetric warfare."
The Iranian army, for instance, is practicing how to carry out
hit-and-run attacks on supply lines in enemy territory, he said.
Abizaid's comments came amid speculation in the US media that
the United States may be beginning to prepare for war against
Iran.
Time magazine reported this week that the US Navy's chief of
operations, Admiral Michael Mullen, has ordered a review of the
navy's plans for countering a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
It also said navy minesweepers, a submarine and an Aegis cruiser
have been ordered to prepare to deploy in the Gulf, a possible
sign of preparations.
Pentagon" /> spokesmen said the military conducts contingency
planning for all types of situations, but that the United States
remains committed to diplomacy.
"That's not to say we are not going to do due diligence with
respect to our capabilities," said a defense official. "That's
just the way the military operates. We've got to make sure our
capabilities are commensurate with our requirements."
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said two of
four minesweepers the Navy has permanently stationed in the Gulf
are due to be decommissioned at the end of the year, and those
are likely to be replaced.
But the lack of progress on the diplomatic front has fueled
debate over how to respond to the prospect of a nuclear-armed
Iran.
"In my opinion, the Iranians are trying to achieve a nuclear
breakthrough for military purposes. That's how I read the
intelligence," Abizaid said.
"It's my opinion that won't happen for some years, but it's also
my opinion that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, it so
destabilizes the region that it makes it more dangerous for
everybody, to include the Iranians," he said.
While he would not comment on US military preparations, Abizaid
said he is holding ground forces in reserve in the Gulf and
Kuwait as a hedge against "unforeseen problems that may arise
from for example ... Iraq" /> , or Iran."
With 147,000 US troops in Iraq, the US army and marines are
stretched thin. But Abizaid warned Monday in an interview with
CNN that underestimating US air and naval power in the region
would be a "dreadful mistake."
"Right now Iran is the most powerful military force in the
region, except for the United States of America," Abizaid said
Tuesday.
Abizaid said he did not count Israel" /> , generally believed to
have the most capable military in the Middle East, because it
does not fall in his area of operations.
"But the mismatch between our military power and their military
power is very, very substantial," he added.
Nevertheless, he said, Iran should not be underestimated.
"Its conventional forces are defensively oriented but its
intelligence force are offensively oriented," he said. "And so
Iran has traditionally conducted an asymmetric campaign in the
region. And they continue to do that."
Iran has strengthened surrogates like Hezbollah with
sophisticated new weapons, he said, citing anti-tank weapons,
anti-ship cruise missiles and longer range missiles used against
Israeli forces in Lebanon.
A new armor-busting rocket-propelled grenade believed to be of
Iranian origin has turned up in Iraq after first making an
appearance in Lebanon, in what could be a "hint about things to
come," Abizaid said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
13 UPI: U.N. convenes on Iran-U.S. nuclear clash
United Press International - NewsTrack -
9/19/2006 7:11:00 AM -0400
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- Likely fiery speeches from
U.S. President George Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad were on the U.N. General Assembly calendar for
Tuesday.
Bush is scheduled to address the annual heads of state
convention in New York at 11:30 a.m., while Ahmadinejad was to
speak nearly eight hours later.
Bush is expected to target Iran's refusal to comply with a U.N.
resolution to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31, and call for
support for economic sanctions against the Islamist state, CNN
said.
Ahmadinejad has been resolute that his country has the right to
a peaceful electricity generation program and denies having
nuclear weapons aspirations.
The possibility of a chance encounter between the two leaders
was unlikely, as the New York Daily News said Ahmadinejad
canceled attendance at the General Assembly lunch.
It was that venue where Cuban leader Fidel Castro met U.S.
President Bill Clinton and reportedly shook hands with him in
September 2000.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
Post A Comment * Name:
*****************************************************************
14 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says EU, Iran Holding Nuclear Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 5:16 PM
AP Photo UNMA119
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - President Bush exhorted Iran to ``come to the
table'' to discuss its nuclear weapons program while Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice said the world will have a credibility
problem if it doesn't confront Tehran.
Discussing the situation amid heightened activity Tuesday at the
United Nations, Rice acknowledged that talks are already under
way between the European Union and Tehran without preconditions.
That is a concession for the United States, which has led a
drive to force Iran to choose between looming U.N. sanctions or
talks that could reward it for scaling back its nuclear program.
``Those talks are going on now,'' Rice said on the CBS ``Early
Show,'' referring to discussions between the European Union's
foreign policy chief and Iran's nuclear negotiator. ``But we are
still pursuing the path of sanctions should Iran not follow the
U.N. Security Council resolution'' demanding a temporary end to
its uranium enrichment program by Aug. 31.
Interviewed on morning news on the day Bush was addressing the
United Nations, Rice stressed that the United States will not
join any negotiations until Iran has at least temporarily
stopped its accelerated uranium program.
Two members of the coalition, France and Russia, cast doubt on
the idea of sanctions over the past week, and Rice and her aides
have been lowering expectations for action during this week's
U.N. opening session.
French President Jacques Chirac proposed a compromise on Monday.
The world would suspend the threat of sanctions if Tehran agreed
to halt uranium enrichment and return to negotiations.
After a meeting with Bush on Tuesday, however, Chirac said twice
that the two leaders see ``eye to eye'' on Iran. Bush said he
and Chirac ``share the same objective and we're going to
continue to strategize together.''
``Time is of the essence,'' Bush said. ``Now is the time for the
Iranians to come to the table.''
Enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear energy, as Iran
claims it wants to do. It can also fuel nuclear weapons, as the
United States claims Iran intends.
If the separate European-Iranian talks ``can get us to a
suspension, that would be terrific,'' Rice said on CBS.
``But the international community also has a credibility
issue,'' she added, because Iran missed last month's deadline to
suspend enrichment or risk sanctions. ``We are talking with our
partners about that course as well,'' Rice said.
Any face-to-face discussions between Iran and the United States
would be the most significant warming of relations in nearly
three decades of estrangement.
``We have said that if Iran is prepared to suspend that, we're
prepared, for the first time in decades, to sit down across the
table from the Iranians and talk about ending their nuclear
ambitions and providing a path for Iran's entry into the
international system,'' Rice said on ABC's Good Morning America.
``I would meet anywhere with my counterpart at any time,'' once
Iran has met that precondition, she said.
The United States has had extensive unilateral economic
sanctions against Iran since shortly after the 1979 revolution
and the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Although the U.S. remains Iran's main adversary because of
America's military, political, cultural and economic dominance,
Washington has little economic leverage against Tehran on its
own. The U.S. needs Europe, at least, to impose any meaningful
economic penalty on Iran, but tough sanctions on the oil
exporter would hurt America's international partners as well as
Iran.
The prospect of U.S.-Iran talks was meant to be a powerful lure
for Iran, but Rice also dangled the offer of talks earlier this
year as a means to shore up a shaky international coalition
against Iran.
It worked, at least for awhile. This summer, world powers signed
on to the principle that Iran would face at least mild initial
sanctions if it blew the August deadline.
Now that the deadline is passed without concession from Iran,
the nations that offered the deal for talks or consequences are
meeting Tuesday night on the sidelines of the U.N. meeting.
In Washington, meanwhile, Under Secretary of State Nicholas
Burns said there was ``unity'' on the Security Council to impose
sanctions on Iran that would deny the country so-called dual-use
technology - equipment that could be used in a military program.
``Its leadership is continuing along a path of confrontation,''
Burns told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
15 Guardian Unlimited: Japan, Australia OK N. Korea Sanctions
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 10:16 AM
By KANA INAGAKI
Associated Press Writer
TOKYO (AP) - Australia and Japan imposed financial sanctions
Tuesday on 11 North Korean companies, a Swiss company and its
president, based on allegations they helped the communist
nation's weapons programs.
The coordinated effort is meant to pressure North Korea over
both its test-firing of long-range missiles in July and its
development of nuclear weapons, officials said.
A U.N. Security Council resolution after the missile tests urged
nations to forgo trade with North Korea that could help its
missile program.
``I do not know how North Korea will respond, but I hope North
Korea will accept the U.N. Security Council resolution in a
sincere manner and respond to various concerns of the
international community,'' Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary
Shinzo Abe said.
Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the action
was ``consistent with our strong international stand against the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.''
``This supports and complements similar action taken by Japan
today and previous actions taken by the United States, and sends
a strong message to North Korea,'' Downer said in a statement.
China appealed for governments involved in the dispute over
North Korea's weapons programs to show restraint, arguing
against sanctions.
``The Chinese government has always held the position that the
issue should be resolved through dialogue, and we are opposed to
sanctions,'' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.
He didn't refer to Japan or Australia by name.
``Now the situation on the Korean peninsula is sensitive and
complicated. All parties should focus on how to relax the
situation and we hope all parties can keep calm and exercise
restraint,'' Qin said at a regular news briefing.
The United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea have
tried to persuade the North to abandon its nuclear program at
six-nation negotiations that have been on hold since November
2005 because North Korea refuses to attend until Washington
lifts financial restrictions.
The sanctions that took effect Tuesday target Pyongyang-based
trading companies that specialize in high-tech equipment,
manufacturing and mining, along with a bank and a hospital.
Also on the list is Kohas AG, a Swiss industrial supply
wholesaler, and the company's president, Jakob Steiger. In
March, the United States froze the assets of Kohas and Steiger,
alleging they helped North Korea proliferate weapons of mass
destruction.
Japan's measures target an additional three companies. It was
not immediately clear why Tokyo's list was longer.
Tokyo had already approved trade restrictions in the wake of
Pyongyang's July missile tests. The launch included a long-range
missile believed capable of hitting the United States. All seven
missiles fell harmlessly into the Sea of Japan.
The new restrictions will also tighten identification checks on
people making suspicious transactions, officials said. Japan's
Finance Ministry also said it planned to inspect financial
institutions engaged in foreign exchange operations to ensure
compliance.
South Korea offered a muted response to the sanctions.
``We understand that (the two countries) made the decisions
after reviewing domestic and international laws in accordance
with the U.N. Security Council resolution,'' said South Korean
Foreign Ministry spokesman Choo Kyu-ho.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
16 Hankyoreh: S.K. has singular role in resolving N.K. issue - presidential aide
Every country has its role, including the North, advisor says
Song Min-soon, top presidential security advisor, said on
September 18 that "there is a role only South Korea can take" in
resolving the North Korea nuclear issue.
"While it is difficult to reveal details, an operation is
currently underway" based on South KoreaˇŻs unique role, Song
told an MBC radio program.
On September 20, Chun Young-woo, South KoreaˇŻs top negotiator
to the next round of six-party talks to resolve the North Korea
nuclear issue, will leave for New York to discuss details of the
ˇ®joint comprehensive approachˇŻ with his U.S. counterpart
Christopher Hill. After this, South Korea, the U.S., and Japan
plan to meet for a consultation.
"From one point of view, a [joint comprehensive approach] should
be effected. From the other point of view, however, it is our
work to include certain possible things and exclude impossible
ones," Song said.
"Let me compare the process with building a house. Now, the
frame is completed and the process is underway to decide how
many rooms there will be," Song said.
Asked whether the approach includes a measure to coax North
Korea back to the six-nation talks, Song said, "Instead of
trying to coax North Korea, there are jobs that North Korea
should do. In addition, there are jobs that we, the U.S., and
other nations should do."
Related to a remark by North KoreaˇŻs No. 2 man Kim Young-nam
that North Korea will not return to the six-way talks if the
U.S. maintains its sanctions against the North, Song said,
"ItˇŻs [just] a remark that has been said. This kind of matter
isnˇŻt negotiated publicly, and public remarks and real work are
not necessarily the same thing."
Song ruled out the possibility of the U.S. lifting its sanctions
on Banco Delta Asia. "There are several steps involved in
thawing ice. Breaking, heating...such steps encompass the
process necessary to make ice into water." Song added, "The
process wonˇŻt be carried out one-sidedly. I think a mutual
process is needed to thaw the ice," referring to the chilled
relations between North Korea and the other five nations to the
talks.
Asked whether there would be a potential deadline attached to
the ˇŻjoint comprehensive approach,ˇŻ Song said, "ThereˇŻs no
deadline, but itˇŻs better to do things as soon as possible.
Each nation is in agreement that we should not wait infinitely."
Regarding a previously planned move to send former president Kim
Dae-jung to North Korea as a special envoy, Song said the
government is not currently considering the matter, adding that
the government does not regard North KoreaˇŻs nuclear standoff
as a crisis.
Posted at : Sep.19,2006 14:54 KST Modified at :
© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
17 Korea Herald: Seoul and Washington at odds over North Korea
Washington yesterday reaffirmed its commitment to increase
sanctions against North Korea, despite Seoul's request for a
postponement. South Korea reportedly asked Washington to defer
its plans to increase sanctions against Pyongyang over fears the
move would escalate tension and reduce the prospects of
reopening the deadlocked six-party talks.
According to a high-ranking government official in Washington,
President Roh Moo-hyun expressed this request during a meeting
with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last week. He asked
that Washington to complete its investigation of a Macau bank as
soon as possible.
Washington's year-long probe into Banco Delta Asia for
allegedly helping North Korea's illicit financial activities has
been cited by the North as the main reason for its boycott of
the six-party talks since last November.
"The South Korean government believes that such sanctions could
make it impossible for the six-party talks to resume, and
therefore asked the Bush administration to suspend them," the
source was quoted as saying.
But Washington remained resolute to adding even more sanctions.
A U.S. State Department official was quoted as telling
reporters that Washington is contemplating various methods to
implement the U.N. resolution adopted in response to North
Korea's missile launches in July. The official did not clarify
when Washington would release the blueprint for sanctions.
Welcoming Japan's augmented sanctions against the North, the
official added that resurrecting the sanctions that were lifted
back in 1994 could be one of the options.
He added that although Washington was aware of Seoul's concerns
towards further sanctions, it was a consequence brought on by
North Korea itself.
Washington, also, had no desire to meddle in the ongoing
investigation into North Korea's financial accounts in Banco
Delta Asia, the official was quoted as saying.
Washington's harsh measures put extra pressure on South Korea,
which is currently preparing for upcoming talks with the United
States to prepare "comprehensive and joint" measures towards
solving problems with the North.
A tripartite meeting of the top nuclear negotiators from the
United States, South Korea and Japan will also be held sometime
next week, South Korean Ambassador to Washington Lee Tae-sik
confirmed on Monday.
Additional confusion was created back in Seoul when Cheong Wa
Dae denied comments made by the high-ranking official in
Washington.
Cheong Wa Dae spokesman Yoon Tai-young flatly denied that
President Roh made any such comments regarding the BDA probe
during his Washington trip.
But it is the South Korean government's official position that
U.S. sanctions on North Korea should be examined in a way that
could help solve the North's nuclear weapons and missile
problems, Yoon explained.
Song Min-soon, the president's chief adviser for national
security, later said that the president asked for more details
on Washington's BDA probe but not necessarily with an intention
to demand an early conclusion.
Suh Choo-suk, senior secretary for national security, said it
remains to be seen how much and what actions the United States
will take to increase its squeeze on the North.
"It is hard to say for sure that there will be no additional
sanctions against North Korea by each country until the
comprehensive approach plan is scripted," Suh said in an
interview with KBS radio.
During the summit between Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and George W.
Bush last week, the two countries confirmed they will implement
"comprehensive and joint" measures to bring North Korea back to
the negotiations.
It was considered one of the last opportunities for South Korea
to take the lead in solving the nuclear crisis peacefully and
diplomatically.
Hawkish Washington in the meantime remains focused on U.N.
resolution 1695, which requires all member states to take
measures against transference of missiles, materials, goods and
technology related to N.K. weapons of mass destruction programs.
It would also include any financial resources in relation to
North Korea's missile or WMD programs.
As part of the move, the United States is likely to reapply the
alleviated sanctions concerning civil-level transactions between
American and North Korean businesses.
In 2000, Washington lifted the ban against Americans investing
in or dealing with North Korean businesses following the
U.S.-N.K. agreement of a missile moratorium.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2006.09.20
*****************************************************************
18 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [OUTLOOK]Roh must stop acting recklessly
September 20, 2006 KST 13:25 (GMT+9)
President Roh Moo-hyun shows unique confidence when it comes
to relations with the United States. Many worry about the ties
between the two countries, but President Roh said with
confidence that it is clear there is no problem when he meets
with President George W. Bush. Right before the recent summit
meeting, President Roh said the situation would calm down after
he met with President Bush.
As President Bush used the rhetoric, "Nothing is changed for
the Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Agreement," and, "Peaceful
resolutions for North Korea's nuclear problems were confirmed,"
the ruling party welcomed it with enthusiasm saying, "These blew
off some people's worries and insecurity." Some judged that
President Bush had defended and sided with President Roh and
that those who opposed the planned handover of wartime
operational command, including former defense ministers, retired
generals, senior diplomats and intellectuals, had lost their
foothold. Now will Korea calm down?
The recent summit meeting of the two leaders was utterly
abnormal in terms of its form and content. Some even said it
attracted no interest in the United States and was only for
South Korea. The leaders of an alliance met at a crucial time
but no joint statement was made. If there is nothing that the
two leaders promise officially, the alliance cannot be a healthy
one.
After the meeting, a new type of press event called "press
availability" was held, instead of a joint press conference.
This is also not a normal practice of an alliance. How should
one consider the current alliance when President Roh's visit to
Washington, which will probably be his last, failed miserably to
attract attention in the United States?
A "broad common approach" to North Korea is considered the best
achievement of the recent summit by the government, but the
United States did not even mention that expression itself, let
alone the content or meaning of it. The United States seems to
understand this as South Korea's tactic to give fancy packaging
to its suggestions in order to slow down the process of applying
sanctions against North Korea.
The handover of wartime control of South Korea's military is a
military issue. It was President Roh who made it a political
issue by relating it to military sovereignty and self-reliance.
If the Korean government thinks that President Bush's remark
that the issue should not be transformed into a political issue
as an achievement of the summit, that is to cut off one's nose
to spite one's face.
We are in desperate need of the United States until North
Korea's threats are resolved or our military competence
increases so that we can defend ourselves. That is the reality
of our national security. But the South Korean government wants
to take wartime control and there is nothing to lose for the
United States. The United States can have strategic flexibility
while having close relations with Japan, reducing risks and
budgets for U.S. troops in Korea, sell ing weapons and calming
down anti-American sentiments among South Koreans through this
move.
An alliance is a political activity for coexistence and the
development of allies. Sometimes a country needs to sacrifice
some of its sovereignty for the sake of the interests of an
alliance. By crying out for self-reliance and sovereignty,
something even more important and valuable will be lost.
When working-level officials cannot reach agreement, leaders of
countries have a summit meeting in order to resolve their
problems based on mutual trust and a vision for the future.
Different ideas on the resolution of the North Korean nuclear
problem, the adjustment of the alliance, North Korea's human
rights violations and the pursuit of a free trade agreement with
Washington are entwined, causing complex conflicts among
different interests inside the country. These issues cannot be
approached separately. A blueprint of the 21st-century
Korea-U.S. alliance that balances and encompasses these issues
should be presented. When President Bush hid differences of
opinion and exaggerated the strong alliance, we should
understand that he probably did so because he was conscious
about other members of the six-party talks, particularly about
misjudgment by North Korea, which would welcome a crack in the
South Korea-U.S. alliance.
It is a good thing for President Roh to believe that the
Korea-U.S. alliance remains strong. But confidence that stems
from baseless assumptions and arrogance will likely make him
isolated as a person who shouts for self-reliance, or like the
emperor who had no clothes. The president should stop driving
recklessly in regard to foreign affairs and national security,
and take matters into account for the entire nation during his
remaining term and become humble in the face of history.
* The writer is a senior columnist of the JoongAng Ilbo.
by Byun Sang-keun
2006.09.19
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc.
*****************************************************************
19 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [EDITORIALS]Real facts need to come out
September 20, 2006 KST 13:25 (GMT+9)
Regarding the results of the recent summit meeting between
Seoul and Washington, strange things are happening. On the same
issue, the explanations given by both sides are exactly the
opposite.
Even between the Foreign Ministry and the Blue House, the
explanations given have different colors.
First, there is the issue of what sort of discussions took place
between the two sides in regard to sanctions against the North.
A senior official with the South Korean Embassy in Washington
said President Roh Moo-hyun asked the U.S. treasury secretary to
conclude an investigation of the Macao-based Banco Delta Asia,
because a prolonged investigation could have a negative
influence on the six-party talks, which have been long stalled.
Nevertheless, the Blue House spokesman disputed this notion. The
spokesman said the president only said it was important that the
enforcement of U.S. law and the efforts to resume the six-party
talks were in accord with each other and that he didn't request
an end to the U.S. probe.
It's common sense that the embassy in question and the
administration at home work together before explaining the
results of a summit meeting. Nevertheless, with such common
sense absent, the Blue House has come out disputing the words of
a senior official from the embassy, which was at the center of a
working-level summit meeting. How can one call such a government
a "reliable government" when it seems so confused?
Following the summit meeting, Song Min-soon, the Blue House's
chief advisor on security consultations, said the two sides had
agreed on a "broad common approach" to revive the six-party
talks. He made it look like it was a grand achievement.
Nevertheless, a senior U.S. official said Seoul had come up
with the wording of those efforts to resume the nuclear talks
and that it was not important to focus on the words themselves.
The official said it was instead important to come up with a
measure that could have real effects.
This proves clearly that the two leaders didn't agree on the
wording of the measure and that Washington does not agree that a
vague method should resolve an issue.
It's the first duty of a public official to make known the real
facts of a South Korea-U.S summit meeting, which is at the
center of the people's attention.
Thus, it is only then when the people can make their own
judgments. Stop trying to solve issues with shortcuts.
The people are not that dumb.
2006.09.19
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
20 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Australia, Japan roll out curbs on Pyongyang
September 20, 2006 KST 13:25 (GMT+9)
September 20, 2006 ¤Ń Japan and Australia yesterday announced
new sanctions against North Korea in another sign of increased
financial pressure on the communist state, which has declared it
possesses nuclear arms.
The announced purpose of the sanctions was to push Pyongyang
back to six-party talks in Beijing to disarm the country in
return for diplomatic recognition and financial aid.
In Washington, U.S. officials also signaled that additional
sanctions against the North may be in store.
In Tokyo, the cabinet approved a partial freeze on North Korean
assets in Japan, imposing restrictions on 15 North Korean
agencies or companies and one individual.
"This shows the resolve of the international community and
Japan," said Shinzo Abe, the chief cabinet secretary and
heir-apparent to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
The restrictions on financial transactions were directed, Tokyo
said, at figures related to North Korea's missile and nuclear
programs.
After North Korea test-launched a barrage of missiles in early
July, Tokyo barred the entry of a North Korean ship to its ports
for six months and forbade the entry of North Korean government
officials into Japan.
Australia, one of the few Western countries that had diplomatic
relations with North Korea, acted the same day, imposing similar
bans on financial transactions by people and companies it said
were involved in North Korean arms programs.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told the press, "This
supports and complements similar action taken by Japan today and
previous actions taken by the United States, and sends a strong
message to North Korea."
In Washington, a State Department official told Korean
journalists in a background briefing that the United States
might reimpose sanctions lifted after an accord in 1994, which
temporarily reduced tensions over the North's nuclear programs.
He said a proposal to restore the sanctions existing before 1994
was being studied. The relaxation was modest; U.S. companies
were allowed to offer telephone service to North Korea and
import some raw materials.
In Seoul, Song Min-soon, the Blue House senior security
advisor, reacted cautiously to the announcements, saying it
would be "inappropriate" to comment on sanctions imposed by
other governments. He said the matter was one for capitals to
decide, based on a United Nations Security Council resolution
critical of North Korea's missile and nuclear programs and those
nations' own laws.
Separately, Beijing rebuffed a U.S. invitation to a meeting
Thursday of financial ministers in New York to discuss North
Korea.
by Ser Myo-ja, Lee Sang-il myoja@joongang.co.kr>
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
21 BBC: New sanctions target North Korea
Last Updated: Tuesday, 19 September 2006
[Poster denouncing North Korean leader Kim Jong-il -
North Korea's missile tests led to angry denunciations in Asia
Japan and Australia have announced new financial sanctions
against North Korea, stepping up pressure on the secretive state
over missile tests.
The sanctions will freeze the transfer of money to North Korea
by groups suspected of having links to its nuclear or missile
programmes.
The move, which follows similar action by the US, comes after
Pyongyang launched several missiles in July.
South Korea has urged other countries not to push the North into
a corner.
The South is worried that the North may retaliate by carrying
out a nuclear test, which would destroy any remaining hope of a
diplomatic solution to the stand-off.
Japanese government spokesman Shinzo Abe said the new sanctions
were in line with a United Nations resolution which denounced
the missile tests.
The Japanese measures affect 15 groups and one individual, and
will come into effect later on Tuesday, according to Japanese
media.
The Australian measures applied to 12 companies and one person,
according to Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who said the
sanctions were "consistent with our strong international stand
against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
Media reports said the two lists were almost identical.
Tough stance
North Korea's decision to test-fire seven missiles in July -
including a long-range Taepodong-2 which is believed to be
capable of reaching Alaska - angered the international
community.
[Shinzo Abe - 19/9/06]
Japan called on North Korea to accept the UN resolution
A UN resolution demanded that North Korea suspend its ballistic
missile programme, and barred all UN member states from
supplying North Korea with material related to missiles or
weapons of mass destruction.
In the immediate aftermath, Japan imposed limited sanctions,
including a decision to ban a North Korean trade ferry from
Japanese ports and a moratorium on charter flights from
Pyongyang.
The new measures also called for closer scrutiny of those
wanting to send money or transfer financial assets to North
Korea.
"By taking these measures, we have demonstrated the resolve of
the international community and Japan," said Chief Cabinet
Secretary Shinzo Abe.
"I do not know how North Korea will respond, but I hope North
Korea will accept the UN Security Council resolution in a
sincere manner."
The BBC correspondent in Tokyo, Chris Hogg, says there is still
some doubt about how effective these sanctions will be.
Although Japan looks to be clamping down on North Korea, other
countries that exert a strong influence on the country - notably
China and South Korea - are reluctant to impose similar
measures.
Following the Japanese announcement, China restated its
opposition to sanctions and called for further dialogue.
Nuclear fears
In addition to fears over North Korea's missile programmes, the
international community is also worried about its nuclear
intentions.
The United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea have
repeatedly tried to persuade the North to abandon its nuclear
programme.
But the so-called six-party talks have been on hold since
November 2005, because North Korea refuses to attend until
Washington lifted economic restrictions against it.
Exactly a year ago, North Korea agreed in principle to give up
its nuclear weapons programme in return for economic help and
security guarantees.
The move was greeted by surprise and relief, but a joint
statement issued at the time failed to bridge the wide gulf
between North Korea and the US. One year on, the North remains
as isolated as ever.
The region remains on alert in case Pyongyang decides to follow
up on the July ballistic missile tests with a nuclear test.
Analysts say the North has enough plutonium for several bombs,
but has yet to prove it can build a reliable weapon.
*****************************************************************
22 AFP: Japan, Australia slap fresh sanctions on N.Korea -
by Harumi Ozawa Tue Sep 19, 8:12 AM ET
TOKYO (AFP) - Japan and Australia have slapped financial
sanctions on North Korea" /> North Koreain the first fresh
measures against the communist state since the UN Security
Council demanded action over its July missile tests.
The two US allies blacklisted companies and an individual for
alleged links to weapons programs in North Korea, which says it
has a nuclear bomb and may be preparing to test one.
In Japan, the sanctions were announced by Chief Cabinet
Secretary Shinzo Abe, a sworn hawk on North Korea who is all but
certain to win a vote Wednesday to replace Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi.
"The government wants to use this occasion to call again on
North Korea to respect the UN Security Council resolution, to
stop missile-related activities, confirm its moratorium on
missile launches and to return unconditionally to the six-way
talks," Abe told a news conference.
North Korea -- which fired a missile over Japan in 1998 -- has
boycotted the six-nation talks on ending its nuclear drive since
November to protest separate US financial sanctions on a
Pyongyang-linked bank.
The Security Council on July 15 called for nations to impose
sanctions on North Korea's missile program in response to its
test-firing of seven missiles in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) 10
days earlier.
The resolution, backed by Japan and the United States, was
watered down to target only missiles, not the North Korean
economy as a whole, to meet concerns by veto-wielding Russia and
China, the North's main ally.
In response to the missile tests, Japan has already banned a
ferry which was the key link for North Koreans living in Japan,
along with visits by North Korean diplomats and charter flights.
Under the latest sanctions, financial institutions will be
required to report suspicious behavior and stop transactions
involving 15 companies and one individual.
But Abe, contradicting earlier news reports, said it would not
affect the thousands of ordinary North Koreans who work in
Asia's largest economy.
"The bodies and individuals listed are related to weapons of
mass destruction and missile programs," Abe said. "People who
are not related to those programs are not included."
A ruling party study in 2005 estimated that North Koreans in
Japan send back 1.2 billion dollars a year, providing crucial
economic support for the cash-strapped country.
Australia, which has frequently served as an intermediary on
North Korea but recalled its envoy over the missile tests, also
imposed sanctions on Tuesday.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the move was "consistent
with our strong international stand against the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction."
"This supports and complements similar action taken by Japan
today and previous actions taken by the United States, and sends
a strong message to North Korea," Downer said in a statement.
Unlike Australia, Japan has no diplomatic relations with North
Korea. Koizumi flew to Pyongyang twice on high-stakes diplomatic
bids but failed at his goal of normalizing ties.
Abe, 51, has broken with Koizumi on North Korean policy. He rose
to public prominence criticizing North Korea for its abductions
of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 1980s to train its spies.
In an interview aired late Monday with Nippon Television, Abe
said he would consider setting a cabinet-level minister to
handle the emotionally charged row.
Pyongyang has returned five of the victims, but Japan insists
that more are alive and being kept under wraps.
Abe angered neighboring countries in July by suggesting a
theoretical pre-emptive attack on North Korea in the face of an
immediate threat -- comments until recently unthinkable for a
top leader of officially pacifist Japan.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
23 AU ABC: Australia puts new sanctions on N Korea.
19/09/2006. ABC News Online
Australia has imposed new financial sanctions on North Korea
over its nuclear program.
The sanctions affect a number of companies and an individual
connected with financing the country's nuclear ambitions.
In a statement, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says
Australia will remain vigilant on the issue and impose further
sanctions on others if necessary.
Japan has also announced plans to impose similar restrictions.
Among those affected by the sanctions from Japan are North
Korean trading companies and a commercial bank.
Fifteen groups and one individual will require government
approval to withdraw money from their bank accounts.
Japan's Government says the measures are targeted at increasing
pressure on North Korea to return to negotiations on its nuclear
program.
*****************************************************************
24 AFP: US urges others to follow Australian, Japanese sanctions on NKorea -
by P. Parameswaran Tue Sep 19, 4:21 PM ET
NEW YORK (AFP) - The United States urged other nations to join
Australia and Japan in slapping new sanctions on North Korea" />
North Korea, but China rebuffed its bid to expand a diplomatic
posse confronting Pyongyang.
The US allies earlier blacklisted companies and an individual
for alleged links to weapons programs in North Korea, in line
with a UN Security Council resolution passed in July after
Pyongyang test-fired seven missiles in the Sea of Japan (East
Sea).
But Beijing delivered a blow to the US strategy on the Stalinist
state, saying it did not plan to attend 10-nation talks on North
Korea's nuclear program this week in New York, and reiterated
its opposition to sanctions against Pyongyang.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the new sanctions
would help "protect the Japanese and Australian financial
systems from exploitation by WMD (weapons of mass destruction)
and missile proliferators and their facilitators."
"We strongly encourage other states to undertake similar
actions" as a way to implement the UN resolution, he said.
The United States is leading an effort to hold a 10-nation
ministerial meeting Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General
Assembly on the Korean nuclear crisis, but China said Tuesday it
would not show up.
"China has no plan to attend such a meeting," foreign ministry
spokesman Qin Gang earlier told reporters.
McCormack had said Monday that China's participation at the
meeting of foreign ministers would "send an important signal to
the North Koreans."
Analysts in Washington said the Chinese move signalled
reluctance to expand, current six-party talks on North Korea.
The Chinese leadership has used its stewardship of the forum to
exert diplomatic leverage on Washington.
"I think many of the experts and officials in Asia, are
frustrated that the diplomatic efforts with North Korea have not
produced results," said John Wolfstahl an analyst at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies.
"China's perception is that the lack of progress is not a result
of too few countries involved," he said.
"I think China's reluctance to engage in a new diplomatic
initiative reflects its frustration with the US approach to
North Korea."
Washington has refused to hold one-on-one talks with Pyongyang,
but has engaged the Stalinist regime in the context of the
six-party format.
In July, Washington expanded the moribund six-party diplomatic
effort to include Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and New
Zealand, creating the five-plus-five forum.
Qin also criticised the new sanctions by Japan and Australia.
"The Chinese government has always advocated that this issue
should be resolved by dialogue and we are opposed to sanctions,"
he said.
"All parties concerned should focus on how to resume the talks
as soon as possible and avoid any actions that may further
complicate the situation."
The United States had imposed financial sanctions on North Korea
even before the missile tests in retaliation for alleged US
dollar counterfeiting and money laundering by Pyongyang.
The US sanctions on a Macau-based bank accused of laundering and
counterfeiting money for the North led to a boycott by Pyongyang
of the six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons
drive.
Aside from the United States and North Korea, other participants
at the nuclear talks were China, Japan, Russia and South Korea"
/> South Korea.
The five parties had offered economic and diplomatic incentives
to North Korea in exchange for giving up its drive to develop
nuclear weapons.
To date, the United States has designated 12 entities and one
individual "for contributing to proliferation or providing
support for proliferators associated with North Korean WMD and
missile programs," McCormack said.
"The US currently is reviewing additional steps the US may need
to take to comply fully with Resolution 1695," he said.
Last year, North Korea said it had nuclear weapons and has
hinted that it may be preparing to test one.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
y
*****************************************************************
25 Guardian Unlimited: Japan, Australia Sanction North Korea
Tuesday September 19, 2006 9:31 PM
AP Photo TOK102
By HIROKO TABUCHI
Associated Press Writer
TOKYO (AP) - Japan and Australia on Tuesday slapped fresh
economic sanctions on North Korea, triggering protests from
China that the move would worsen the standoff over Pyongyang's
weapons programs.
The sanctions, which comply with a U.N. Security Council
resolution that denounced North Korea's test firing of
long-range missiles in July, ban fund transfers and remittances
to 11 Pyongyang-based trading companies accused of bankrolling
the country's weapons arsenal.
A North Korean bank and hospital, as well as Swiss company Kohas
AG and its president, Jakob Steiger, were also affected by the
restrictions, which took effect immediately.
``We have repeatedly used dialogue and pressure ... to achieve a
peaceful resolution, but North Korea has not responded,''
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said late Tuesday.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said earlier in the
day that the sanctions were consistent with his country's
``strong international stand against the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.''
The Russian news agency ITAR-Tass quoted an unidentified North
Korean diplomat as saying the Pyongyang regime was ``indignant
about the new sanctions ... all these moves by Tokyo, as well as
by Washington, are absolutely unjust, aimed at strangling our
republic.''
The coordinated effort is meant to pressure North Korea to
return to six-nation talks on its nuclear arms program, which
have stalled since November 2005. At the talks, the U.S., China,
Japan, Russia and South Korea have tried to persuade the North
to abandon its nuclear program.
But China said the new sanctions would escalate, rather than
defuse, the standoff.
``The six-party talks are facing a stalemate because of the
financial sanctions issue,'' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman
Qin Gang said, calling the situation on the divided Korean
Peninsula ``sensitive and complicated.''
Beijing's protest highlights deep divisions in the region on how
to deal with North Korea.
Japan and the U.S. prefer pressure as a means of getting North
Korea to return to the negotiating table and give up its nuclear
ambitions.
Washington has already imposed sanctions on North Korean
companies accused of money laundering, while Japan spearheaded
efforts to get the Security Council to adopt a more harshly
worded resolution after North Korea's missile tests.
The U.S. government welcomed the new sanctions Tuesday, and
encouraged other states to take similar actions under the U.N.
resolution.
South Korea offered only a muted comment. ``We understand that
(the two countries) made the decisions after reviewing domestic
and international laws in accordance with the U.N. Security
Council resolution,'' Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Choo
Kyu-ho said in Seoul.
The American and South Korean chief nuclear negotiators were to
meet in New York later this week to formulate a joint approach
on North Korea.
The new sanctions target a range of Pyongyang-based trading
companies that specialize in high-tech equipment, manufacturing
and mining, including Korea Kwangsong Trading Corp., Korea
Complex Equipment Import Corp. and Korea Mining Development
Trading Corp.
Swiss authorities on Tuesday rejected accusations that Kohas, an
industrial supply wholesale company, helped North Korea develop
weapons of mass destruction.
``Federal authorities are regularly in contact with this firm
and have yet to find any evidence that the company violated
Swiss exporting rules,'' said Othmar Wyss, an official
responsible for export control and sanctions at the Swiss
Economics Ministry.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pushes Democracy in U.N. Speech
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 11:31 PM
AP Photo NYRD114
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - President Bush sought to blunt
anti-Americanism across the Middle East Tuesday, asserting that
extremists are trying to justify their violence by falsely
claiming the U.S. is waging war on Islam. He singled out Iran
and Syria as sponsors of terrorism.
Bush, in an address to world leaders at the U.N. General
Assembly, tried to advance his campaign for democracy in the
Middle East against a backdrop of turmoil in Iraq, Afghanistan
and other nations that have embraced the very changes he seeks
for the region.
Solidly aligned with Israel, the United States is viewed with
anger and suspicion by Muslims across the Middle East.
Addressing that hostility, Bush said, ``My country desires
peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that
the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is
false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of
terror. We respect Islam.''
Bush's address was the latest in a series of speeches on the war
on terror, linked to last week's fifth anniversary of the Sept.
11 attacks and aimed at setting the tone for the final weeks of
U.S. elections that will determine control of Congress.
Bush said past stability in the Middle East has been achieved at
the expense of freedom, and he disputed critics who claim his
push for democracy has destabilized the region.
``The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the
Middle East was a mirage,'' Bush told the more than 80 prime
ministers and presidents assembled in the cavernous hall of the
U.N. headquarters.
``For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been
trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions
left a generation disillusioned and made this region a breeding
ground for extremism.''
While praising Bush's freedom refrain, Madeleine Albright,
secretary of state under President Clinton, said in an interview
that the U.S.-led war in Iraq, not democratic reform, has
destabilized the Middle East.
Albright said the Bush administration has not carried out its
democratic initiative with uniformity. It denounces autocratic
nations that are unfriendly toward the United States, then casts
a blind eye to autocratic nations that are allies, she said. She
mentioned Kazakhstan, whose leader will be honored at the White
House Sept. 29, and Egypt.
On the sidelines of the meeting, Bush firmly denounced Iran for
defying U.N. Security Council demands to freeze its uranium
enrichment work and engage in talks to resolve the standoff over
its nuclear weapons ambitions.
``Should they continue to stall, we will then discuss the
consequences of their stalling,'' Bush said in an apparent
reference to possible U.N. sanctions.
In his speech, Bush spoke directly to the people of Iran, not
the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who did not
attend the address. Bush said America respects Islam, the
Iranian nation's rich history and culture and that he looks to a
day when the two peoples ``can be good friends and close
partners in the cause of peace.'' That's very different from
2002 when Bush said Iran was part of an ``axis of evil.''
Bush made spreading democracy across the Middle East a
cornerstone of his foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks. ``When people have a voice in their future, they are
less likely to blow themselves up in suicide attacks,'' he said
Tuesday.
He recited a list of nations where he said the seeds of
democracy are taking root:
-The United Arab Emirates recently announced that half the seats
in its Federal National Council will be chosen through
elections.
-For the first time, women have been allowed to vote and run for
office in Kuwait.
-Citizens have voted in municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, in
parliamentary elections in Jordan and Bahrain, and in multiparty
presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt.
Bush praised Lebanon for driving out Syria - a nation the
president said is a ``crossroad for terrorism.'' Lebanon's
fragile, democratic government, however, has proved too weak, so
far, to check the Islamic militant group Hezbollah, which
attacked neighboring Israel with rockets.
He championed the toppling of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein
and the new democratic government in Baghdad. Yet democracy
there is being threatened by bloody sectarian violence in the
four-year-old war that is becoming increasingly unpopular at the
U.S. as well as abroad. About a dozen demonstrators outside the
United Nations chanted ``Bush is a criminal. No war on Iraq,''
but inside the world leaders gave Bush a polite reception.
Bush also trumpeted democratic change in Afghanistan. But five
years after the U.S.-led invasion ousted the Taliban from
political power, the militant Islamic group is proving a
resilient enemy for NATO forces in the south, and Afghan
President Hamid Karzai has little control outside Kabul.
In some cases, democratic change in the Middle East has not
seemed to be in the U.S. interest.
In free elections in March, the Palestinian people voted the
Islamic militant group Hamas into power. The United States lists
Hamas as a terrorist group, and has been working to support
Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Palestinian president who meets with
Bush on Wednesday.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
27 Guardian Unlimited: Bush to Engage Skeptical U.N. on Mideast
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 12:46 PM
AP Photo NYGH104
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - President Bush is trying to persuade skeptical
world leaders to embrace his vision for the Middle East in a
speech before the United Nations on Tuesday where he is calling
on the world to ``stand up for peace'' in the face of violent
extremism.
Bush's challenge is to build international support to confront
multiple problems in the region: unabated violence in Iraq, a
stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, armed Hezbollah
militants in Lebanon and Iran defiantly pursuing its nuclear
program.
The Iranian issue was at the top of the agenda for Bush's
morning meeting with French President Jacques Chirac, who is
balking at the U.S. drive to sanction Iran for defying U.N.
Security Council demands that it freeze uranium enrichment.
Chirac proposed on Monday that the international community
compromise by suspending the threat of sanctions if Tehran
agrees to halt its uranium enrichment program and return to
negotiations. The U.S. and other countries fear Iran is trying
to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its uranium
enrichment program is to make fuel for nuclear power plants.
Besides Chirac, Bush also was meeting with Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and General Assembly
President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa.
Bush's speech was the last in a series on the war on terror,
timed to surround last week's fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11
attacks and to set the tone for the final weeks of the U.S.
midterm elections.
Bush was allotted 15 minutes for his annual address to the
general assembly, and White House aides said he planned to use
the time to call on the world to support moderate governments
and help build up weak democracies in Iraq and Lebanon, as wells
as the Palestinian Authority.
With remarks aimed especially at people living in the Middle
East, Bush was drawing a distinction between the moderate
governments that want peace and extremists who want to spread
terror and violence.
He was describing his vision for moderates to choose the future
instead of the extremists, pointing out that the same principles
are in the U.N. charter and its declaration of human rights,
aides said.
He planned to describe how every nation in the civilized world
has a stake in the region, but especially the Muslim countries.
``The world must stand up for peace,'' Bush said in remarks
prepared for delivery.
Bush also planned to address the issue of Sudan, where three
years of fighting in the African nation's Darfur region has
killed more than 200,000 people. The president was scheduled to
announce that Andrew Natsios, the former head of the U.S. Agency
for International Development, will become Bush's special envoy
for Sudan to help end the fighting.
Bush was speaking in the same cavernous room where four years
and one week ago he made another plea for action in the Middle
East. On that day, Bush said Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of
deadly chemical and biological agents that the United Nations
must confront.
He was wrong, but still forged ahead with war against Iraq
without the support of many other nations. And he is still
trying to rebuild credibility with the body, experts say.
``The sense outside of the U.S. is that the United States is
responsible for many of the failures in Iraq, first by going in
mostly alone and then by incompetent administration,'' said Jon
Alterman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington.
``The problem with the way he's talked about democracy in the
Middle East is not that people see it as undesirable,'' Alterman
said, ``it's that people see it as naive. He needs to persuade
cynical people that not only is he sincere, but it's achievable,
and here's what they need to do to make it so.''
Interviewed on ABC's ``Good Morning America'' Tuesday, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice was asked about increasing indications
of hostility toward the United States and the Bush
administration in other parts of the world.
``We've had to do some difficult things,'' she replied. ``We've
had to make clear that the war on terrorism has to be fought,
has to be fought on the offense.''
``While people may not always agree with our policy, they love
the United States,'' Rice said. ``This is still a beacon of hope
for the world.''
---
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
28 CSM: US to cut funds for two renewable energy sources |
csmonitor.com
from the September 15, 2006 edition
Geothermal and hydropower are mature enough for private
enterprise to take the lead, the government says.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Out at the Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River, a new turbine is
being tested that generates more electricity, but won't kill so
many fish - thanks to research dollars from Uncle Sam.
Down in California's Long Valley, on the Sierra Nevada range,
federal researchers are working to boost efficiency of
geothermal energy, which uses the earth's natural heat to
generate power.
ENTREPRENEUR: Philippe Vauthier is disappointed by a US
decision to cut hydropower research funds. He stands before his
'underwater electrical kite' in Edgewater, Md.
ANDY NELSON - STAFF
But renewable energy advocates may have to kiss goodbye those
and other research projects. The US Department of Energy (DOE)
is quitting the hydropower and geothermal power research
business - if Congress will let it.
Declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further
funding, the Bush administration in its FY 2007 budget request
eliminates hydropower and geothermal research, venerable
programs with roots in the energy crises of the 1970s.
"What we do well is research and funding of new, novel
technologies," says Craig Stevens, chief spokesman for the DOE.
"From a policy perspective, geothermal and hydro are mature
technologies. We believe the market can take the lead on this at
this point."
Still, "zeroing out" such research could end up being a
penny-wise, pound-foolish move, some energy advocates say. Any
savings from the cuts would be nil since all of the nearly $24
million ($1 million from hydropower and $23 million from
geothermal) research funding would go to other programs such as
biofuels.
"I'm just astonished the department would zero out these very
small existing budgets for geothermal and hydro - it makes no
sense at all," says V. John White, executive director of the
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, an
environmental group based in Sacramento, Calif. "These are very
important resources for our energy future that could replace the
need for a lot of coal-fired power plants."
Indeed, the costs of lost opportunities from dropping such
research could be enormous in the long run, recent federal
studies suggest.
Geothermal is a case in point. Its power plants need water,
heat, and permeable rocks no deeper than about three miles
beneath the surface to generate affordable electricity, says
Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy
Association, a Washington trade group.
Today more than 60 geothermal plants with the capacity of about
three big coal-fired power plants produce less than 1 percent of
the nation's electricity.
Yet geothermal holds vast potential - at least 30,000 megawatts
of identified resources developable by 2050 and more
unidentified resources, much of it in Western states, the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory reported in May.
Research aims at new technologies that can use underground zones
with good heat but little water and those with lower temperature
rocks deeper in the earth.
"The idea that geothermal is a mature technology that doesn't
need further research doesn't even pass the laugh test," says
Mr. Gawell. "What they're saying is that if your program doesn't
have to do with biofuels, wind, or solar, you won't have a
program."
Meanwhile, the more than 5,400 potential "small hydro" power
projects could produce about 20,000 megawatts of power, a DOE
study in January found. And most would require no new dams at
all, shunting a portion of a small river's flow to one side to
make electricity. Others would add turbines to dams that don't
have them yet.
Together, high-tech hydropower and geothermal resources could
contribute at least enough power to replace more than 100
medium-size coal-fired power plants with emissions-free
electricity - about the number now on the drawing board.
There have been moves in the Senate to restore DOE funding for
geothermal, but far less support in the House, leaving
uncertainty about the outcome, Gawell says. For hydropower,
matters are worse. Though $4 million in funding has been
proposed in the Senate, nothing has emerged from the House,
observers say.
"There's this view that hydropower is a technology that's been
around a long time, and there's not much more we can do to
improve it - but we've got the next generation of hydropower -
ocean, tidal, wave and conduit energy coming on," says Linda
Church Ciocci, executive director of the National Hydropower
Association, a Washington trade group.
Even those focused on environmental damage from dams worry about
lost funding. "We'd like to see federal funding continue for new
research on hydrokinetic systems and damless hydro," says Robbin
Marks, director of the hydropower reform campaign at American
Rivers, a Washington environmental group. "We're interested in
understanding more about the environmental impact of those
systems."
Power from tidal flows, waves, and irrigation canals are
expanding the definition of hydropower - none of which are
likely to get DOE research funding if the hydropower budget gets
whacked, some observers say.
Others remain skeptical. "I find myself agreeing with the DOE
argument that hydropower is a mature technology," says Jerry
Taylor, the Cato Institute's director of Natural Resource
Studies. "If there's economic merit to this area, then venture
capitalists will put their money into it."
But that kind of waiting game would be a shame, says Trey
Taylor, cofounder and president of Verdant Power in Arlington,
Va. Two weeks ago his company received venture capital funding
for its program. Next month, Verdant will deploy its first two
underwater turbines in New York City's East River, the first
step in an experimental technology that attempts to harness the
tidal currents to create power.
But more firms would be competing to get into tidal power today
- if the government shouldered more of the environmental
research costs, Mr. Taylor says.
The current high cost of researching areas such as a
technology's environmental impact makes it likely that a company
will fail. He and his partners remortgaged their homes and
begged friends for funds.
"I can understand the tight situation DOE is in," he says. "But
what they're not seeing is that a whole new breed of technology
has come on right now. The push for sustainable power is sweeping
the globe."
USA Stories:for 09/20/2006
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
29 UPI: Analysis: A second U.S.-Pakistan wedding?:
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence -
9/19/2006 10:10:00 AM -0400
By NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV Editor of The National Interest
NEWYORK, N.Y., Sept. 19 (UPI) -- Pakistan's President Pervez
Musharraf gave a command performance yesterday at a small group
discussion hosted in New York by Time Warner and co-sponsored by
The Nixon Center, making a forceful case for stronger ties -- a
"long-term, broad-based, strategic relationship" between
Islamabad and Washington.
Over the last 57 years, he said, U.S.-Pakistan relations have
gone through three eras; the first (1947-1989) was a joint
effort to stem communist expansionism, when Pakistan was the
"most allied ally"; the second, in the wake of the Soviet
withdrawal from Afghanistan, saw the most allied ally become the
"most sanctioned" while Pakistan was left with the detritus of
the Afghan war -- 4 million refugees and an unstable western
neighbor -- which led to the emergence both of the Taliban and
al-Qaida. Since 9/11, a new relationship has emerged, defined by
strong government-to-government interaction but characterized by
a certain degree of suspicion among both peoples.
During his visit, the president clearly wants to tackle some of
what he sees as the "misperceptions" about Pakistan that have
hampered closer ties -- and, not coincidentally, have created a
climate for not only a rapprochement but a growing partnership
between the United States and India -- which in turn has
strained support among the Pakistani people for closer
cooperation with the United States.
The perception that Pakistan is part of the problem of
international terrorism -- something compounded in recent weeks
by what was characterized as inaccurate reporting in the Western
media about the arrangements brokered in Waziristan -- comes
from a lack of understanding about Pakistan's strategy for
coping with the threat posed by al-Qaida and the Taliban. The
strategy is to try and wean away as many people as possible from
the violent and terrorist organizations -- even those who may
hold extreme viewpoints but who could be persuaded not to
support al-Qaida and not to support violence in either Pakistan
or Afghanistan. He felt that the assumption that religiosity
automatically connotes a Taliban supporter to be a mistaken one,
and one which could lead to mistakes in implementing an
effective response. He stressed at several points that success
means understanding "the environment" in which these movements
have flourished and that, like it or not, the Taliban has had
its roots among the people.
The Pakistani strategy combines a judicious use of military
force against the "center of gravity" of the Taliban--in its
core areas in Afghanistan, with subsidiary operations against
other militant groupings, but requires Pakistan, in its own
tribal areas, to use other means -- political (working with
tribal elders and others), administrative (revitalizing the
civilian administration of agents and the like away from the
over-militarization of these regions) and via economic
reconstruction to provide opportunity.
The other negative perception -- that of Pakistan as
proliferation risk -- was something he addressed head-on.
Pakistan's crash program for developing nuclear weapons was
spearheaded out of the presidency during the 1990s, he said;
A.Q. Khan's operations did not involve either the government or
the military. It was justified because no one was going to stop
India from going nuclear either; but now, Pakistan, in order to
obtain greater cooperation for its civil nuclear program, would
be prepared to accept IAEA safeguards. There is no need for
Pakistan's civil nuclear program to be used for military needs,
as Pakistan "already has what it needs."
Like India and other states in the region, Pakistan faces an
energy crisis which affects its ability to sustain and increase
economic growth. Nuclear energy is a legitimate part of
increasing the energy supply, along with natural gas,
hydroelectric power and other sources; Musharraf maintained that
with appropriate controls in place, there is no rationale for
not increasing cooperation in this area as well.
The perception that India is a democracy (and thus a "natural
ally" of the United States) in contrast to Pakistan was also a
point the Pakistani president wanted to address. He made the
argument that the goal of his administration is to lay the
foundation for what he called "sustainable democracy", based on
a three-tiered system of government that empowers the average
person (as well as focusing on bringing more women and minority
groups into governing). The media, in his words, have been
"unshackled"; there are now 43 independent television channels.
Reforms in the legal and educational systems are designed to
promote Pakistan's traditional forms of moderate, progressive
Islam, although he acknowledged that since 1979, the fighting in
Afghanistan as well as the struggles in Kashmir--both of which
have helped to fuel extremism--have had an impact on "the fabric
of our own society." Finally, he noted the efforts to create a
more positive environment for investment in Pakistan, with
foreign investment up by 1,200 percent during his tenure. In
this author's opinion, there were a number of similarities with
themes sounded by Russia's Vladimir Putin -- the importance of
building institutions and promoting economic growth as necessary
building blocks for long-term democracy.
On India, the president noted progress in the bilateral
negotiations but stressed that the United States needs to put
its weight behind the process. He also pointed out that Pakistan
wants strong relations with Washington to proceed without
automatic reference to India, appearing to argue against points
raised in the United States that the U.S. relationship to
Pakistan should be conducted via the prism of the U.S.-India
partnership. Instead, he argued for the Pakistan-U.S.
relationship to return to the pre-1989 model.
Musharraf sees Pakistan as the indispensable nation if one is
serious about pursuing closer integration between the countries
of the Middle East and Persian Gulf with those of Central Asia,
South and Southeast Asia, and China. "We are not an unimportant,
insignificant country," he said. Moreover, as the president
noted, Washington no longer has the luxury of being able to
pursue a "Eurocentric" policy; the fulcrum of world affairs
increasingly is shifting to the Middle East and Asia--and
Pakistan is well positioned to again be a key ally of the United
States--if Washington is prepared to take them up on the full
extent of the offer.
(Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest. This
article is published courtesy of The National Interest.)
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
30 [NYTr] Russia: Putin Emphasizes Importance of IAEA
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:53:54 -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
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com
Russia: Putin Emphasizes Importance of IAEA
Moscow, Sep 19 (Prensa Latina) Russian President Vladimir Putin
reemphasized the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency Tuesday, as
promoter of the peaceful use of nuclear energy and non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
In his message to the IAEA General Conference in Vienna, Putin ratified
creation of international centers to recycle and enrich nuclear fuel under
IAEA supervision.
Serguei Kirienko, director of Russia's Atomic Agency, told the Voice of
Russia in Vienna that such centers could become a key element in the
world's atomic energy infrastructure.
They could guarantee fair access to nuclear energy under observance of
non-proliferation commitments, and he commented on how the IAEA has
ultimately had to resist pressure from international political forces.
Vladimir Averchev, member of the Russian Social Council for External
Defense, recognized that Mohamed El Baradei, general director of the IAEA,
has been a faithful advocate of IAEA principles and by-laws.
He recalled US efforts to evict El Baradei from office more than once for
his refusal to yield to its dictates, a firm attitude compensated with the
Nobel Peace Price.
hr/ccs/emw/jpm
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
31 UN Atomic Chief Calls For Multilateral Facility To Supply Enriched Uranium Fuel
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:00:40 -0400
UN ATOMIC CHIEF CALLS FOR MULTILATERAL FACILITY TO SUPPLY ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL
New York, Sep 19 2006 1:00PM
At a time of growing global energy demand, mounting concern over
nuclear proliferation as evidenced in Iran and the danger of nuclear
materials falling into terrorist hands, the head of the United
Nations atomic watchdog today called for conversion of enrichment
and reprocessing facilities from national to multilateral operations.
“Given the dual nature of nuclear science – its potential to bring
great benefit or great destruction to humanity – it should not
surprise us that, as times change, our frameworks for dealing with
nuclear technology and nuclear material must adapt accordingly,”
International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/index.html">IAEA)
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said on the second
day of the body’s 50th general conference in Vienna.
“Five years ago, in the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks,
we realized the vulnerability of nuclear and radiological materials
as a tool for terrorists, and we re-engineered our nuclear
security programme,” he <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n015.html">told
a Special Event on Assurances of
Supply and Non-Proliferation to discuss a new framework.
“Today we are faced with two additional challenges. The increase
in global energy demand is driving a potential expansion in the use
of nuclear energy. And concern is mounting regarding the proliferation
risks created by the ongoing spread of sensitive nuclear
technology, such as that used in uranium enrichment and nuclear
fuel reprocessing.”
Under the proposed multilateral framework, all countries that fulfil
their non-proliferation obligations would get the fuel and technology
they need without being subject to extraneous political
considerations that have applied in the past.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a charitable organization dedicated
to reducing the threats from nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons, said it would contribute $50 million to the IAEA to
help create a low-enriched uranium stockpile for nations that choose
not to build indigenous nuclear fuel cycle capabilities.
The grant, announced by NTI Co-Chairman former United States Senator
Sam Nunn, is contingent on two conditions being met in the next
two years: that the IAEA takes the necessary actions to approve
establishment of this reserve and that one or more member states
contribute $100 million or an equivalent value of low enriched
uranium.
“This generous NTI pledge will jump start the nuclear fuel bank initiative,”
Mr. ElBaradei said. “It will provide urgent impetus to
our efforts to establish mechanisms for non-discriminatory, non-political
assurances of supply of fuel for nuclear power plants.”
The question of the supply of enriched uranium has gained added significance
in the light of Iran’s nuclear programme which it insists
is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy but which but
which the United States and others say is aimed at producing nuclear
weapons.
In his address to the General Conference yesterday, Mr. ElBaradei
called on Iran to re-establish “full and sustained suspensions of
all its enrichment related and reprocessing activities.”
He said he remained “hopeful that, through the ongoing dialogue between
Iran and its European and other partners, the conditions will
be created to engage in a long overdue negotiation that aims
to achieve a comprehensive settlement that, on the one hand, would
address the international community’s concerns about the peaceful
nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, while on the other hand addressing
Iran’s economic, political and security concerns.”
Despite years of inspections after the discovery in 2003 that Iran
had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of
its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
he said the IAEA has been unable to make progress in resolving outstanding
issues on the nature of the country’s centrifuge enrichment
programme.
“The Agency cannot make any further progress in its efforts to provide
assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material
and activities in Iran,” he added. “This continues to be a matter
of serious concern.”
2006-09-19 00:00:00.000
___________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/
_______________________________
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
32 Hankyoreh: [Editorial]: S.K.'s role one year after the 9/19 statement
Editorial &Opinion : Home
Our minds are not at rest today, the first anniversary of the
joint statement produced at the six-party talks on September 19,
2005 in Beijing. The confrontational mood between North Korea and
the United States remains unchanged, and the political situation
in Northeast Asia is as complicated as ever. The atmosphere is
such that the joint statement could lose its significance if the
six-party talks do not resume within the year.
You could actually call the statement, adopted at last yearˇŻs
fourth round of the six-party talks, a South Korean product. It
was our government that brought to the table what was called the
"significant proposal," one in which it agreed to furnish the
North with electric power as part of the deal, and thus got
Pyongyang to return to the six-party process. And it was Korea
that played the leading role in drafting the joint statement,
following weeks of debate in the wake of the resumption of talks
in late July. When, in the course of discussions, there was a
failure to compromise, the South used trilateral contact with
the U.S. and the North. The document itself is deep and
comprehensive in that it includes not only compensation for the
North if it should give up its nuclear program but also
agreement on how ties would be normalized between the North, the
U.S., and Japan, as well as measures to ensure a permanent peace
on the Korean peninsula.
Now, South Korea is again called to the same mission. It is a
serious situation, one that demands the South bring all its
drive and creativity to bear on the task of getting the
six-party talks going again, and in a way that moves toward the
implementation of the joint statement. One way to go about this
will be putting the "joint, comprehensive approach" to work, as
agreed upon last week at the U.S.-South Korea summit in
Washington, D.C.
Aside from producing a realistic plan in which all countries
party to the talks can participate, South Korea has even more to
do.
To begin with, it needs to create an atmosphere in which the
NorthˇŻs high-ranking officials can talk directly with the five
nations attending the talks, in particular the U.S. One way to
do this might be to facilitate a visit to North Korea by top
U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill, or to see to it that deputy
North Korean foreign minister Kim Kye-gwan visits the U.S. The
wall of distrust and misunderstanding will not be lowered if
people do not meet.
It is also important that the inter-Korean relationship is again
normalized. All contact between North and South Korea has
essentially been cut off since Pyongyang test fired a series of
missiles in early July. Currently, the South is implementing
measures to pressure the North, having suspended rice and
fertilizer aid. Now, in step with the efforts to restart the
six-party talks, the South Korean government needs to consider a
profound change of position, and again resume contact with and
aid for the North. Having the current situation continue is of
no help to either side. In particular, the inter-Korean
ministerial talks originally scheduled for this month need to be
held at the earliest possible date. And if necessary, the South
should be prepared to send a special envoy to Pyongyang.
Posted at : Sep.19,2006 14:03 KST
© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
33 BBC: Former weapons base is restored
Last Updated: Tuesday, 19 September 2006
[Conservation workers]
The great crested newt can be found at Greenham Common
An area of open land, once famous for housing a nuclear weapons
base, is being restored to its natural state.
Greenham Common in Berkshire became a focal point for 19 years of
anti-nuclear protests after women peace campaigners set up camp
there in 1981.
The 1,000 acre-site, is now being transformed by volunteers as
part of the BBC's Breathing Places project.
Conservationists hope their work will help protect rare and
endangered wildlife species in the area.
I'm quite glad to see the ba of the nuclear weapons
Derek Cutt, a volunteer conservationist, remembers the days when
the 96 missiles were housed at the former US weapons base on
Greenham Common.
He said: "A lot of the local people I feel were not very keen on
the peace protest and the peace protesters.
"I must say they never did me any harm and frankly I'm quite
glad to see the back of the nuclear weapons."
The former control tower is among only a few buildings from the
weapons base which remain at the site.
[The old control tower]
The control tower still remains from the former weapons site
Andy Coulson-Phillips, of West Berkshire Council, is a ranger
working on the conservation project.
He said: "It's a superb place to come, absolutely beautiful.
It's covered in wild flowers in the spring and summer.
"There's butterflies, there's birds everywhere. You've got 1,000
acres that you can just get lost in, it's fantastic."
*****************************************************************
34 AFP: World powers propose nuclear fuel scheme to avoid proliferation
by Michael Adler Tue Sep 19, 3:20 PM ET
VIENNA (AFP) - World powers said that making nuclear reactor fuel
available through UN-controlled supply centers could keep nations
from enriching uranium themselves and learning how to make atomic
weapons, a main concern in the Iran" /> Irancrisis.
Russia, Germany and the United States each backed the idea of
setting up such centers under the control of the UN watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency(IAEA), at a meeting in Vienna Tuesday of the
IAEA's 140 member states.
Enriching uranium for the U-235 isotope is the key process in
producing fuel for civilian nuclear reactors.
But it is also the key process in making atom bombs, and nations
that master this technology are considered to have a "break-out
capacity" for manufacturing nuclear weapons.
Germany plus France, the Netherlands, Russia, Britain and the
United States had in June proposed "a concept for assurances for
a reliable supply of enrichment services or enriched uranium,"
German economics and technology ministry state secretary Joachim
Wuermeling said.
The idea was to get countries "to refrain from developing
indigenous sensitive fuel cycle capabilities," he told the
week-long IAEA general conference.
Former US senator Sam Nunn told a special session at the
conference that new answers to fighting the spread of nuclear
weapons must be found urgently.
"Are we prepared to live in a world where dozens of countries
have the capability and key ingredients to make nuclear
weapons?" Nunn, a champion of non-proliferation during his 24
years in the US Senate, said.
"I want to make sure that every country that is a bona fide user
of nuclear energy and that is fulfilling its non-proliferation
obligations is getting fuel," at a time when concerns about
nuclear proliferation are growing, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei
said.
ElBaradei stressed that nations would still be free to decide
whether they wanted to do fuel work.
Germany is proposing a site run by the IAEA on what would be
territory with international status, like at United Nations" />
United Nationsheadquarters in New York, while Russia wants to
set up an enrichment center in Siberia that would be on Russian
territory but run by the IAEA.
Russian atomic energy chief Sergei Kirienko told reporters that
the differences between the proposals were not important.
"What is important here is that dual-use technology should not
be spread around the world," said Kirienko.
William Tobey, a non-proliferation official at the US Department
of Energy" /> Department of Energy, said that while it could be
years before such sites were set up, there still was a lesson
for the current Iranian crisis.
"The various proposals should make clear to the government of
Iran that there are concrete alternatives that would allow for
assured fuel supply for states that are in compliance with their
non-proliferation obligations," he said.
"The proposals that were made to the government of Iran earlier
this summer offered two alternatives and it should be clear that
the positive alternative is real and that they should consider
it carefully."
The United States charges that Iran is using what Tehran
maintains is a peaceful nuclear program to hide the development
of atomic weapons.
Washington wants Iran to stop enriching uranium and is seeking
UN sanctions against Tehran if the Islamic Republic refuses to
do this.
The five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany are
offering Iran talks on trade and other benefits if it suspends
enrichment first.
Iran however is rejecting this path by pushing ahead with
enrichment, saying it has a right to make nuclear fuel under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Nunn, a co-founder of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat
Initiative think tank, said the group would contribute 50
million dollars (40 million euros) to help create a nuclear fuel
bank, provided that one or more IAEA states put in an additional
100 million dollars in funding.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
35 [NukeNet] Reactors Prone to Long Closings, Study Finds
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:38:47 -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)
Mothersalert: http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/washington/18nuke.html
Reactors Prone to Long Closings, Study Finds
a.. E-Mail
b.. Print
c.. Reprints
d.. Save
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: September 18, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - An analysis of nuclear
reactors by a safety group has found that they are
prone to costly, lengthy shutdowns for safety
problems regardless of their age or the experience
of their managers. The finding could have
implications for companies considering building
new reactors.
Skip to next paragraph
New Politics Blog
News, updates and insights on the midterm
elections, the race for 2008 and everything
in-between.
a.. Go to Election Guide
b.. More Politics News
The analysis, by David Lochbaum, a nuclear
engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists,
counted 51 times that a reactor had been closed
for a year or more. Thirty-six of those shutdowns
were to restore an adequate level of safety by
fixing flaws in equipment, procedures or training;
11 were to replace major components required for
operations and safety; and 4 were for damage
recovery. In all, of the 130 power reactors ever
licensed, 41, were closed for at least a year. Ten
were closed twice.
Mr. Lochbaum said the most common reason for a
shutdown was for an "attitude adjustment" for
workers and managers, so they would be more
attuned to safety. He said he was surprised by
some of his findings, which are scheduled to be
released Monday. "I expected that the first plant
off an assembly line would have been challenged,
or troubled, but that there was a learning curve,
and the fourth or fifth or sixth plant for a
company would have avoided these problems," he
said. "But it wasn't the case."
But a vice president of the industry's trade
association, Marvin Fertell of the Nuclear Energy
Institute, said that the industry had, in fact,
learned from its errors, and that only experienced
operators would build new plants. And at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Stuart A. Richards,
deputy director of the division of inspection,
said his agency had improved its inspections, to
focus on "risk-significant areas," and was now
able to find problems more promptly.
Extended shutdowns would be a bigger problem for
future plants because, in the past, electricity
customers of regulated utilities paid for them.
But some of the reactor construction projects now
being considered would be built as "merchant"
plants, with no guaranteed income, only revenue
from power sales.
The heart of the problem, Mr. Lochbaum said, is
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not good
at assessing the ability of a reactor staff to
keep the plant in good physical condition and
maintain training and other requirements. As a
result, he said, plants operate until serious
problems accumulate and force a shutdown.
"This is the wrong way to do business, from a
safety standpoint and an economic standpoint," he
said in a telephone interview.
Mr. Fertell, of the industry trade group, agreed.
The only reactor currently in an extended shutdown
is the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry
Unit 1, in Alabama. It last ran in 1985. The
shutdown of more than a year that ended most
recently was at Davis-Besse, near Toledo, Ohio,
where workers found that an acid used in the
plant, boron, had corroded a 70-pound chunk of
steel in the reactor's vessel head, leaving only a
half-inch stainless steel liner.
Early in the era of commercial nuclear power,
analysts theorized that shutdowns were what was
known in the industry as "teething problems" and
that with experience, reactors would run more
smoothly. But most of the shutdowns came after the
reactors were 10 years old. The Davis-Besse plant
was more than 23 years old when it was closed in
2002. It was closed for more than two years.
Besides the hole in the reactor head, engineers
later found that crucial pumps that used water for
lubrication were prone to break down because of
debris in the water. Discovery of decades-old
design problems is common during lengthy
shutdowns.
While Mr. Lochbaum, a longtime adversary of the
nuclear industry, is often critical of the
companies that operate reactors, he said
regulators were the problem in this area. The
rules require reactors to have Corrective Action
Programs to keep track of physical and procedural
problems, and each lengthy shutdown is an
indication that the program itself is flawed, he
said. Regulators monitor the physical condition of
reactors, he said, but are not good at observing
the quality of the corrective programs. For
example, the commission gave high marks to the
program at Davis-Besse less than a year before
inspectors found that operators had let acid eat
through six inches of steel, bringing the plant
close to a catastrophic rupture.
Mr. Richards said he had not seen the report but
acknowledged errors by the commission in handling
the Davis-Besse case. But he said N.R.C.
inspections had been improved using a new process,
of which the Corrective Action Program itself was
a major component. And, he said, the commission
had previously penalized reactors for
accumulations of minor violations, adding them up
to count for a major problem; now it focuses only
on major problems.
Mr. Lochbaum said that after a reactor was shut
down for one reason, other problems were often
discovered. In an extended shutdown at the Crystal
River plant, in Florida, workers found design
defects even though the plant had been running for
nearly 20 years. He said the problems included
that, in an emergency, the pumps would not have
worked as intended and piping would have exposed
workers and the public to radiation.
"Did the plant's owner bring in busloads of
smarter workers after the N.R.C. put the reactor
on notice?" Mr. Lochbaum asked in the report. The
problem, he said, was that perception by the
inspectors that plant management was competent was
blinding them to problems at the reactors.
But Mr. Fertell, of the Nuclear Energy Institute,
said an extended reactor shutdown often became "a
monster can of worms." "You were basically under a
magnifying glass," he said, with inspectors
finding issues faster than management could
resolve them.
_______________________________________________________________________
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
*****************************************************************
36 The Hindu: NTPC plans to triple generation capacity
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 : 1410 Hrs
New Delhi, Sept. 19 (PTI): State-run NTPC Ltd today said it
plans to triple its power generation capacity to 75,000 MW by
2017 while stregthening its focus on hydroelectric projects,
coal mining and nuclear plants.
The company would add about 21,941 MW generation capacity during
the 11th plan (2007-12) at an estimated expenditure of Rs
1,60,000 crore.
NTPC would have an installed capacity of about 51,000 MW by 2012
and more than 75,000 Mw at the end of 12th plan from 26,194 MW
at present, company chairman and managing director T
Sankarlingam told shareholders at the Annual General Meeting.
The public sector company will start coal production from one of
the eight mines allocated to it by December 2007. NTPC was also
looking to acquire coal mines abroad as part of efforts to
ensure fuel security, he said.
Sankarlingam said the company is buying natural gas from the
spot markets as a short term measure to run its gas-fired
plants. In the long term, the firm was exploring opportunities
for participation in the gas value chain including exploration
and production, he said.
Giving details of generation projects, he said NTPC is currently
working on plants with a total capacity of more than 11,000 MW.
The company has also taken up three integrated coal mining and
power projects with a capacity of 10,400 MW.
NTPC's generation portfolio would have increased share of hydro
power, he said, adding by 2017 a total of 9,000 MW of hydro
capacity would be developed.
From a long term perspective, nuclear power was a good option,
he said, adding the company was in touch with the government for
setting up a nuclear project.
Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
37 NRC: NRC Conducting Special Inspection at Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region I - 2006-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-053
September 18, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail:
opa1@nrc.gov
The NRC has begun a Special Inspection at the Seabrook nuclear
power plant to inspect and assess an event that occurred at the
facility on Aug. 31. On that day, the plant was shut down in
accordance with operating procedures after two emergency diesel
generators experienced problems with their voltage controls.
Throughout the event, all off-site power lines and a pair of
smaller supplemental diesel generators were available.
After repairs were made and the generators were returned to
service, the reactor was restarted on Sept. 3 and returned to
power operations on Sept. 4.
The Special Inspection team includes two specialists from Region
I supported by the NRC Resident Inspectors at the plant and
Regional Risk Analysts. One phase of the inspection started
today at the Seabrook, N.H., site. The inspectors will be tasked
with evaluating the circumstances associated with the Aug. 31st
event. Among other things, they will independently assess the
apparent causes that contributed to the failure of the emergency
diesel generators and review the companys root cause evaluation
of what took place.
Nuclear power plants produce electricity which is fed into the
grid. However, they also take back some of that power for the
operation of safety systems. In the event that off-site power is
lost, the plant would turn to its backup sources of energy,
including its emergency diesel generators, to shut down the
plant. As such, the generators play an important role in plant
safety.
Phases of the inspection will occur over the next several weeks.
The inspection report will be issued within 45 days after the
exit meeting of the inspection.
Last revised Tuesday, September 19, 2006
*****************************************************************
38 Times of India: NTPC plans nuclear plants
Manju Menon
19 Sep, 2006
MUMBAI: Even as the US senate prepares to take up the Indo-US
nuclear deal for discussion in October, Indian firms are gearing
up to encash opportunities expected to emerge in the aftermath
of the agreement.
The state-owned National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) has
prepared a blueprint for two nuclear plants. "We have identified
six sites in Tamil Nadu for the plant," T Sankaralingam,
chairman & managing director, NTPC, said.
The sites would be further evaluated and the final selection
will be made subject to clearances from the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board.
The company is also scouting for more sites in other southern
states. "We are looking for coastal sites that are uninhabited
in a 15 kilometres radius," he said.
However, it will take a while before these two nuclear power
plants start commercial production. "These plants will be
commissioned only during the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17)," he
said.
Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
reprint rights: Times Syndication Service
*****************************************************************
39 Times of India: Saran in US to get nuke deal past Senate
20 Sep, 2006| Updated at 0102hrs IST
Indrani Bagchi
NEW DELHI: As the nuclear deal moves to a floor vote in the US
Senate days before it stops work for elections, foreign
secretary Shyam Saran gears up for a final round of diplomacy
with Senate leaders and his US counterpart Nick Burns.
Now all this could have happened last week, if an unexpected
resignation drama in the MEA did not force Saran to postpone his
visit to Washington.
Neither the US nor India want a repeat of the House of
Representatives vote with amendments requiring more work at the
reconciliation stage.
Right now, both sides are just keen that it passes through the
Senate before October 6, which is its last working day, before
the Congress breaks for elections.
This is the idea — after the Senate votes on it,
reconciliation can be worked out over the next couple of months.
The resultant up-down vote can happen in the "lame duck" session
of the Congress between election day and January, enabling US
President George Bush to sign the waiver into law by January 20.
It's a tight schedule and even optimists believe both sides are
cutting it a bit too fine. Because, if the January deadline is
missed, the whole process goes back to starting point.
The problem is, the Senate functions by its own rules. It has
been flexible enough to work on what is known in American
legislative jargon as a "unanimous consent" vote.
But this too needs heavy duty communication which goes by the
name "hotlining" and nobody is quite sure whether all the loose
ends will be tied. His job is to reassure Senate leaders on a
number of questions.
Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
*****************************************************************
40 newsobserver.com: Shearon Harris nuclear plant shuts down
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill
By John Murawski, Staff Writer Progress
Energy's Shearon Harris nuclear plant unexpectedly shut down
today at about 10 a.m., its first unplanned outage in more than
a year.
The nuclear plant, about 25 miles southwest of Raleigh, turned
itself off automatically when the plant’s generator
short-circuited.
Plant personnel are trying to determine the cause of the
malfunction and expect to have the plant operational again by
Wednesday, said spokeswoman Julie Hans.
During the outage, the company also plans to fix a leaky valve
in a cooling pump that would feed water to the reactor during an
emergency, she said.
Nuclear plants are designed to shut down automatically under
certain circumstances as a safety precaution. Most outages are
quickly corrected and aren't considered dangerous.
The previous unplanned outage at Shearon Harris was in May 2004,
lasting 14 days. The reactor was taken offline for refueling in
March, a planned outage that lasted 37 days. Staff writer John
Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or
murawski@newsobserver.com.
© Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
41 MDN: Japan to upgrade earthquake safety standards at nuclear plants -
MSN-Mainichi Daily News
September 20, 2006 National
Japan has decided to enhance earthquake safety standards at
nuclear power plants and other nuclear-related facilities to
prepare plant sites for stronger quakes, an official said.
The government will soon ask the operators of nuclear power
plants across the country to consider the possibility of a quake
stronger than a magnitude 6.5 occurring directly above its
epicenter, said Dai Miyamoto of the Nuclear Safety Commission.
The upper-limit figure of a magnitude 6.5 quake was set in 1981.
"The new guidelines are designed to upgrade earthquake safety
standards at nuclear power plants," Miyamoto said.
Tuesday's decision was made by the five-member Nuclear Safety
Commission after it concluded a five-year study of academic and
research reports on earthquakes around the world, Miyamoto said.
A magnitude 7.2 quake that hit the western port city of Kobe in
1995 was also another major factor that led to the government to
enhance safety standards, he said. That quake killed 6,400
people and destroyed tens of thousands of buildings.
Under the new guidelines, operators of nuclear power plants will
be requested to take into consideration nearby faults that may
have been active around 120,000 years to 130,000 years ago,
instead of those that were active only 50,000 years back,
Miyamoto said.
There are currently 15 nuclear power plants with a combined 55
reactors in Japan.
In addition to plant operators, the government will soon ask
nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities and college laboratories
using nuclear material to meet the new guidelines, Miyamoto said.
Japan is one of the world's most quake-prone nations, and Tokyo
has a 90 percent chance of being hit by a major quake over the
next 50 years, officials say.
Resource-poor Japan depends on its 52 active nuclear reactors
for about a third of its electricity. The government has said it
wants to increase that figure to nearly 40 percent by 2010. (AP)
Do earthquakes put Japan at risk for a major nuclear power
plant accident?
September 20, 2006
Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
42 APP.COM: Top NRC regulator inspects reactor |
Asbury Park Press Online
:Tuesday, September 19, 2006
BY STAFF WRITER
LACEY — One of the nation's top regulators of nuclear power made
a special visit to the Oyster Creek plant Monday but was mum on
the outlook for the generating station getting federal
permission to continue operating until 2029.
The official, Jeffrey S. Merrifield, one of the five
presidentially appointed commissioners to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, met with senior plant officials, toured
sensitive areas and spoke with about 150 workers for more than
an hour during his visit.
But the commissioner could not go into specific detail about the
plant's license renewal application, an operational plan Oyster
Creek needs the NRC to approve for it to operate after 2009,
when the current license expires, for 20 more years.
Merrifield could not address the application because all
commissioners are striving for impartiality as they are now
appellate judges of sorts, in a case brought against Oyster
Creek's application by the state Department of Environmental
Protection.
He also would not discuss that challenge by the DEP, which wants
the commission to call a hearing on making the threat of a
terrorist attack part of the assessment Oyster Creek needs to
pass to obtain a renewal.
State officials asked the commission to consider their arguments
after their request for a hearing was denied by administrative
judges at the NRC.
The NRC tabled the state's request at least until the U.S.
Supreme Court decides whether to hear a related case.
Tour of duty
A visit by an NRC member to a plant is rare but Merrifield,
since his appointment to the commission by President Clinton in
1998, has made it a point to visit all 103 commercial reactors,
which are located at 65 sites in 31 states. He visited Oyster
Creek once before several years ago, said Neil Sheehan, an NRC
spokesman.
"His object is to become as informed as possible about each
site," Sheehan said.
Regardless of Merrifield's opinion on the license renewal, many
plant workers appreciated the chance to hear him talk about
other issues, including nuclear waste disposal and new plant
construction, said Rachelle Benson, plant spokeswoman.
"This was a big deal for the station because he was a visiting
dignitary," Benson said. "I think the employees liked to listen
to him speak, and even more so, to have the opportunity to ask
him questions."
Merrifield's day at the nation's oldest commercial nuclear power
plant started about 7:30 a.m. He met one on one with Tim Rausch,
site vice president for Oyster Creek, and with Christopher M.
Crane, president and chief nuclear officer for Exelon Nuclear,
which operates the plant.
During a 2 1/2-hour tour, he visited the control room and went
outside to see the manmade canal that holds the cooling water
pumped in and out of the plant. Merrifield also took an interest
in security, climbing to the top of a bullet-resistant
watchtower staffed by guards with high-powered rifles.
Nicholas Clunn: (732) 643-4072
Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
43 NRC: Sunshine Act Notice
FR Doc 06-7765
[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices] [Page 54844-54845] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19se06-69]
Date: Weeks of September 18, 25, October 2, 9, 16, 23, 2006.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and closed.
Matters to be considered: Week of September 18, 2006 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.
Week of October 2, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of October 2, 2006.
Week of October 9, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of October 9, 2006.
Week of October 16, 2006--Tentative Monday, October 16, 2006 9:30
a.m. Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues--Combined Operating
Licenses (COLS) (morning session).
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues--Combined
Operating Licenses (COLS) (afternoon session). (Public Meetings)
(Contact: Dave Matthews, 301-415-1199).
These meetings will be webcast live at the Web address-- Friday,
October 20, 2006 2:30 p.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) (Public Meeting) (Contact: John
Larkins, 301-415-7630).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- Week of
October 23, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:30 a.m.
Briefing on Institutionalization and Integration of Agency
Lessons Learned (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Lamb, 301-415-
1727).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- 1:30 p.m.
Briefing on Resolution of GSI-191, Assessment of Debris
[[Page 54845]] Accumulation on PWR Sump Performance (Public
Meeting) (Contact: Michael L. Scott, 301-415-0565). This meeting
will be webcast live at the Web address-- *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: .
* * * * * 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 scheduled electronically, please send an electronic
message to .
Dated: September 14, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-7765 Filed 9-15-06; 10:01 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
44 Russia-InfoCentre: Russia launching Iranian APP in Autumn 2007
19.09.2006
Sergey Kirienko announced that the launching of the atomic power
plant in Iranian town Busher will take place in November of 2007.
The APP "Busher" first criticality will come about
September of 2007, and the APP starter - in November of 2007,
reported Kirienko to journalists in Vienna after his arriving to
IAEA headquarters.
The session, which will examine questions on the
activities of the Agency, is attended by the representatives of
140 IAEA member countries. Sergey Kirienko is the head of the
Russian delegation. At the meeting he is going to tell about
atomic power engineering development in Russia, and Russian
initiatives to provide new countries with the nuclear fuel cycle
services.
In June Russian company Atomstroyexport carrying out
construction works in Busher announced the start of work on
launching the water chemical purification system at Busher APP,
and this was the first step preceding the commencement of
balancing and commissioning.
www.rosbalt.ru
Copyright to the content of the Site www.russia-ic.com,
*****************************************************************
45 Arizona Republic: Palo Verde unit shut down today
[azcentral.com]
Mark Shaffer
Sept. 19, 2006 04:26 PM
Unit 1 at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station was shut down
early Tuesday because of a recurring problem with pressurizer
heaters.
Jim McDonald, an Arizona Public Service Co. spokesman, said the
unit, one of three reactors at the nation's largest nuclear
plant, will be out of service for at least a week .
"We need to know what is the root cause of the problems with
these heaters," McDonald said.
McDonald said that Unit 1 has 36 pressurizer eaters and that
five have failed during the past two months. He said 23 of the
heaters need to be functioning properly for the unit to be in
operation.
"We evaluated whether we could find out the problem with the
unit still online and decided it would be best to take it
offline for at least a week," McDonald said. "Power supply is
not an issue now."
APS officials had said earlier that they plan to shut down Unit
2 later this month for five weeks of refueling and maintenance.
The 1,243 megawatt Unit 1 creates enough electricity at peak
production to supply power to more than 300,000 homes.
Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 Hudson Valley News: Security exercises planned at Indian Point
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Buchanan Entergy Nuclear Northeast will be participating in an
NRC-evaluated security exercise this week at its Indian Point
Energy Center, in Buchanan, N.Y.
The exercise, which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will
evaluate, provides us the opportunity to demonstrate for the
regulator our security and defense capabilities and look for
areas to improve, said IPEC site vice president Fred Dacimo.
Force-on-force exercises involve attempts to gain access to
plants in a simulated terrorist attack, and the response of
defending security forces.
During the drills and exercise, persons near the site may hear
the sound of simulated gunfire or other loud noises as
participants carry out scenarios that are intended to be as
realistic as possible.
We are informing the public now about these events so there is
no undue alarm caused by what they may hear around the site,
Dacimo said. Local officials and law enforcement agencies have
been informed of the events. The exercises are expected to take
place in the evening as well as during daylight hours.
In 2003, after volunteering, Entergy was among the first
nuclear-power sites in the country to participate in a
force-on-force exercise that the NRC was conducting as a pilot
project. The NRC was developing at that time an ongoing security
program to evaluate security enhancements that were added after
9/11 to protect against an expanded terrorist threat.
Following the 2003 exercise, former commission chairman Nils
Diaz said that Indian Point has a "strong defensive strategy and
capability," and that the security force had "successfully
protected the plant from repeated mock-adversary attacks."
Entergy has engaged the services of Giuliani Partners, formed by
former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as consultants on
security and emergency planning. The Giuliani team is assisting
Entergy in preparing for the exercise.
HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's
only Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
47 Portsmouth Herald: NRC to review nuclear plant
September 19, 2006
Seabrook Station, as seen from Hampton State Park, currently is
the subject of a special inspection by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The inspection comes in the wake of an
emergency shut down at the plant on Aug. 31.
By Shir Haberman shaberman@seacoastonline.com
SEABROOK -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began a
special inspection at the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant
Monday to assess an event that occurred at the facility on Aug.
31. On that day, the plant was shut down after two emergency
diesel generators experienced problems with their voltage
controls.
Those generators supply emergency power to the plant's safety
systems in the event of an outage at the power plant.
Plant spokesman Alan Griffith said that while it was appropriate
for the NRC to get involved in any incident that led to the
shutdown of the plant, Seabrook officials have full confidence
in their two large diesel generators and the four other
redundant safety systems designed to keep the plant systems
operational.
"We're fully confident that our generators work and work well,
and that they are well maintained," Griffith said.
NRC Public Affairs Officer Neil Sheehan said this is not the
first time the nuclear plant has had trouble with its back-up
generators, but could not give specific dates or problems.
Throughout this latest event, all off-site power lines and a
pair of smaller supplemental diesel generators were available.
"The NRC has clear-cut criteria for special inspections,"
Sheehan said. "We do a risk analysis to determine what are the
safety consequences of the event."
After repairs were made and the generators were returned to
service, the reactor was restarted on Sept. 3 and returned to
power operations on Sept. 4.
The special inspection team includes two specialists from Region
I supported by the NRC resident inspectors at the plant and
regional risk analysts. One phase of the inspection started
Monday at the Seabrook site.
The inspectors will be tasked with evaluating the circumstances
associated with the Aug. 31 event. Among other things, they will
independently assess the apparent causes that contributed to the
failure of the emergency diesel generators and review the
company's root-cause evaluation of what took place.
Nuclear power plants produce electricity which is fed into the
grid. However, they also take back some of that power for the
operation of safety systems. In the event that off-site power is
lost, the plant would turn to its back-up sources of energy,
including its emergency diesel generators, to shut down the
plant. As such, the generators play an important role in plant
safety.
"The company is in the process of completing its root-cause
analysis, so this will take some time," Sheehan said. There will
be an exit meeting (between NRC and plant officials) following
the completion of the inspection and a report will be issued
within 45 days after the exit meeting of the inspection. Asked
if there could be enforcement actions taken against the nuclear
plant, Sheehan said, "Nothing is off the table."
The Seabrook plant was recently fined by the NRC for failing to
identify that a perimeter security fence had not been
operational since its installation over a year ago.
Copyright © 2006 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please
*****************************************************************
48 Novastar Resources Ltd.: Thorium Power Discusses Possible Nuclear
Energy Joint Efforts with the Government of Poland
MCLEAN, Va., Sept. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Novastar
Resources Ltd. (OTC: NVAS) (BULLETIN BOARD: NVAS) has today
announced that Thorium Power, Inc. joined a delegation of some
of the world's leading developers and providers of nuclear fuels
and nuclear power plants on a fact finding mission to Poland
last week. The delegation, which included Westinghouse Electric
Company and the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company (PBMR), had
been invited to tour the Polish nuclear institute at Swierk and
hold meetings with senior government officials.
The Thorium Power team was led by President and CEO Seth Grae
and Board of Directors Chairman Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr.
The meetings with officials, key scientists, and business
leaders in the energy field focused on how cutting edge nuclear
technologies can address several of Poland's critical needs,
including power generation and the liquefaction and gasification
of stony coal. CEO Grae stated, "Poland is well poised to become
a center for new nuclear technologies. Thorium Power is the
leading proliferation resistant nuclear fuel designer in the
world and we believe we can play an important role in helping
Poland achieve this goal." Grae added, "Our discussions with
senior officials of the government have convinced me that Poland
has a well thought out vision of how to address its energy
future."
Thorium Power and the other members of the delegation are now in
follow-up discussions with the Government of Poland relating to
possible joint venture partnerships. Poland may prove a nascent
market for nuclear energy as it currently is experiencing an
unprecedented period of growth in its country's history. Any new
developments or future agreements shall be disclosed to
shareholders in a timely manner.
In February 2006, Novastar Resources announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement with Thorium Power, Inc. Upon
consummation of the merger, which has been approved by the Board
of Directors of both companies, Thorium Power will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Novastar Resources. The combined
company will operate under the name Thorium Power, Ltd. The
completion of the merger is expected sometime early fourth
quarter of calendar year 2006.
About Thorium Power, Inc.
Thorium Power, Inc. is a privately-held nuclear technology
development company, founded in 1992 to develop technology
invented by Alvin Radkowsky, the first chief scientist of the
U.S. Naval Reactors Program and lead designer of the first
commercial nuclear power plant. Thorium Power develops nuclear
fuel technologies to stop the production of weapons-usable
plutonium and eliminate existing plutonium stockpiles. In order
to achieve these objectives, Thorium Power collaborates with
leading experts in nuclear energy and non-proliferation in the
U.S. and abroad, including scientists at Russia's leading
nuclear research center, the Kurchatov Institute.
About Novastar Resources Ltd.
Novastar Resources Ltd. is a publicly traded company within the
commercial mining sector and is a commercial mining firm engaged
in the exploration of thorium, a naturally occurring metal that
can be used to provide nuclear energy, with non-proliferation,
waste and economic advantages, in comparison to standard uranium
fuels. Novastar Resources' stock is traded and quoted on the OTC
Bulletin Board under the symbol "NVAS".
In February 2006, the company announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement with Thorium Power, Inc. Upon
consummation of the merger, which has been approved by the Board
of Directors of both companies, Thorium Power will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Novastar Resources. The combined
company will operate under the name Thorium Power, Ltd.
DISCLAIMER
This press release may include certain statements that are not
descriptions of historical facts, but are forward-looking
statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. These forward-looking statements may include the
description of our plans and objectives for future operations,
assumptions underlying such plans and objectives, statements
regarding benefits of the proposed merger and other
forward-looking terminology such as "may," "expects,"
"believes," "anticipates," "intends," "expects," "projects" or
similar terms, variations of such terms or the negative of such
terms. There are a number of risks and uncertainties that could
cause actual results to differ materially from the
forward-looking statements made herein. These risks, as well as
other risks associated with the merger, will be more fully
discussed in any joint proxy statement or prospectus or other
relevant document filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the proposed merger. Such
information is based upon various assumptions made by, and
expectations of, our management that were reasonable when made
but may prove to be incorrect. All of such assumptions are
inherently subject to significant economic and competitive
uncertainties and contingencies beyond our control and upon
assumptions with respect to the future business decisions which
are subject to change. Accordingly, there can be no assurance
that actual results will meet expectations and actual results
may vary (perhaps materially) from certain of the results
anticipated herein.
Further information is available on Novastar Resources' Website
at http://www.novastarresources.com/. For more information:
Dennis Hays Novastar Resources Ph: (703) 918-4904 Email:
ir@thoriumpower.com Website:
Copyright © 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
49 Dallas Morning News: Mexico may double nuclear plant output
News for Dallas, Texas | Business
Energy minister seeks protection against declining oil reserves
11:16 PM CDT on Monday, September 18, 2006
By LAURENCE ILIFF / The Dallas Morning News
MEXICO CITY Mexico may become the latest oil-rich country
looking seriously at nuclear power as a hedge against declining
energy reserves, according to a plan outlined Monday by Energy
Minister Fernando Canales Clariond.
Speaking at an energy conference in Vienna, Austria, Mr. Canales
Clariond said Mexico's nuclear energy output could be doubled by
building a second nuclear power plant as soon as possible.
The ministry plan, he said, will be handed to President-elect
Felipe Calderón, a former energy minister who takes office Dec.
1. Mr. Calderón's presidential transition team had no comment.
"Those of us in the energy sector of the federal government are
absolutely convinced of making this recommendation, subject to
the approval of higher authorities, in this case, the
president-elect and in the right moment, Congress," Mr. Canales
Clariond said.
He spoke at the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual
meeting, the Energy Ministry said.
Mexico's first nuclear plant, the Laguna Verde dual-reactor
plant in the gulf state of Veracruz, is being expanded by
General Electric Co. to increase output by 20 percent.
A spokesman for the environmental group Greenpeace in Mexico
said the government plans to increase nuclear production without
consulting the Mexican people.
"The worst part of this is that they are moving forward on these
projects when we have a plant [Laguna Verde] that is already a
disaster," said Greenpeace spokesman Arturo Moreno.
The Mexican government has said that Laguna Verde is safe.
Greenpeace prefers a combination of energy conservation and
renewable energy from agricultural sources to expanding nuclear
capacity, Mr. Moreno said.
Laguna Verde, which went into operation in 1990, produces about
5 percent of Mexico's energy.
The Mexico City newspaper El Universal quoted Mr. Canales
Clariond as saying that a new plant would cost up to $3 billion
and could take five years to build.
Mexico's state-run oil company Pemex produces about 3.2 million
barrels of oil per day, about 80,000 per day less than last year
due to declining reserves.
© 2006 The Dallas Morning News Co.
*****************************************************************
50 Hampton Union: Officials look into event at nuke plant
September 19, 2006
By Shir Haberman shaberman@seacoastonline.com
SEABROOK — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began a
special inspection at the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant
Monday to inspect and assess an event that occurred at the
facility on Aug. 31. On that day, the plant was shut down after
two emergency diesel generators experienced problems with their
voltage controls.
Those generators supply emergency power to the plant’s safety
systems in the event of an outage at the power plant.
Plant spokesman Alan Griffith said that while it was appropriate
for the NRC to get involved in any incident that led to the
shutdown of the plant, Seabrook officials have full confidence
in their two large diesel generators and the four other
redundant safety systems designed to keep the plant systems
operational.
“We’re fully confident that our generators work and work well,
and that they are well maintained,” Griffith said.
NRC Public Affairs Officer Neil Sheehan said this is not the
first time the nuclear plant has had trouble with its backup
generators, but could not give specific dates or problems.
Throughout this latest event, all off-site power lines and a
pair of smaller supplemental diesel generators were available.
“The NRC has clear-cut criteria for special inspections,”
Sheehan said. “We do a risk analysis to determine what are the
safety consequences of the event.”
After repairs were made and the generators were returned to
service, the reactor was restarted on Sept. 3 and returned to
power operations on Sept. 4.
The Special Inspection team includes two specialists from Region
I supported by the NRC resident inspectors at the plant and
regional risk analysts. One phase of the inspection started
Monday at the Seabrook site.
The inspectors will be tasked with evaluating the circumstances
associated with the Aug. 31 event. Among other things, they will
independently assess the apparent causes that contributed to the
failure of the emergency diesel generators and review the
company’s root cause evaluation of what took place.
Nuclear power plants produce electricity which is fed into the
grid. However, they also take back some of that power for the
operation of safety systems. In the event that off-site power is
lost, the plant would turn to its backup sources of energy,
including its emergency diesel generators, to shut down the
plant. As such, the generators play an important role in plant
safety.
“The company is in the process of completing its root-cause
analysis, so this will take some time,” Sheehan said. “The
inspection will be done in phases and will take a number of
weeks to wrap up.
There will be an exit meeting (between NRC and plant officials)
following the completion of the inspection and a report will be
issued within 45 days after the exit meeting of the inspection.
Asked if there could be enforcement actions taken against the
nuclear plant, Sheehan said, “Nothing is off the table.”
The Seabrook plant was recently fined by the NRC for failing to
identify that a perimeter security fence had not been
operational since its installation over a year ago.
Copyright © 2006 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please
*****************************************************************
51 NRC: NRC Proposes $9,600 Fine to Sterigenics International
News Release - Region IV - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-06-020
September 19, 2006 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128
E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $9,600 fine
against Sterigenics International, Inc. of Oak Brook, Il., for
violating NRC requirements for handling security-sensitive
information.
NRC staff discussed the violations, their significance, the root
cause, and the companys corrective actions during a meeting with
Sterigenics officials on May 3.
In a letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallett, Administrator of
the NRCs Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, said that as a
result of an NRC inspection and investigation, the agency
determined that the company violated three NRC requirements. The
company operates 13 panoramic irradiators throughout the U.S.,
primarily to sterilize medical equipment.
The violations occurred when a senior manager of the company
faxed a document containing security-sensitive information to
the companys security contractor over an unprotected phone line;
provided inaccurate information to an NRC investigator when
questioned about the incident; and failed to ensure that the
security contractor would follow company policies and procedures
while handling the security-sensitive information.
The NRC depends on its licensees to handle security-sensitive
information with appropriate care and to cooperate fully with
its investigators when questions about activities arise, Mallett
said. The civil penalty underscores the seriousness with which
we view these violations.
The company has acknowledged that it violated NRC requirements.
We are pleased the company has taken corrective action that
appropriately address these issues, and is improving its
employee training procedures for handling security-sensitive
information to prevent recurrence, Mallett said.
The NRCs letter and the companys response will be made available
to interested members of the public through the agencys
electronic reading room at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in accessing
these documents is available from the NRC Public Document Room
at: 1-800-397-4209.
The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation
to either pay the civil penalty or to protest it, in whole or in
part. It can also request alternate dispute resolution within 10
days of receipt of the Notice of Violation.
Last revised Tuesday, September 19, 2006
*****************************************************************
52 Philadelphia Daily News: WHEN WAR MAKES SOLDIERS SICK
09/19/2006 |
By JUAN GONZALEZ
EIGHT IRAQ War veterans sat in a federal courtroom in Manhattan
last week and demanded answers from the Pentagon and the White
House about why and how they became sick.
The men, most of them Hispanic, include former Army sergeants
Ray Ramos, Agustín Matos and Jerry Ojeda and specialist Gerard
Matthew, who is the lead plaintiff in a pioneering lawsuit that
has exposed to the public how American soldiers have been
endangered by one of the Pentagon's little-known favorite
weapons - depleted uranium artillery.
As you might expect, the plaintiffs in this case are not easily
intimidated. Several are street-hardened ex-New York city cops
and correction officers. They all served in two National Guard
units stationed into Iraq during the first months of the war.
I first met them in late 2003, in Fort Dix, N.J., following a
tip that a bunch of returned soldiers were suffering from
illnesses that Army doctors could not explain.
The men I met that day were furious at the way Army doctors were
ignoring their persistent symptoms of blurred vision, migraine
headaches, blackouts, fatigue, a burning sensation when they
urinated as well as blood in their urine, and other ailments,
all of which they said began while in Iraq.
A few months later the independent tests arranged by the New
York Daily News indicated that four of nine in one National
Guard unit, as well as Matthew, who served in another unit, had
all been exposed to depleted uranium, probably from radioactive
dust from exploded shells.
The Pentagon has used the low-level radioactive metal since the
1991 Persian Gulf War to harden artillery shells so they can
penetrate enemy tanks.
My Daily News reports created a firestorm that reached Congress
and received coverage around the world, especially when the men,
who were then still on active duty, publicly accused military
doctors of refusing to test them for depleted uranium, or losing
or delaying their test results.
Since then, the Pentagon has tightened its testing procedures
and some two dozen state legislatures have either passed or are
considering bills to require testing for depleted uranium for
troops returning from Iraq.
The lawsuit is the first to reach a courtroom from Iraq soldiers
who claim they were harmed by the weapon.
In a two-hour hearing before Manhattan Federal Judge John Koeltl
last week, lawyers for the former soldiers argued that the Army
caused their illnesses when it violated its own safety protocols
and exposed them to radioactive dust. Army doctors also covered
up information about their exposures and failed to provide
proper medical treatment, the lawyers claimed.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney John Cronan, representing the Army,
urged Koeltl to dismiss the lawsuit immediately.
A 1950 Supreme Court decision, commonly known as the Feres
Doctrine, prohibits soldiers from suing the government for
injuries "incident to [military] service," Cronan said.
As the government's lawyer spoke, Matthew sat with his wife,
Janise, in a courtroom packed with supporters and quietly shook
his head. Less than 10 months after Matthew returned from Iraq,
his wife gave birth to a girl, Victoria.
Their baby was missing three fingers on one hand.
By his dogged questioning of both sides, it appeared that Koeltl
was giving the soldiers' claims serious attention. He gave no
hint how he might rule.
Juan Gonzalez, a columnist for the New York Daily News, speaks
at a Latino leaders lunch tomorrow at the Union League Club
sponsored by Al Dia newspaper in collaboration with the
Philadelphia Daily News. Reservations required: 215-569-4666,
ext. 136.
*****************************************************************
53 KUAM: Underwood: radiation letters distort the truth
KUAM.com
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
d2k6
Recently some items of correspondence have come into question
between current gubernatorial candidate and former congressman
Robert Underwood and assistant secretary of environment, safety,
and health at the time, Dr. Tara O'Toole. The letters indicate
that Underwood, while a congressman, requested that the
Department of Energy withheld a publication of a special
Marshall Islands edition of the Health and Physics Society
Journal. This publication had reports of studies of the
radiation effects on the Marshalls.
Robert Celestial is president of the Pacific Association of
Radiation Survivors, an organization that is pushing for
compensation for local residents who were exposed to radiation,
both through the fallout from the nuclear tests in the Marshall
Islands as well as the washing down of contaminated ships in
Apra Harbor. He believes that this whole issue surrounding
Underwood's request has both a positive and negative effect on
his efforts, telling KUAM News, "I believe it helped and it
hurts our cause. It helps because it keeps it alive, people are
still talking about it whether positive or negative. It hurts
our cause because our issue is so serious and so important that
we didn't want it to be a campaign issue we were trying to keep
a low profile, just see who's gonna win in the General Election,
and then ask them for their support."
As for the former congressman, he says that his intentions were
actually to help. "I was trying to help the Marshallese," he
responded, adding, "the Ambassador of the Marshall Islands, who
was ambassador then, recently wrote a letter clarifying that he
was trying to do it. At his request we were trying to help the
Marshall Islanders and downwinders, everyone involved who may
have been affected by radiation we wanted to have more
information, not less."
The former congressman did indeed furnish us with a copy of the
letter verifying that former Marshallese ambassador to the
United States Banny DeDrum requested that the report be withheld
pending further information. The letter says that "the intent
was to provide more research in order to help the Marshallese
and not to stifle any inquiry".
Celestial says he is more concerned with furthering his cause
than with pointing fingers or placing blame. "I believe that he
explained himself. "Matter of fact, I heard him on the radio
today with [KUAM radio show host] Dr. Ed Cruz, and he apologized
- he apologized to me and he explained why he did a favor
actually for the Marshall Islands, and I can't make an opinion
on that. That's what he explained," he stated.
As for Underwood, he believes that this is all a part of a smear
campaign against him, saying, "This is the effort again to spin,
to flip around, to turn around what is and element of truth,
what is done with great intentions and what is done with a clear
conscience and tried to make it sound negative and that's
distortion that's a campaign of distortion and misinformation."
Copyright © 2000-2006 by Pacific Telestations, Inc.
*****************************************************************
54 Oped News: Kill The Messenger
September 18, 2006 at 12:41:28
by Sibel Edmonds
http://www.opednews.com
Alexandria, VA--- "Kill the Messenger," a documentary produced
by Zadig Productions, directed by French filmmakers Mathieu
Verboud and Jean Robert Viallet, is scheduled to air on Canal +
in France on September 19, 2006. The film will also be aired in
Belgium, on BeTV, and Australia, on SBS, this fall. The
documentary explores the abuses behind the State Secrets
Privilege as invoked in FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' case as
well as highlighting the travails and persecution of US national
security whistleblowers.
The filmmakers, Verboud and Viallet, spent nearly two years
interviewing witnesses and researching the invocation and
implementation of the state secrets privilege in Edmonds' case.
Based on their documented findings and interviews with experts
such as David Albright, Philip Giraldi, John Cole, Joseph
Trento, Glenn Fine, David Rose, and others familiar with
Edmonds' case, the film presents a terrifying picture of Turkish
networks' activities in global nuclear black-market, narcotics
and illegal arms trafficking activities in the United States,
and examines the extraordinary efforts of officials within the
US Government to insure that the secrecy surrounding Edmonds'
case be maintained at any cost – from Edmonds' termination from
the FBI, to invoking the State Secrets Privilege, to gagging the
US Congress.
The film documents the formation of the National Security
Whistleblowers Coalition and the collective struggle of its
members to bring legislative and media attention to retaliation
by national security agencies against whistleblowers, and the
resulting danger such suppression of the truth causes the United
States. The entrenched bureaucratic power of the United States
government would rather sacrifice those who would reveal the
truth than face the changes necessary to protect the nation. The
filmmakers interviewed many high-profile national security
whistleblowers, including Daniel Ellsberg, Coleen Rowley (FBI),
Russell Tice (NSA), Bogdan Dzakovic (DHS), John Vincent (FBI),
Steve Elson (FAA), John M. Cole (FBI), and Matthew Fogg, among
others.
Bill Weaver commented: "H.L. Mencken once said that 'every
normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin to slit throats'. This film makes me
want to do just that. The incompetence, maliciousness,
corruption, inefficacy, impudence, arrogance, and plain
stupidity of the government's criminal activities toward Sibel
Edmonds are a national shame. Having lived under tyranny in Iran
and elsewhere, Edmonds knows what it looks like. In her case,
and in many other recent cases, tyranny comes in the form of the
state secrets privilege, a foolproof mechanism of the federal
government to hide executive branch corruption, incompetence,
and illegal activity. This is a practice more at home with Czars
and nabobs, and should have no place in the United States. But
Edmonds gave the government something it never expected – a no
holds barred battle. She hoisted the black flag and went on the
attack by forming the National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition, an organization dedicated to changing the law,
exposing government misdeeds, and giving hell to those who
richly deserve it. This film will forever change the way you
view the United States government and will give you an insight
into what true patriotism, not Wal-Mart patriotism, looks like."
"Sibel Edmonds lives in a great democracy but at the wrong time.
Making a film on a woman who is gagged by the Bush
administration, one of the most secretive in U.S history, was
almost a civic duty. We hope this film will be a wake up call
for all of us;" stated Mathieu Verboud, the co-director of "Kill
the Messenger."
To view the trailer, an exclusive interview with the directors,
background information, and more Click Here or go directly to:
http://justacitizen.com/killthemessenger.html
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, founded in August
2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of
whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation's
security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security
vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power
plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation's
borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse,
and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to
aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of
methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform,
educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity,
provision of comfort and fellowship to national security
whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and
working with other public interest organizations to affect goals
defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit
www.nswbc.org
# # # #
© Copyright 2006, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
Information in this release may be freely distributed and
published provided that all such distributions make appropriate
attribution to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
www.nswbc.org
Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI language specialist, was terminated
from the bureau after reporting security breaches, cover-up, and
blocking of intelligence with national security implications.
Since that time, court proceedings in her whistleblower case
have been blocked by the imposition of ?State Secret Privilege,?
and Congress has been prevented from discussion of her case
through retroactive reclassification by the Department of
Justice. Edmonds, fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani;
holds an MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from
George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and
Psychology from George Washington University.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006
*****************************************************************
55 PAM: Nuclear Giants and Ethical Infants: Confronting Global Nuclear Proliferation
Political Affairs Magazine -
By Prasad Venugopal
Published: 09/18/2006 10:20
(The following remarks were given on the occasion of the
Commemoration of Nagasaki/Hiroshima Victims and Survivors on
August 9th, 2006 at Hope United Methodist Church in Southfield,
MI. The talk was sponsored by the Church's Peace &Justice
Committee as well as a number of other peace organizations in
the Metro Detroit Area.)
On June 11, 1945, scientists Leo Szilard, James Franck and five
of their colleagues working on the Manhattan project at the
University of Chicago’s Metallurgical Lab issued a report in
which they argued against using the atomic bomb on Japan. In
their report, they argued that, “the military advantages and the
saving of American lives achieved by the sudden use of atomic
bombs against Japan, may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of
confidence and wave of horror and repulsion sweeping over the
rest of the world.” It will be very difficult to persuade the
world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and
suddenly releasing [such] a weapon… is to be trusted in its
proclaimed desire to of having such weapons abolished by
international agreement.” Therefore, they added, “a
demonstration of the new weapon may best be made before the eyes
of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a
barren island.” 1
Little did they know at that time, that the decision to drop the
atomic bomb on Japan had already been made. In early 1945, the
Department of War had formed an Interim Committee to study the
political and battlefield implications of using atomic weapons
in war. In their May meeting, the committee concluded that the
U.S. would “not give the Japanese any warning; that we could not
concentrate on a civilian area; but that we should seek to make
a profound psychological impression on as many of the
inhabitants as possible. [It was] agreed that the most desirable
target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of
workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses.” At its June
21st meeting, the committee, in response to the Franck Report,
reaffirmed its position that the atomic weapon, “be used without
warning, and that it be used on a dual target, namely, a
military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to
homes or other buildings most susceptible to damage.”2
On August 6th, 1945, at 8:15 am, the first atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. 140,000 people were killed, some instantly
vaporized by the heat of the explosion, leaving behind dark
shadows on walls as a reminder of their horrible death.
Thousands others suffered in agony from the deadly radiation for
many hours or days before death came mercifully to their door.
Three days later, the U.S. dropped a second bomb, this time on
Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands more and destroying over a
hundred thousand lives for generations to come. And so, we
arrive at the reason for this, and countless other, events
around the world, commemorating the victims of one of the most
barbaric displays of human cruelty, a time when we rededicate
ourselves, in the words of Mother Jones, to “pray for the dead
and fight like hell for the living.”
Before I go on, let me thank the Detroit Area Peace with Justice
Network, particularly Peace Action, Citizens for Peace and
WILPF, for inviting me to give this talk. And I thank Hope
United Methodist Church for graciously hosting us on this
occasion. The Methodist Church has a clear and unequivocal
stance against nuclear weapons. In your foundation statement In
Defense of Creation (1986), the Council of Bishops stated, “We
say a clear and unconditional No to nuclear war and to any use
of nuclear weapons.”3 This position was reaffirmed by the 2004
General Conference of the United Methodist Church, which adopted
a resolution stating, “We reaffirm the finding that nuclear
weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and
morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear
weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment. When
used as instruments of deterrence, nuclear weapons hold innocent
people hostage for political and military purposes. Therefore,
the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is morally corrupt and
spiritually bankrupt.”4 The antinuclear movement is indeed at
home in the Methodist Church!
It was a full year before Americans were really aware of the
deadly and barbaric effects of dropping the atomic bombs on the
Japanese. In August 1946, the New Yorker devoted an entire issue
to the accounts of survivors interviewed by Pulitzer-Prize
winning journalist John Hersey in the days following the
attacks. Hersey’s interviews, later published as a book titled
Hiroshima, became a classic, of which the New York Times said,
“Nothing that can be said about this book can equal what the
book has to say. It speaks for itself, and in an unforgettable
way, for humanity.”5
Two days after Hiroshima, Methodist pastor G. Bromley Oxnam,
writing with John Foster Dulles in the New York Times, expressed
his horror, saying, “If we, as a professedly Christian nation,
feel morally free to use atomic energy in this way, men
elsewhere will accept that verdict.”6 The Catholic Herald of
London assailed the bombing as “not only utterly and absolutely
indefensible in itself, but ….lights up for us all the
immorality along the path we have all been treading.” 7 The
Vatican newspaper wrote, “this incredible, destructive
instrument remains a temptation… for posterity, to whom history
teaches very little, and which the forgetfulness of experience
dominates so willingly.” 8 Others joined in, including Dorothy
Day, WILPF and FOR. Even former Presidents and Generals were
appalled by the bombs. Hoover said, “The use of the atomic bomb,
with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts
my soul.” General Douglas Macarthur saw “no military
justification for the dropping of the bomb.”
The key point to note here is that not all those who condemned
the use of nuclear weapons were radicals or liberals. Many among
them were conservatives who held to a strong moral position on
the use of these weapons as being against their religious
convictions. They held these convictions even in the face of a
growing myth that dropping the bombs ended the war early and
saved thousands of American lives.
The global movement for nuclear disarmament has persisted
throughout the Cold War years and beyond, against a backdrop of
the US-Soviet arms race; growing nuclear arsenals and military
budgets; the development of more powerful and deadly weapons,
such as the Hydrogen Bomb; nuclear proliferation to France, UK
and China and later to other countries; and the emergence of a
theory of deterrence called MAD, which served as a foundation
for global nuclear proliferation. It would be impossible to do
justice to the breadth and extent of the antinuclear movement in
this speech, but I want to present a few examples to show that
our event today, our commemoration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
and the continuing struggle today, follow in a long and proud
tradition of peace activism in this country.
In 1955, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell wrote an
antinuclear manifesto9, in which they called upon the scientific
community to unite in a demand that the US and USSR enact an
immediate nuclear weapons freeze, leading to disarmament and
abolition of war itself. In 1957, Russell convened the first
Pugwash conference of scientists, based on the Einstein-Russell
manifesto. This conference, and the global organization of
scientists that coalesced around it, continues to this day.10
Chicago-area scientists who were involved in the Manhattan
project, but opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, also joined
together to form the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, to raise
public awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons and offer
better uses for nuclear energy.
The antinuclear writings of public figures, such as Dr. Albert
Schweitzer, Eleanor Roosevelt and others soon led to the
formation of a grassroots organization called the National
Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy in the late 50’s. The work
of SANE and other groups contributed to the growing
international pressure that led to the ratification of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. In the
seventies, this movement expanded to include the question of
nuclear power, following the Karen Silkwood incident at the
plutonium processing plant in Oklahoma and the Three Mile Island
disaster, under the leadership of groups such as the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS).11
During the Reagan years, the antinuclear movement took to the
streets to protest Reagan’s Star Wars program, with 1 million
people gathering in New York City in 1982. Physicians for Social
Responsibility, led by Helen Caldicott, evolved into
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
(IPPNW). In Congress, Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Hatfield
(R-OR) introduced a resolution that called for “a freeze on the
testing, production and deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles
and other delivery systems within the US and USSR. In 1987, SANE
and Freeze united to form the organization that later came to be
called Peace Action.
The end of the Cold War has diminished the movement’s
effectiveness to some extent. But, the belligerent posture of
the Bush administration on pre-emptive war and the use of
nuclear weapons has refocused public attention on the dangers of
nuclear proliferation and weapons use. Groups such as the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Project Abolition and others have
been joined in their efforts by alliances like the international
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers.
At the heart of the struggle is a confrontation with a beast
that has devoured over 3.7 trillion dollars between 1940 and
2005 in the United States alone. Today, the U.S. spends over 25
billion dollars annually to prepare to fight such a war. At the
height of the nuclear arms race, there were more than 60,000
nuclear weapons in the world. Today there are still some 30,000
nuclear weapons in the world, and more than 95 percent of these
are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. New nuclear weapons
states India, Pakistan and Israel, and emerging ones, such as N.
Korea and possibly Iran, have given the lie to the belief that
the end of the Cold War has reduced the dangers of nuclear
proliferation and use. Rather today, we face a formidable
challenge in a world dominated by a belligerent US foreign
policy, a challenge that was best stated by General Omar
Bradley, the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after
World War II, when he said, “We know more about war that we know
about peace, more about killing that we know about living. The
world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without
conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical
infants.”12
The Bush Agenda
And so we come to our struggle today, against the Bush agenda,
which represents a dangerous and belligerent shift in U.S.
nuclear weapons policy in the post cold-war world. From
documents, such as Rebuilding America’s Defenses by the Project
for a New American Century13 and the National Security
Strategy14, put out by neoconservatives in the Bush
administration – Cheney, Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz, among
others, we see the ideological reasoning behind this shift in
nuclear weapons policies, as the Bush administration’s NEED to
1. Respond to emerging threats and challenges to U.S. global
economic and military hegemony from multiple nations following
the end of the Cold War.
2. Stop the growing proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and associated technology involving state-to-state
and state-to-non-state actors
3. Engage in a forward defense strategy i.e., to prevent the
emergence of new crises or preempt serious crises
4. Re-envision role of the global U.S. stockpile of nuclear
weapons to promote offensive capabilities, as opposed to
deterrence
Based on these reasons, the administration called for a new
Nuclear Posture to build upon and modify the 1995 Nuclear
Doctrine put forward under the Clinton administration. In 2001,
a revised Nuclear Posture was published, followed by National
Security Presidential Directives NSPD 14 and 17 in 2002 and
finally, last year, a revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear
Operations. Reading these documents reveal four strategic themes
in the Bush nuclear posture for the 21st Century.15 Each theme
envisions a shift in the way nuclear weapons are deployed and
used, namely A SHIFT
Shift 1: From strategic to non-strategic use OR from global
nuclear deployment/threat/use planning to regional
(“theater-based”) or local deployment/threat/use nuclear
planning. This is accomplished by:
1. Doing away with a separate theater role for non-strategic
nuclear forces. Instead, assigns all nuclear weapons, whether
strategic or non-strategic, support roles in theater nuclear
operations.
2. Shifting command and control from STRATCOM to regional
commands (Europe, Pacific etc)
Shift 2: From deterrent to pre-emptive use OR last-use to
first-use of nuclear weapons in war. This is accomplished by:
1. Incorporating the concept of pre-emption into U.S. nuclear
doctrine, including as a response to use or threat-to-use of
non-nuclear WMD by enemy states “against the United States, our
forces abroad, and friends and allies.”
2. Shifting from threat-based planning (target nuclear weapons
at known threats) to capability-based planning (enable
destruction of targets anywhere in the world more efficiently)
in the belief that nuclear deterrence will fail sooner or later.
3. Identifying four conditions where pre-emptive use might
occur:
a. An adversary intending to use weapons of mass destruction
against U.S., multinational, or allies forces or civilian
populations
b. Imminent attack from an adversary’s biological weapons that
only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy
c. Attacks on adversary installations including weapons of mass
destruction; deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or
biological weapons; or the command and control infrastructure
required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the
United States or its friends and allies
d. Demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear
weapons to deter adversary WMD use
Shift 3: From unique nuclear weapons planning and deployment to
integrated conventional and nuclear weapons planning OR from use
of nuclear weapons in nuclear war to use of nuclear weapons in
conventional conflict. This is accomplished by:
1. Accelerating the development and testing of new nuclear
weapons capabilities:
a. Powerful earth penetrating nuclear warheads (RNEP) to destroy
underground facilities
b. "Agent defeat" weapons to destroy chemical and biological
weapons and support facilities while limiting damage from both
release of hazardous materials and the nuclear explosion itself,
such as the Divine Strake experiment [seen as a “Full-Scale
tunnel defeat demonstration using high explosives to simulate a
low yield nuclear weapon ground shock environment” to develop
…confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield
necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing
collateral damage. The explosive power of Divine Strake will be
approximately 593 tons of TNT equivalent, or roughly 0.6 kt.
This is about double the lowest yield option on the
non-strategic B61 nuclear gravity bomb, and suggests that Divine
Strake may be intended to fine-tune use of the B61 bomb.]
c. Building the Modern Pit Facility (MPF), a new factory to
make plutonium pits, the nuclear explosive "triggers" at the
heart of modern thermonuclear weapons - 2011 or after; produce
as many as 450 pits per year; add to the pit production facility
now being established at Los Alamos, which has a capacity of 50
or more pits per year.
Shift 4: From multilateral approaches to nuclear proliferation
and international treaties to unilateralism OR from
International Law to National Security. This is accomplished by:
1. Designing a new Nuclear Posture, as mentioned above, which
seriously undermines the NPT
2. Withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty
3. Refusing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which
the US itself pushed at the UN
4. Refusing to enter into negotiations on the Fissile Materials
Cutoff Treaty
5. Developing Theater &Strategic Missile Defenses for sale to
countries such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.
Confronting Global Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century
How do we face the challenge of global nuclear proliferation in
the 21st century? Let me speak briefly about a few ideas that I
believe might be important for us to consider as part of our
discussion. There are 5 things we need to make sure we are
doing: We need to
1. Reengage the innate fear of nuclear weapons amongst the
people, even if it is sometimes manifested in negative reactions
towards the alleged nuclear programs of N. Korea, Iran etc.
Emphasize that the only long-term solution to removing this fear
will be a global abolition of nuclear weapons.
2. Reengage the moral conservatives based on a common
opposition to violence as against religious teachings and basic
dignity of human life: Emphasize the argument “Possession fuels
Proliferation” and “Proliferation fuels Use”.
2. Reeducate the children &youth of today and successive
generations to the dangers of nuclear weapons. Call for greater
exposure in science and social studies curricula and lobby state
and district Boards of Education for this purpose.
3. Integrate the Anti-nuclear movement with anti-war efforts.
We need to see that war is the vehicle for the use of nuclear
weapons. Therefore, we must always include a focus on anti-war
efforts in ending nuclear proliferation.
4. Expand the Movement – Target the health, environmental
racism, and the economics of the development and testing of
nuclear weapons, even before they are deployed or used. The
design and production of nuclear weapons destroys lives long
before the bomb is dropped!
5. Challenge the proliferation of nuclear energy as a solution
to the global oil crisis. Emphasize the proliferation risks
inherent to the development and spread of nuclear technology. On
this issue, turn the Bush argument against itself: If we are
concerned that Iran’s nuclear power program could lead to a
nuclear weapons program, then the US-India nuclear deal could
accelerate India’s nuclear weapons program, resulting in nuclear
proliferation between India, Pakistan and China.
These are just a few of the ideas that I believe are important
in our anti-nuclear work. However, we should never forget that
our work, and of those who came before us, has always had a
higher purpose. Let me illustrate this in conclusion by quoting
one of the distinguished leaders of the antinuclear movement. In
1995, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Dr. Joseph Rotblat
and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs "for
their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in
international politics and in the longer run to eliminate such
arms." Dr. Rotblat’s acceptance speech carried a message for us
all, a message that each of us within this room needs to carry
to those without, “Remember your humanity and forget the rest.
Survival in a world free of war can be achieved by love rather
than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion. Above all,
remember your humanity.”16
--Prasad Venugopal is science editor of Political Affairs and
can be reached at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net
Footnotes
[1] The Antinuclear Movement, Jennifer Smith (ed.), Greenhaven
Press (2003)
[2]
http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/p
re-cold-war/interim-committee/interim-committee-informal-notes_19
45-06-21.htm
[3] In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear Crisis and a Just
Peace, United Methodist Council of Bishops, Graded Press (1986)
[4] http://www.zero-nukes.org/religiousstatements2.html#sayingno
[5] Hiroshima , John Hersey, Random House (1946)
[6] New York Times, August 8, 1945, page 6
[7] New York Times, August 8, 1945, page 6
[8] New York Times, August 8, 1945, page 6
[9]
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/scienti
fic/russell-einstein-manifesto.htm
[10] http://www.pugwash.org/
[11] The Antinuclear Movement, Jennifer Smith (ed.), Greenhaven
Press (2003)
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bradley
[13]
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
[14] http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
[15] http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_09/Kristensen.asp
[16] The Antinuclear Movement, Jennifer Smith (ed.), Greenhaven
Press (2003)
*****************************************************************
56 Athlone Advertiser: Athlone under threat from nuclear fallout
Current Publication Date: 20/09/2006
by Maria Daly
People living in Athlone could face compulsary resettlement if a
Chernobyl-like nuclear explosion was to happen in the Welsh
nuclear power plant of Wylfa.
The new fallout maps were created for a conference by the
Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum (NFLA). The
conference will take place in the D Hotel, Drogheda, on Saturday
September 30. The conference will be hosted by Cllr Michael
O’Dowd and will cover such issues as the health consequences for
Ireland of a major nuclear accident. Speakers on the day will
include Pete Roche who is a nuclear policy consultant, Dylan
Morgan of People Against Wylfa B, and Rite Holmes who is a
member of the Hunterston Site Stakeholder Group.
The British government are currently looking at the possiblility
of building a nuclear power plant at either Wylfa in Wales,
Hunterston in Scotland, or Sellafield in England. If there was a
nuclear fallout in any of the proposed sites and south easterly
winds were prevailing, Athlone and the Midlands would be under
serious threat of contamination.
The NFLA has released a map which shows the fallout area that
would follow an accident at the nuclear reactor in Wylfa if
easterly winds carried fallout across to Ireland. Large areas of
central and southern Ireland would become so contaminated that
there would be cause for evacuation. The NFLA has based its maps
on the fallout from the Chernobyl reactor accident which
happened some 20 years ago.
The NFLA has released a document called ‘Our Energy Challenge,’
a Response to the UK Department of Trade and Industry Energy
review, in which it says; “The impact of accidents involving
nuclear reactors can cross international frontiers and affect
the legitimate interests of neighbouring states which do not
themselves have nuclear programmes, possibly causing serious
long term damage to the environment and threatening the health
and safety of their populations.”
The maps show three main zones which would be created after a
Chernobyl-type accident. The fallout zones are classed as:
compulsory resettlement, assisted resettlement, and areas under
strict radiological control. The Midlands are classed as
compulsory resettlement areas and assisted resettlement areas,
meaning that more than half the population might have to be
resettled if an accident occurred at the Wylfa nuclear power
plant which is located on the island of Anglesey off the coast
of Wales.
The NFLA believes that “the shared use of the Irish Sea and the
history of discharges into it give the people of Ireland a
legitimate interest in any future nuclear developments on the
north west coast of the UK.” In the document the NFLA says that
the UK government need to realise that if they decide to build
new nuclear power stations they must consider the risks they
would pose to the people of Ireland. “Ireland would face risks
in the event of an accident involving a nuclear power station in
the UK and has had to face the consequences of radioactive
contamination in the Irish Sea resulting from the activities of
the UK nuclear power stations.”
© Athlone Advertiser,2006
*****************************************************************
57 [NukeNet] Making Nuclear Waste Less Harmful
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:38:31 -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
Guest Article: Making Nuclear Waste Less Harmful
Friday, 29 August 2003, 12:36 pm
Opinion: Guest Opinion
A Process To Render Nuclear Weapons & Waste Less Harmful
By Dennis F. Nester,
special for NuclearNo.com,
Originally published 20 June 2003
- Recycling plutonium from warheads into MOX nuclear reactor fuel only
perpetuates the security and environmental problems of bomb grade elements
- There is a better way which will completely transmute plutonium and other
high level nuclear waste known as the Roy Process
It was the TMI partial meltdown that moved Dr. Roy to spend the summer
school break proving calculations to see if it was possible to transmute
high level nuclear waste cost effectively. He found it could be done with
existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current
supporting technology.
Estimated cost to build a pilot facility was $80 million dollars. A
newspaper editor persuaded Dr. Roy to release his Roy Process to the press
which was published in November of 1979. (see article on web site below).
The Roy Process Brief Description
from the web site:
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? Maybe! One possible
solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of
Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of
the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in
Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the
author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing
author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited
in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in
the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent
52 years in European and American universities researching and writing
recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.
Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to
harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear
waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.
In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international
attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive
materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and
the chemical separation processes needed are well known.
What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements
such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they
all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process
transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra
neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a
considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a
reasonable amount of time.
How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as
x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this
process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.
It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to
hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive
wastes.
To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is
transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with
a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a
half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be
produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as
above until the stable element is formed.
The Roy Process could be developed in three distinct phases, according to
Roy. Phase I consists of a theoretical feasibility study of the process to
obtain needed parameters for the construction of a prototype machine. Phase
II will involve the construction of a prototype machine and supporting
facilities for demonstrating the process. Phase Ill will consist of the
construction of large scale commercial plants based on the data obtained
from Phase II.
Cost estimates for Phase I and II are in the neighborhood of $10 million.
For Phase Ill, Roy estimates a cost of $70 million. Says Roy, `It will be
interesting to do a cost analysis of eliminating nuclear waste by using my
process and by burying it for 240,000 years - ten half-lives of plutonium -
under strict scientific control. There is also an ethical question: can we
really burden the thousands of generations yet to come with problems which
we have created? There is no God among human beings who can guarantee how
the geological structure of waste burial regions will change even after ten
thousand years, not to mention 240,000 years."
If you are interested in finding out more about this process, please
contact Dennis Nester, Roy`s agent, whose address is listed below.
A final note
To those who say that a process for transforming nuclear wastes is an
invitation to keep making them, I ask, when we find a cure for cancer,
shall we say it`s okay to continue to eat, drink and breathe carcinogens?
"There is no way one can change nuclear structure other than by nuclear
reaction. Burial of nuclear waste is not a solution." Radha Roy, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
"Do not be surprised if you learn that the nuclear industry makes billions
of dollars by being a part of government`s policy of burial of nuclear
wastes. It is not in their financial interest to try any other process.
They are not idealists. Radha R. Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus
The below includes the Patent application claim.....describing other uses
for the Roy Process transmutation method
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/additional-uses-royprocess.html
*************
AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILS
Dennis F. Nester 4510 E. Willow Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85032 USA
theroyprocess@cox.net
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
*****************************************************************
58 Guardian Unlimited: Group Pledges $50M for Nuclear Fuel
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday September 19, 2006 9:16 PM
By BEN EVANS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, CNN
creator Ted Turner and former Sen. Sam Nunn pledged $50 million
to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency Tuesday to create a
uranium stockpile.
The aim is to discourage countries from developing their own
nuclear programs. The reserve would ensure supplies of low-grade
fuel for nuclear power plants around the world. One example of a
program they hope to discourage is in Iran, which critics fear
is ultimately aimed at developing weapons.
The Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative is hoping its
financial pledge to the International Atomic Energy Agency will
prod governments into action on creating the stockpile. Buffett
would provide the money, which is contingent on a $100 million
match from IAEA member states.
``Under international law and under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, countries have the right to enrich nuclear fuel,'' Nunn,
a Georgia Democratic senator from 1972 to 1996, said in a
telephone interview from Vienna, where he announced the proposal
at a 140-country IAEA annual conference. ``If we have a lot more
countries that do that - and we're on the threshold of that now
- then it's going to be an extremely dangerous world.''
``It's going to be very difficult to keep that weapons-grade
material out of the hands of someone who might use it as a
weapon, like a terrorist group,'' Nunn said.
Western leaders are currently locked in a standoff with Iran
over its uranium enrichment, which the country says is for
civilian power but that the United States and others warn is
intended to make weapons.
Nunn said an international reserve might not have deterred Iran.
But it would give the international community more leverage in
addressing the situation, he said.
``It would certainly be a powerful tool in the hands of the
international community, saying, 'You don't need your own
nuclear fuel supply. You have this available,''' Nunn said.
Nunn, who founded the anti-proliferation group with Turner, said
the State Department expressed support for the plan but that
``there's a difference between welcoming it and putting up
money.'' He acknowledged that rallying the international
community around the proposal would be difficult.
A State Department spokeswoman said she could not immediately
comment on the proposal.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
59 Guardian Unlimited: New Thorp delay deals blow to BNG
Terry Macalister
Wednesday September 20, 2006
The Guardian
Britain's nuclear industry has been hit by further setbacks with
the re-opening of the Ł1.8bn fuel reprocessing plant at
Sellafield facing more delays and British Energy warning of
difficulties with two reactors.
Shares in British Energy slumped 8% to 587p after the company,
which produces almost a quarter of the UK's electricity, said the
nuclear stations Hunterston B, in Ayrshire, and Hinkley Point B,
Somerset, could need repairs to mend boiler cracks.
Analysts say forced stoppages to solve these problems could knock
Ł80m off full-year profits. British Energy has benefited from
higher power prices and was expected to report profits of Ł1.5bn
in the 12 months to March 31 2007.
The problems come at a difficult time for the UK's nuclear
industry as British Nuclear Group, the operator of Sellafield's
Thorp fuel reprocessing plant, prepares for privatisation and
the UK moves towards building a new generation of atomic power
stations.
British Energy holds its annual general meeting in Edinburgh
today where it will be met with demonstrators opposed to an
extension of nuclear power in the UK.
The Thorp plant has been closed for 17 months following a leak
of 83,000 litres of radioactive liquid, which led to BNG being
fined Ł2m for safety lapses
The subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels has repeatedly expressed
confidence that the plant will be brought back into service
within months but now admits the timetable has slipped to next
year. A spokeswoman said: "While all necessary improvements to
the plant will be completed by the end of September it is now
clear the process of carrying out the Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate recommendations and related work will take some
time. BNG and the Nuclear installations Inspectorate are seeking
to complete this [repair] work as quickly as possible but it is
likely this will run until the end of December, leading to a
restart early 2007."
Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth
Scotland, said nuclear power could not save the world from
climate change and would not deliver security of supply. "Any
plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations will
hamper real action to reduce energy demand, develop better
alternatives and tackle climate chaos.
"If anyone needed proof that nuclear is not the solution then
they need look no further than companies like British Energy.
The nuclear industry routinely leaves pollution, waste and
contamination in its wake."
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
*****************************************************************
60 gainesvilletimes.com: Coal can harm environment more than nuclear waste -
Opinion - Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Your views
LETTER
The letter from Adele Kushner in the Sept. 9 Times requires
clarification.
The amount of heat emitted to the environment as a result of
condensing steam back into water in a steam-electric power plant
is not a function of whether the plant is fueled by coal or
uranium. Both are equally responsible in this regard. This can
be virtually eliminated by condensing the steam via cooling
towers. Many coal-fired and nuclear plants employ this
technology in order to protect the environment from this heat
pollution.
Coal plants emit huge amounts of heat to the atmosphere by
virtue of flue gases. Nuclear plants emit no such flue gas heat,
so coal plants are the offender in global warming, not nuclear
plants.
Ms. Kushner suggests that nuclear plants are not a reliable
source of electricity. Twenty percent of the electricity
generated in the United States comes from nuclear plants. Most
of the 100-plus nuclear plants in the country are available to
operate at full load more than 90 percent of the time, thus they
are highly reliable. This may be confirmed by the International
Atomic Energy Agency Power Reactor Information System Database
at which provides such data for every nuclear plant in the
world.
Coal plants produce hundreds of millions of tons of toxic waste
each year. Radioactive waste from nuclear plants is small in
comparison; all the waste from all the nuclear plants operating
in the United State for the last 40-plus years could be stacked
on a football field less than 30 feet high.
This nuclear waste will either be buried safely under Yucca
Mountain in Nevada, or it will be reprocessed into harmless
materials as it is in the other 340-plus nuclear plants in more
than 30 other countries around the world.
William D. Rezak
Gainesville
Originally published Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Copyright ©2004 The Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
61 NRC: In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services L.P. (National
FR Doc 06-7742
[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices] [Page 54845-54849] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19se06-70]
Enrichment Facility) and All Other Persons Who Seek or Obtain
Access to Safeguards Information Described Herein; Order Imposing
Requirements for the Protection of Safeguards Information and
Access to New Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately) I
Louisiana Energy Services, L.P., (LES or the Licensee) holds a
license, issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of
1954, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
Commission) authorizing it to construct and operate a uranium
enrichment facility in Lea County, New Mexico. On March 19, 2004,
in accordance with Commission direction in Staff Requirements
Memorandum SECY-03-0083, NRC provided LES, for its information,
copies of Orders issued to Category III facilities on interim
measures to enhance physical security at those facilities. Those
Orders contained Safeguards Information \1\. In addition, in the
future, the Commission may issue the Licensee additional Orders
that require compliance with specific Additional Security
Measures to enhance the security. These Orders are also expected
to contain Safeguards Information, which cannot be released to
the public and must be protected from unauthorized disclosure.
Therefore, the Commission is imposing the requirements, as set
forth in Attachments A and B of this Order, so that the Licensee
can receive these documents. This Order also imposes requirements
for the protection of Safeguards Information in the hands of any
person,\2\ whether or not a licensee of the Commission, who
produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Safeguards Information is a form of sensitive,
unclassified, security-related information that the Commission
has the authority to designate and protect under section 147 of
the AEA.
\2\ Person means: (1) any individual, corporation, partnership,
firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution,
group, government agency other than the Commission or the
Department of Energy, except that the Department of Energy shall
be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the
Department specified in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any political
subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any
foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any
such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal
successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct amended Section 149
of the AEA to require fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) identification and criminal history records
check of any person who is to be permitted to have access to
Safeguards Information. The NRC's implementation of this
requirement cannot await the completion of the Safeguards
Information rulemaking, which is under way, because the EPAct
fingerprinting and criminal history check requirements for access
to Safeguards Information were immediately effective upon
enactment of the EPAct. Although the EPAct permits the Commission
by rule to except certain categories of individuals from the
fingerprinting requirement, which the Commission has done (see 10
CFR 73.59, 71 FR 33989 (June 13, 2006)), it is unlikely that many
Licensee employees are excepted from the fingerprinting
requirement by the ``fingerprinting relief'' rule. Individuals
relieved from the fingerprinting and criminal history checks
under the relief rule include Federal, State, and local officials
and law enforcement personnel; Agreement State inspectors, who
conduct security inspections on behalf of the NRC; members of
Congress and certain employees of members of Congress or
Congressional Committees; representatives of the International
Atomic Energy Agency or certain foreign government organizations.
In addition, individuals who have active Federal security
clearances and have satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting
requirement need not be fingerprinted again. Therefore, in
accordance with Section 149 of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct,
the Commission is imposing additional requirements, as set forth
by this Order, for access to new Safeguards Information \3\ by
any person, from any person, whether or not a Licensee,
Applicant, or Certificate Holder of the Commission or Agreement
States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \3\ ``New Safeguards Information'' means Safeguards
Information generated subsequent to August 8, 2005, the date of
enactment of the EPAct. ``New Safeguards Information'' also means
any Safeguards Information, regardless of when it was generated,
that is being accessed by an individual who has never been
previously granted access to Safeguards Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- II The Commission has broad statutory authority to
protect Safeguards Information and prohibit its unauthorized
disclosure. Section 147 of the AEA, as amended, grants the
Commission explicit authority to ``* * * issue such orders, as
necessary
[[Page 54846]] to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of
safeguards information * * *'' Furthermore, Section 652 of the
EPAct amended Section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting
and an FBI identification and a criminal history records check of
each individual who seeks access to Safeguards Information.
Licensees and all persons who produce, receive, or acquire
Safeguards Information must ensure proper handling and protection
of Safeguards Information, to avoid unauthorized disclosure, in
accordance with the specific requirements for the protection of
Safeguards Information contained in Attachments A and B. The
Commission hereby provides notice that it intends to treat
violations of the requirements contained in Attachments A and B,
applicable to the handling and unauthorized disclosure of
Safeguards Information, as serious breaches of adequate
protection of the public health and safety and the common defense
and security of the United States. Access to Safeguards
Information is limited to those persons who have established a
need-to- know the information, and are considered to be
trustworthy and reliable, and who satisfy the fingerprinting and
criminal history records check required by the EPAct and this
Order. A ``need-to-know'' means a determination by a person
having responsibility for protecting Safeguards Information that
a proposed recipient's access to Safeguards Information is
necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or
licensee duties of employment. The Licensee and all other persons
who obtain Safeguards Information must ensure that they develop,
maintain, and implement strict policies and procedures for the
proper handling of Safeguards Information, to prevent
unauthorized disclosure, in accordance with the requirements in
Attachments A and B. The Licensee must ensure that all
contractors whose employees may have access to Safeguards
Information either adhere to the Licensee's policies and
procedures on Safeguards Information or develop, maintain, and
implement their own acceptable policies and procedures. The
Licensee remains responsible for the conduct of its contractors.
The policies and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with
applicable requirements contained in Attachments A and B must
address, at a minimum, the following: (1) The general performance
requirement that each person who produces, receives, or acquires
Safeguards Information shall ensure that Safeguards Information
is protected against unauthorized disclosure; (2) protection of
Safeguards Information at fixed sites, in use and in storage, and
while in transit; (3) correspondence containing Safeguards
Information; (4) access to Safeguards Information; (5)
preparation, marking, reproduction, and destruction of documents;
(6) external transmission of documents; (7) use of automatic data
processing systems; and (8) removal of the Safeguards Information
category.
To provide assurance that the Licensee is implementing
appropriate measures to achieve a consistent level of protection
to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of new Safeguards
Information, the Licensee shall implement the fingerprinting and
criminal history check requirements for access to new Safeguards
Information in this Order, as well as the requirements in
Attachments A and B of this Order.
In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of
the common defense and security matters identified above, which
warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety,
and interest require that this Order be effective immediately.
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 62, 63, 81, 147, 149,
161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10
CFR part 30, 10 CFR part 40, and 10 CFR part 70, it is hereby
ordered, effective immediately, that licensee and all other
persons who produce, receive, or acquire the additional security
measures identified above (whether draft or final), or who seek
or obtain access to new safeguards information, shall comply with
the requirements set forth in this Order, including the
requirements in Attachments A and B.
A. No person may have access to new Safeguards Information unless
that person has a need-to-know the new Safeguards Information,
has been fingerprinted and undergone an FBI identification and
criminal history records check, which has been favorably decided,
and satisfies all other applicable requirements for access to
Safeguards Information. Fingerprinting and the FBI identification
and criminal history records check are not required, however, for
any person who is relieved from that requirement by 10 CFR 73.59
(71 FR 33989 (June 13, 2006)) or who has an active Federal
security clearance.
B. No person may provide new Safeguards Information to any other
person except in accordance with condition III.A above. Prior to
sharing new Safeguards Information with any other person, a copy
of this Order shall be provided to that person.
IV The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above
conditions, on demonstration of good cause by the Licensee. In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and
include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer
may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this
Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law
on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies,
and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued.
Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Assistant
General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the
same address; and to the Licensee, if the answer or hearing
request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of
possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government
offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be
transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means
of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail, to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov; and also to the Office of the General
Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission, to
301-415-3725, or by e- mail, to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a
person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person
shall set forth with particularity the manner in which their
interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested
by the Licensee or a person whose interest is
[[Page 54847]] adversely affected, the Commission will issue an
Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing
is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written
approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing,
the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final
twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, without further
order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a
hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section
III shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing
request has not been received.
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate
effectiveness of this Order.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards.
Attachment A--Modified Handling Requirements for the Protection
of Certain Safeguards Information (SGI-M) General Requirement
Information and material that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) determines are safeguards information must be
protected from unauthorized disclosure. In order to distinguish
information needing modified protection requirements from the
safeguards information for reactors and fuel cycle facilities
that require a higher level of protection, the term ``Safeguards
Information-Modified Handling'' (SGI-M) is being used as the
distinguishing marking for certain materials licensees. Each
person who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M shall ensure
that it is protected against unauthorized disclosure. To meet
this requirement, licensees and persons shall establish and
maintain an information protection system that includes the
measures specified below. Information protection procedures
employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet
these requirements.
Persons Subject to These Requirements Any person, whether or not
a licensee of the NRC, who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M
is subject to the requirements (and sanctions) of this document.
Firms and their employees that supply services or equipment to
materials licensees fall under this requirement if they possess
SGI-M. A licensee must inform contractors and suppliers of the
existence of these requirements and the need for proper
protection. (See more under Conditions for Access) State or local
police units who have access to SGI-M are also subject to these
requirements. However, these organizations are deemed to have
adequate information protection systems. The conditions for
transfer of information to a third party, i.e., need-to-know,
would still apply to the police organization as would sanctions
for unlawful disclosure. Again, it would be prudent for licensees
who have arrangements with local police to advise them of the
existence of SGI-M requirements.
Criminal and Civil Sanctions The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, explicitly provides that any person, ``whether or not a
licensee of the Commission, who violates any regulations adopted
under this section shall be subject to the civil monetary
penalties of section 234 of this Act.'' Furthermore, willful
violation of any regulation or order governing safeguards
information is a felony subject to criminal penalties in the form
of fines or imprisonment, or both. See sections 147b. and 223 of
the Act.
Conditions for Access Access to SGI-M beyond the initial
recipients of the order will be governed by the background check
requirements imposed by the order. Access to SGI-M by licensee
employees, agents, or contractors must include both an
appropriate need-to-know determination by the licensee, as well
as a determination concerning the trustworthiness of individuals
having access to the information. Employees of an organization
affiliated with the licensee's company, e.g., a parent company,
may be considered as employees of the licensee for access
purposes.
Need-to-Know Need-to-know is defined as a determination by a
person having responsibility for protecting SGI-M that a proposed
recipient's access to SGI-M is necessary in the performance of
official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. The
recipient must be made aware that the information is SGI-M and
those having access to it are subject to these requirements as
well as criminal and civil sanctions for mishandling the
information.
Occupational Groups Dissemination of SGI-M is limited to
individuals who have an established need-to-know and who are
members of certain occupational groups. These occupational groups
are: 1. An employee, agent, or contractor of an applicant, a
licensee, the Commission, or the United States Government; 2. A
member of a duly authorized committee of the Congress; 3. The
Governor of a State or his designated representative; 4. A
representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
engaged in activities associated with the U.S./IAEA Safeguards
Agreement who has been certified by the NRC; 5. A member of a
state or local law enforcement authority that is responsible for
responding to requests for assistance during safeguards
emergencies; 6. A person to whom disclosure is ordered pursuant
to Section 2.744(e) of Part 2 of part 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations; or 7. State Radiation Control Program Directors (and
State Homeland Security Directors) or their designees.
In a generic sense, the individuals described above in (A)
through (G) are considered to be trustworthy by virtue of their
employment status. For non-governmental individuals in group (A)
above, a determination of reliability and trustworthiness is
required. Discretion must be exercised in granting access to the
individuals in group (A). If there is any indication that the
recipient would be unwilling or unable to provide proper
protection for the SGI-M, they are not authorized to receive
SGI-M.
Information Considered for Safeguards Information Designation
Information deemed SGI-M is information the disclosure of which
could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect
on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and
security by significantly increasing the likelihood of theft,
diversion, or sabotage of materials or facilities subject to NRC
jurisdiction.
SGI-M identifies safeguards information which is subject to these
requirements. These requirements are necessary in order to
protect quantities of nuclear material significant to the
[[Page 54848]] health and safety of the public or common defense
and security.
The overall measure for consideration of SGI-M is the usefulness
of the information (security or otherwise) to an adversary in
planning or attempting a malevolent act. The specificity of the
information increases the likelihood that it will be useful to an
adversary.
Protection While in Use While in use, SGI-M shall be under the
control of an authorized individual. This requirement is
satisfied if the SGI-M is attended by an authorized individual
even though the information is in fact not constantly being used.
SGI-M, therefore, within alarm stations, continuously manned
guard posts or ready rooms need not be locked in file drawers or
storage containers.
Under certain conditions the general control exercised over
security zones or areas would be considered to meet this
requirement. The primary consideration is limiting access to
those who have a need- to-know. Some examples would be: Alarm
stations, guard posts and guard ready rooms; Engineering or
drafting areas if visitors are escorted and information is not
clearly visible; Plant maintenance areas if access is restricted
and information is not clearly visible; Administrative offices
(e.g., central records or purchasing) if visitors are escorted
and information is not clearly visible.
Protection While in Storage While unattended, SGI-M shall be
stored in a locked file drawer or container. Knowledge of lock
combinations or access to keys protecting SGI-M shall be limited
to a minimum number of personnel for operating purposes who have
a ``need-to-know'' and are otherwise authorized access to SGI-M
in accordance with these requirements. Access to lock
combinations or keys shall be strictly controlled so as to
prevent disclosure to an unauthorized individual.
Transportation of Documents and Other Matter Documents containing
SGI-M when transmitted outside an authorized place of use or
storage shall be enclosed in two sealed envelopes or wrappers.
The inner envelope or wrapper shall contain the name and address
of the intended recipient, and be marked both sides, top and
bottom with the words ``Safeguards Information--Modified
Handling.'' The outer envelope or wrapper must be addressed to
the intended recipient, must contain the address of the sender,
and must not bear any markings or indication that the document
contains SGI-M.
SGI-M may be transported by any commercial delivery company that
provides nationwide overnight service with computer tracking
features, U.S. first class, registered, express, or certified
mail, or by any individual authorized access pursuant to these
requirements.
Within a facility, SGI-M may be transmitted using a single opague
envelope. It may also be transmitted within a facility without
single or double wrapping, provided adequate measures are taken
to protect the material against unauthorized disclosure.
Individuals transporting SGI- M should retain the documents in
their personal possession at all times or ensure that the
information is appropriately wrapped and also secured to preclude
compromise by an unauthorized individual.
Preparation and Marking of Documents While the NRC is the sole
authority for determining what specific information may be
designated as ``SGI-M,'' originators of documents are responsible
for determining whether those documents contain such information.
Each document or other matter that contains SGI-M shall be marked
``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' in a conspicuous
manner on the top and bottom of the first page to indicate the
presence of protected information. The first page of the document
must also contain (i) the name, title, and organization of the
individual authorized to make a SGI-M determination, and who has
determined that the document contains SGI-M, (ii) the date the
document was originated or the determination made, (iii) an
indication that the document contains SGI-M, and (iv) an
indication that unauthorized disclosure would be subject to civil
and criminal sanctions. Each additional page shall be marked in a
conspicuous fashion at the top and bottom with letters denoting
``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling.'' In addition to the
``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' markings at the top
and bottom of page, transmittal letters or memoranda which do not
in themselves contain SGI-M shall be marked to indicate that
attachments or enclosures contain SGI-M but that the transmittal
does not (e.g., ``When separated from SGI-M enclosure(s), this
document is decontrolled'').
In addition to the information required on the face of the
document, each item of correspondence that contains SGI-M shall,
by marking or other means, clearly indicate which portions (e.g.,
paragraphs, pages, or appendices) contain SGI-M and which do not.
Portion marking is not required for physical security and
safeguards contingency plans.
All documents or other matter containing SGI-M in use or storage
shall be marked in accordance with these requirements. A specific
exception is provided for documents in the possession of
contractors and agents of licensees that were produced more than
one year prior to the effective date of the order. Such documents
need not be marked unless they are removed from file drawers or
containers. The same exception applies to old documents stored
away from the facility in central files or corporation
headquarters.
Since information protection procedures employed by state and
local police forces are deemed to meet NRC requirements,
documents in the possession of these agencies need not be marked
as set forth in this document.
Removal From SGI-M Category Documents containing SGI-M shall be
removed from the SGI-M category (decontrolled) only after the NRC
determines that the information no longer meets the criteria of
SGI-M. Licensees have the authority to make determinations that
specific documents which they created no longer contain SGI-M
information and may be decontrolled.
Consideration must be exercised to ensure that any document
decontrolled shall not disclose SGI-M in some other form or be
combined with other unprotected information to disclose SGI-M.
The authority to determine that a document may be decontrolled
may be exercised only by, or with the permission of, the
individual (or office) who made the original determination. The
document shall indicate the name and organization of the
individual removing the document from the SGI-M category and the
date of the removal.
Other persons who have the document in their possession should be
notified of the decontrolling of the document.
Reproduction of Matter Containing SGI-M SGI-M may be reproduced
to the minimum extent necessary consistent with need without
permission of the originator. Newer digital copiers which scan
and retain images of documents represent a potential security
concern. If the copier is retaining any information in memory,
the copier cannot be connected to a network. It should also be
placed in a location that is cleared
[[Page 54849]] and controlled for the authorized processing of
SGI-M information. Different copiers have different capabilities,
including some which come with features that allow the memory to
be erased. Each copier would have to be examined from a physical
security perspective.
Use of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Systems SGI-M may be
processed or produced on an ADP system provided that the system
is assigned to the licensee's or contractor's facility and
requires the use of an entry code/password for access to stored
information. Licensees must process this information in a
computing environment that has adequate computer security
controls in place to prevent unauthorized access to the
information. An ADP system is defined here as a data processing
system having the capability of long term storage of information.
Word processors such as typewriters are not subject to the
requirements as long as they do not transmit information
off-site. (Note: If SGI-M is produced on a typewriter, the ribbon
must be removed and stored in the same manner as other SGI-M
information or media.) The basic objective of these restrictions
is to prevent access and retrieval of stored SGI-M by
unauthorized individuals, particularly from remote terminals.
Specific files containing SGI-M will be password protected to
preclude access by an unauthorized individual. SGI-M files may be
transmitted over a network if the file is encrypted. In such
cases, the licensee will select a commercially available
encryption system that NIST has validated as conforming to
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS).
SGI-M files shall be properly labeled as ``Safeguards
Information--Modified Handling'' and saved to removable media and
stored in a locked file drawer or cabinet. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintains a listing of all
validated encryption systems at
http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/140-1/1401val.htm.
Telecommunications SGI-M may not be transmitted by unprotected
telecommunications circuits except under emergency or
extraordinary conditions. For the purpose of this requirement,
emergency or extraordinary conditions are defined as any
circumstances that require immediate communications in order to
report, summon assistance for, or respond to a security event (or
an event that has potential security significance).
This restriction applies to telephone, telegraph, teletype,
facsimile circuits, and to radio. Routine telephone or radio
transmission between site security personnel, or between the site
and local police, should be limited to message formats or codes
that do not disclose facility security features or response
procedures.
Similarly, call-ins during transport should not disclose
information useful to a potential adversary. Infrequent or
non-repetitive telephone conversations regarding a physical
security plan or program are permitted provided that the
discussion is general in nature.
Individuals should use care when discussing SGI-M at meetings or
in the presence of others to ensure that the conversation is not
overheard by persons not authorized access. Transcripts, tapes or
minutes of meetings or hearings that contain SGI-M shall be
marked and protected in accordance with these requirements.
Destruction Documents containing SGI-M must be destroyed when no
longer needed. They may be destroyed by tearing into small
pieces, burning, shredding or any other method that precludes
reconstruction by means available to the public at large. Piece
sizes one-half inch or smaller composed of several pages or
documents and thoroughly mixed are considered completely
destroyed.
Attachment B--Trustworthiness and Reliability Requirements for
Individuals Handling Safeguards Information Licensees shall
document the basis for concluding that there is reasonable
assurance that individuals granted access to safeguards
information or who are placed in positions where they could
facilitate access to the regulated material are trustworthy and
reliable, and do not constitute an unreasonable risk for
malevolent use of the regulated material.
The trustworthiness, reliability, and verification of an
individual's true identity shall be determined based on a
background investigation. The background investigation shall
address at least the past three (3) years, and, as a minimum,
include a local criminal history check (unless local or State
laws prohibit local criminal history checks of current
employees), verification of employment history, education,
employment eligibility, and personal references. If an
individual's employment has been less than the required three (3)
year period, educational references may be used in lieu of
employment history.
The licensee's background investigation requirements may be
satisfied for an individual that has an active Federal security
clearance.
[FR Doc. 06-7742 Filed 9-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
62 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Identifying 'absolute corruption'
Sep. 19, 2006
But the Department of Energy fails to act
Count Kristi Hodges among the casualties of so-called "sound
science" at the Yucca Mountain Project. For years she toiled as a
quality assurance auditor, scrutinizing data compiled to justify
the federal government's planned nuclear waste repository
northwest of Las Vegas. Last month, she quit.
More than four years ago, she forwarded a complaint to the U.S.
Department of Energy's inspector general, the purportedly
independent, investigative arm of the federal agency. Ms. Hodges
outlined falsified and suppressed certification documents. She
also detailed the removal of two quality assurance leaders who
uncovered faulty computer modeling that produced flawed data --
and flawed scientific conclusions -- about the suitability of the
repository site.
Ms. Hodges' findings raised serious questions about the integrity
of a project that had, to that point, cost $7 billion over almost
two decades. In June 2002, the Review-Journal requested a copy of
the report from the inspector general through the Freedom of
Information Act.
The years passed. The Department of Energy refused to publicly
acknowledge the allegations. Ms. Hodges went about her business,
wondering what became of her exhaustive effort to bring accuracy
and a modicum of accountability to the project.
"What I was identifying was absolute corruption in the
(employee) concerns program, the management of the project and
its continual attacks and retaliation on the quality assurance
organization that was identifying deficiencies one right after
another," she said Thursday.
In the meantime, other auditors were removed from their jobs
after uncovering quality control flaws. The Energy Department
issued a stop work order on the project. Congressional hearings
were held after e-mail messages revealed a U.S. Geological
Survey worker might have fabricated his quality assurance data.
Still, no official word on the complaint.
So last month, Ms. Hodges put in her notice of resignation.
Coincidentally, about a week after it became clear Ms. Hodges'
employment with the project was at its end, the inspector
general's office finally complied with the newspaper's request
by delivering a jumbled, heavily redacted copy of the complaint
-- and word that no investigation resulted from the complaint.
Instead, the inspector general's office boiled down hundreds of
pages to a "two or three page" summary, according to spokeswoman
Marilyn Richardson, and forwarded that summary to the very
people targeted by the complaint.
"I wanted somebody who was independent to look at this, and they
sent it back to somebody who knew darn well where it came from,"
a furious Ms. Hodges said.
These actions are consistent with the project's operating
philosophy. Since the day in 1987 when Congress singled out
Nevada for repository studies, leaving no alternative sites
under consideration, the "science" of Yucca Mountain has been
geared toward keeping the shovels turning.
The Department of Energy has no excuse for sweeping Ms. Hodges'
complaint under the rug, nor for ignoring the Review-Journal's
request for public information for more than four years. If
Yucca Mountain Project officials hope to ever build enough
political support to open their repository, they're going to
have to show some respect to the people who pay their bills.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
63 FIA: Nuclear Fuel Waste from the Institute of Nuclear Sciences in
Vinca, Serbia to be Transported to Russia
FOCUS Information Agency
Thailand Under Siege
19 September 2006 | 17:01 | FOCUS News Agency
Vienna. An agreement has been signed in Vienna for the
transportation of the nuclear fuel waste from the Institute of
Nuclear Sciences in Vinca, Serbia to the Russian Federation, the
Serbian B92 reports.
The agreement was signed by representatives of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Institute of
Nuclear Sciences in Vinca, and a consortium of three Russian
companies that will perform the transportation of the fuel, the
Serbian Minister of Environment Alexandar Popovic stated.
The transportation of the nuclear fuel waste from the site in
Serbia comes as a result of IAEA’s branding the Institute in
Vinca as one of the world's most dangerous disused nuclear site
since it combined the threats of nuclear proliferation and
environmental disaster. IAEA claimed further that it might be an
easy target for terrorists seeking to build a "dirty" bomb.
The Communist-era reactor in Vinca had closed 22 years ago was
housing thousands of spent fuel rods, made of a highly
radioactive mixture of uranium and plutonium, some of which were
prone to leaking. People living in the village next to the
complex had been a under constant threat of radiation leakage.
The IAEA estimates that the cost of disposing of the nuclear
material could be as much as Ł50 million.
Focus Information Agency © 2006
*****************************************************************
64 CMENO: SA states it case for uranium-enrichment at IAEA
Creamer Media's Engineering News Online, South African Industry
South Africa's commitment to use nuclear for peaceful purposes
was reaffirmed by Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica
this week, when she told an International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) meeting that the country may seek to pursue uranium
enrichment for security of energy supply.
Speaking at the IAEA, in Austria, she said that countries
looking into the use of domestic sensitive fuel-cycle activities
for peaceful purposes should not be excluded from the possible
benefits of the use of nuclear energy.
We guard against the notion that sensitive technologies are
safe in the hands of some, but pose a risk when others have
access to them, she said, adding that the needs of the
developing areas of the world needed to be taken into
consideration.
Sonjica said that the role of nuclear energy in the security of
energy should be recognised and that it was the IAEA's duty to
ensure that no unwarranted restrictions were imposed.
Further modalities for preventing the diversion of these
sensitive technologies may be required in order to ensure that
we can pursue such activities without fear and with the
necessary assurances, she said, adding that a
non-discriminatory approached needed to be developed.
Sonjica reminded the meeting that one of the original ideas of
the founding members of the IAEA never came into fruition,
namely the agency acting as a fuel bank to provide and assure
the reliable supply of fuel for civilian use.
I believe that the establishment of any credible mechanisms to
assure the reliable supply of nuclear fuel should be considered
in the context of the agency. Not only does the agency have a
legitimate role to encourage and assist in the practical
application of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but it also
has a special responsibility to take into consideration the
needs of the developing areas of the world.
Earlier, South Africa said that it planned to re-enter uranium
beneficiation, as the country was one of the leading uranium
producers and that enrichment had for the potential to use the
technology as fuel in conventional nuclear-energy plants, as
well as for the pebble-bed modular reactor technology.
Sonjica said, last month, that South Africa had enough uranium
reserves to sustain a comprehensive nuclear plan, adding that
the local mining community should take advantage of the increase
in uranium prices and refocus its efforts to use the resource
for peaceful purposes.
Meanwhile, she also told the IAEA on Monday that the country
planned to establishing a Nuclear Safety Regulatory Forum to
strengthen regulatory effectiveness. South Africa's nuclear
regulator would soon engage with its counterparts to establish
the forum, which would also aim to ensure strengthening of
infrastructure as well as the harmonisation of safety standards,
she said.
Published: 2006/09/19
Author: Mariaan Olivier
Portfolio: Contributing Editor Online
E-mail: newsdesk@engineeringnews.co.za
Copyright © Creamer Media (Pty) Ltd
*****************************************************************
65 BS: Will Yucca Mountain Ever Hold Nuclear Waste?
www.bestsyndication.com
Submitted by JamesFinch on September 19, 2006 - 12:38am.
Over the past 24 years, each time your house or business
consumed a nuclear-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity, you
were billed – by mandate of the U.S. government – one-tenth
of one penny to pay for the storage of nuclear waste. And those
pennies add up. Since 1982, the Nuclear Waste Fund has grown to
more than $28 billion. The plan back then was to safely dispose
of the nuclear waste left over after providing 20 percent of the
nation’s electricity through nuclear energy. Instead, like a
ticking time bomb, about 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods
are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds never intended
for long-term use. Many are within a few dozen miles of large
cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Washington and Miami.
Now, at least nine states are heating up over the localized
nuclear waste issue. On September 13th, Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan joined state attorneys general in
California, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin in calling on Congress
to reject legislation enabling the federal government to
designate nuclear waste storage facilities in all states with
nuclear power plants, superceding objections by the state’s
governor or state and local zoning and environmental laws.
The endless merry-go-round of deciding upon a final resting
place for nuclear waste has been studied for more than two
decades, has cost taxpayers more than $9 billion and has
actually been solved. Unless of course, you are talking about an
ideal solution which is required to be as satisfactory for up to
one million years from now as it might be some 10,000 years into
the future. That appears to be the most recent verdict –
let’s keep nuclear waste in temporary storage scattered across
geologically challenged locations, some near major cities, for
decades to come, because a minority of environmentalists are
“uncomfortable” with a well-studied, scientifically
satisfactory centralized disposal site in a remote location.
Instead of moving forward with a site, which will reportedly
store the waste safely for 10,000 years (and probably up to
80,000 years), the environmental lobby would prefer a toxic risk
for tens of millions of Americans from â€overcrowded’
temporary storage sites. They would like to stall matters until
scientists can prove a centralized storage site can survive all
potential abuse for up to one million years.
Unfortunately, even if Congress acts in early 2007, the
best-case scenario for a centralized nuclear waste repository
brings us to 2017. And that would require quite a few
politicians and bureaucrats coming to their senses. While they
haggle over whether the nuclear waste can be safely stored for
10,000 years (which a number of scientific studies confirm that
it can), or whether the waste site must store the spent nuclear
fuel for one million years, electricity consumers are annually
paying $1 billion for temporary storage.
The amount of nuclear waste accumulating since U.S. utilities
began powering our homes with nuclear energy comes to about
54,000 metric tons over the past forty years. To put this in
perspective, it would take up the size of a football field with
a depth of less than 10 yards. Nuclear energy does not generate
carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, the amount of carbon
dioxide released into the atmosphere through fossil fuels is
enormous. According to one of the world’s leading
environmental scientists, James Lovelock, who recently authored
“The Revenge of Gaia” (Basic Books, 2006), one could freeze
the annual carbon dioxide emissions and create a mountain one
mile high and twelve miles in circumference. And that’s each
year. Using the same yardstick since the 1960s, we would have 40
such mountains of carbon dioxide, but one small football field
of nuclear waste.
A Mountain Which Can Solve the
Current Waste Disposal Issue
After passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) chose nine locations in six states as
potential permanent repository sites. The DOE whittled this list
down to five sites after various technical studies and
environmental assessments. After intensive scientific study, the
DOE chose its finalists: Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Deaf Smith
County, Texas and Hanford, Washington. Following lengthy
environmental studies of all three sites, Congress amended the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1987 and designated Yucca Mountain
to be studied as the final destination for nuclear waste.
“We’ve been studying Yucca Mountain for 22 years,” Steven
Kraft told us during a recent telephone interview. Mr. Kraft is
mechanical engineer who serves as the senior director for Used
Fuel Management at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and was
part of the Recovery Team following the Three Mile Island
accident in March 1979. “It is the most studied piece of real
estate on the face of the earth. There isn’t anything we
don’t know about it.”
Why didn’t they pick someplace far away like Mongolia, Siberia
or Greenland? “You’re making the assumption that somehow the
remoteness of a location makes it okay,” Kraft responded.
“You’re talking about places where there are geologic
instabilities or the geology is very difficult to understand.”
There are also proposals suggesting ice sheet disposal, deep
ocean disposal, or simply blasting the waste into outer space.
“Yucca Mountain meets all of the requirements, and I can’t
think of a better site,” Kraft explained. “They have an
awful good rock body down there that has withstood a lot of
scientific scrutiny. It is by happenstance of geology they have
a good location.”
And what is the key to geology? “What makes Yucca Mountain
such a good site is, in the formation below the repository, are
naturally occurring zeolites,” Kraft pointed out. Water
softeners rely upon zeolites as ion-exchange beds. “Zeolites
strip out a lot of the radionuclides and belays the flow of
water,’ he explained. “By the time you get to the accessible
environment, the dose rate stays well below EPA standards.”
No location is perfect. Even if all nuclear power plants were
turned off today, more than 108 million pounds of nuclear waste
would require disposition. You can’t burn nuclear fuel
pellets. Nuclear waste is not flammable; it is too weak to
explode. Each year, the nation’s 103 reactors produce another
2,000 metric tons of waste. It has to end up somewhere. The
Yucca Mountain area is geologically stable. The last volcanic
eruption – a small one – occurred 80,000 years ago. About 12
to 15 million years ago, large eruptions north of Yucca Mountain
laid down the sturdy bedrock which formed this mountain.
The Yucca Mountain area only receives about seven inches of
rainfall per year. Ninety percent runs off the side of the
mountain ridge and mostly evaporates or is absorbed by
vegetation. The proposed repository is 1000 feet underground.
And the site is 1000 feet above the water table. Rainwater
seeping through rock fractures is negligible and would likely be
trapped inside the mountain.
Inside Alloy 22 Engineered Barrier Canisters
Within the first 1,000 years, about 99 percent of the
radioactivity in the reactor fuel will have dissipated through
the natural process of radioactive decay. For those who believe
the nuclear waste will be dumped in some hole in the ground –
as some fanatical environmentalists falsely compared this to a
landfill disposal – think again. The Department of Energy
designed rust-resistant canisters lined with titanium drip
shield to prevent water entry. A new alloy for these canisters
was created in 1987 called Alloy 22, which is a blend of nickel,
chromium and other corrosive-resistant metals.
In one DOE simulation, it was found the waste canisters
wouldn’t begin to rust for about 80,000 years. Kraft told us,
“From the presentations at the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board meetings, the amount of time that the metal is actually
subjected to the corrosive environment is actually far less in
terms of hundreds of years.” And who’s to say how much
technology will advance over the next 10,000 or 80,000 years?
Imagine for a moment how much technology has changed our lives
over the past one hundred years, let alone over the previous
10,000 years. The fact is we will all be long dead before a
single drop of moisture ever rusts one of those canisters. And
so will the next 2000 generations of our great grandchildren.
As a result of the geological and man-made barriers, scientific
reports demonstrate the largest expected annual radiation dose
near Yucca Mountain would be 0.1 millirem. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) set an annual 15-millirem limit. The
EPA’s dosage is about one-half what most of us get from cosmic
rays every year. A chest x-ray gives you a much higher dose.
Occupational standards for workers at nuclear power plants are
ten times higher. Clearly, both science and logical rationale
are being ignored when politicians and environmentalists dream
up such “Twilight Zone” guidelines for Yucca Mountain. When
the EPA standard of one million years was proposed, based upon a
1995 National Academy of Science study, it was “unprecedented
worldwide,” Kraft said.
Is Transporting the Nuclear Waste to Yucca Mountain Safe?
Critics worry about the dangers of transporting nuclear waste
from local sites to Yucca Mountain. They seem to overlook an
important fact. During the past 30 years, more than 3000
shipments have traveled across the United States over 1.6
million highway and rail miles without a single radioactive
episode. Used nuclear fuel has been safely shipped tens of
thousands of times outside the United States. Environmentalists
would have already pounced had there been an accident involving
radioactive releases.
The DOE estimates about 175 used fuel shipments will travel to
Yucca Mountain each year for 24 years, transporting between 300
and 500 containers. Numerous tests performed by Sandia National
Laboratories to “destroy” the canisters demonstrated the
ruggedness of the containers. Crashing trucks into concrete
barriers at 65 mph, trains broadsiding the trucks at 80 mph and
engulfing the trucks and canisters at crispy temperatures failed
to destroy the canisters. “To get a certificate from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), they have to pass very
severe accident tests,” Kraft explained. “My guess is that,
at this point, it will be fundamentally rail shipments with
limited trucking, but we had to analyze both.”
Fear of terrorists? “Before September 11, 2001, these (nuclear
storage facilities) were the most secure, heavily guarded
industrial sites there were,” Kraft told us. “And they have
only gotten even more protected. We have increased the number of
guards, the stand-off distance from the gate, and other things I
can’t talk about because of the nature of the information. We
do have very good terrorist protection.”
But what about on the open road? The DOE hope to construct a
300-mile railroad spur to connect the nation’s existing rail
system to Yucca Mountain. In an August 2006 Fact Sheet, the NEI
writes, “The shipments are heavily guarded. Travel routes and
times for shipment are not publicly available; transport
vehicles are equipped with devices to prevent unauthorized
movement; and satellites track shipments constantly.” Sandia
National Laboratories also simulated a terrorist attack using a
weapon 30 times more powerful than a shoulder-fired, anti-tank
missile. The result? The weapon made only a quarter-inch hole,
which the NRC estimated would release only about one-third of an
ounce of radioactive material, a minute amount of radiation
posing no risk beyond the immediate vicinity, and would be easy
to clean up.
U.S. Left Behind in the Nuclear Renaissance?
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, amending
in 1987, levied a tax on consumers for electricity generated by
nuclear power, and set a 1998 deadline to begin accepting used
fuel. The U.S. government defaulted. “1998 has come and
gone,” said Kraft. “It’s almost nine years later and 50
utilities are suing. Lawsuits are in the multiple, multiple
billions of dollars.” One wonders if the federal government
will actually honor this obligation. “No one is being helped
by this,” Kraft complained. The DOE has settled with Exelon
and a few others to repay their interim storage costs. Utilities
have been paying about $750 million per year since 1982. For
example, Illinois consumers have paid $3.5 billion since the
inception of the Nuclear Waste Fund; Pennsylvania consumers have
paid $2.4 billion.
“There are a lot of places that want to build new nuclear
plants,” Kraft pointed out. “There are about 30 on the
boards right now.” But a lot of the communities are asking,
“Wait a minute, we still have the spent fuel from the other
reactor, when is all that stuff going to leave the site?”
Kraft explained, “What the communities are not asking for is
an actual functioning disposal system, but a believable
sustainable plan for getting there. At the moment, the DOE
program does not look terribly sustainable to these communities.
In each case that wants a facility, the community is making it
very clear â€we want to know what the plans are for moving the
nuclear waste offsite.’ We have to be able to answer those
questions.”
He is earnest about moving Yucca Mountain into the operational
stage. “I’ve been waking up for the past 30 years wanting to
solve this problem,” Kraft told us. “The person that has to
wake up is Congress.”
In a September 13th press release, the NEI wrote, “To meet a
projected increase in electricity demand of 45 percent by 2030,
12 companies or groups of companies are developing federal
construction and operating license applications, and four
companies already have filed applications for early site permits
with the NRC.” The first wave of those nuclear power plants
could be ready for commercial operation in the 2014 to 2015 time
frame.
In a nutshell, U.S. consumers would be in a no-win situation in
the absence of nuclear power. More than 70 percent of the
electricity which comes from energy sources that do not bring
about greenhouse gases or are linked to smog and acid rain comes
from nuclear energy. The rest comes from renewables, especially
hydroelectric power. “By shutting down 20 percent of our
electricity doesn’t make sense for this country,” Kraft
argued. “It’s not something the average ordinary homeowner
is going to want to have happen.”
And the fate of the emerging nuclear revival, or the nuclear
renaissance, hangs by the decisions Congress must soon make in
honoring the government’s obligation as the ultimate stewards
of the nuclear waste. “We capture all our waste,” said
Kraft. “We store it all, we know where it is, we got it
numbered and we treat it with great respect.” Ironically, with
the ongoing renaissance in uranium mining in the United States,
if there were no reversal by Congress, the yellowcake would end
up in Asia or elsewhere to fuel their galloping nuclear energy
programs.
In 2002, after more than 60 public hearings were held in Nevada,
then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham certified that Yucca
Mountain meets the site selection requirements. Both house of
Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site in July 2002. “Yucca
Mountain is an approved project as far as Congress and the
President are concerned,” concluded Kraft. “And now we have
the license application to complete, get it through the NRC, and
start building it.” Approval for Yucca Mountain came after one
of the most extensive scientific investigations in U.S. history.
The NRC review may take up to three years.
The remaining stumbling block appears to be the 1995 report by
the National Academy of Sciences, and adopted by the EPA,
demanding a million-year guarantee of safety at Yucca Mountain.
This came about while Yucca Mountain was passing every
scientific test for the original 10,000-year safeguard. Congress
can remedy this absurdity with legislation relieving this EPA
standard. In other words, it is time to get realistic.
Otherwise, the nuclear waste remains in limbo, chilling out in
the cooling ponds or dry casket storage instead of the Yucca
Mountain tunnels.
By James Finch
James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other
publications. Visit http://www.stockinterview.com to read his
archived articles on nuclear energy, uranium mining and the
emerging nuclear revival.
Copyright 2006 Best Syndication
*****************************************************************
66 EasyBourse actualité: US Nuclear Waste Problem Divides Lawmakers
Wednesday September 20th, 2006 / 1h23
By Maya Jackson Randall Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -(Dow
Jones)- The road to consensus on a national nuclear waste policy
will be complicated, as the U.S. House and Senate appear
committed to separate ideas about how to resolve the problem.
The Bush administration and Republican lawmakers want to expand
nuclear power generation, touting it as an answer to concerns
about global warming and the country's dependence on foreign
oil. New nuclear power development got a boost last year when
Congress approved a massive energy bill that included a host of
nuclear power incentives.
For the first time in decades, companies are now preparing to
build about 30 new nuclear reactors. The first applications
could be filed with regulators in the next few years and new
plants could be operating by 2015.
But to get to the nuclear renaissance they envision,
policy-makers will need to figure out what to do with the spent,
highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants.
Lawmakers this year have introduced various proposals for
dealing with the nation's nuclear waste. One plan calls for
speeding up development of an underground repository in Nevada,
while another would require the federal government to store the
waste at sites across the country. A third would revive programs
to recycle the spent fuel.
"Fix Yucca" Solution Members of a House energy panel have their
sights set on ending the delay in opening Yucca Mountain, the
nation's designated nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Despite
active opposition from Nevada officials and problems that have
emerged in the program, several members of the House Energy and
Commerce subcommittee on energy and air quality favor a plan by
the U.S. Department of Energy to open Yucca in 11 years as the
nation's permanent nuclear waste dump.
DOE officials recently announced a new goal to open Yucca in
2017, but said they wouldn't be able to meet it if Congress
didn't pass a "fix-Yucca" bill the department submitted in
April.
The DOE bill would remove a statutory 70,000 metric-ton cap on
the amount of waste that can be stored at Yucca, allowing the
federal government to store more waste at the site. It also
would make 147,000 acres of land surrounding the waste dump
off-limits to the public, among other things.
Energy Department officials say the legislative package will
remove legal and regulatory barriers that would help smooth out
its process toward filing an application and winning a license
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Yucca project.
"I'm going to do everything I can to help you be successful in
meeting that schedule," Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, told a DOE
official at a recent hearing.
However, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who leads two important
Senate committees focused on nuclear policy and funding, has
already suggested that DOE's 2017 timeline is too ambitious and
that the department's legislation is flawed.
Domenici said he plans to introduce his own Yucca-related bill
in September, but doesn't expect any major action until next
year.
Interim Solution Domenici also has introduced a separate
proposal that would require the nation's nuclear waste to be
stored at temporary sites across the country. Spent nuclear fuel
- currently stored on-site at electricity companies' nuclear
reactors - would be kept at dozens of federal sites nationwide
until it could be safely recycled and reused. The unusable waste
could be stored at Yucca Mountain, which Domenici said he sees
as a long-term solution for storing defense and spent nuclear
fuel.
Domenici pitched the plan as a way to fulfill the government's
obligation to accept spent fuel. Utilities have sued the DOE to
recover the extra costs of on-site storage associated with
delays in the Yucca project, which was originally scheduled to
be operational in 1989.
If Congress approves Domenici's proposal, the secretary of
energy would have nine months to designate sites as nuclear
waste consolidation sites. The sites would be licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate up to 25 years.
"We've got to have a solution to waste disposal," Domenici said.
"We can't sit around and say it's too big. To say it's too big
is crazy. I believe we should focus on interim storage."
Domenici's plan is included in a pending Senate appropriations
bill to fund DOE programs. The proposal is backed by Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is strongly opposed to
storing the nation's waste in Nevada.
Some House lawmakers have questioned whether the temporary
storage proposal is an attempt to kill the Yucca Mountain
project. Bush administration officials say the government
doesn't have the financial resources or staffing to manage a
large-scale interim storage program while also preparing a Yucca
Mountain application to be submitted to the NRC.
State officials also oppose Domenici's interim waste plan over
worries it would delay work on the Yucca Mountain repository.
"I see little to be gained by that approach," said Georgia
Public Service Commission Chairman Stan Wise at a congressional
hearing last week.
Domenici's plan was also bashed by members of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee subcommittee on energy and air quality.
"Building interim storage facilities in as many as 31 states is
not something that I support," said Barton. "I don't think the
House will support it."
Finding Compromise Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who heads the
House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water
development, is holding out hope for a compromise on various
nuclear waste proposals.
Hobson and Domenici are the key negotiators charged with hashing
out differences between two bills that would outline funding for
the DOE for fiscal year 2007. Domenici's temporary storage plan
is included in the Senate's version of the DOE appropriations
bill. The bill has yet to pass the Senate.
The House, in its appropriations bill, has approved a much more
limited temporary storage plan. It would only require DOE to
designate a few federal waste storage sites and it hasn't
stirred up as many concerns about delaying efforts on the Yucca
Mountain project.
Both appropriations bills include a separate Bush administration
proposal for a nuclear waste recycling program, with different
levels of funding. The program would support development of
spent nuclear fuel processing that would produce fuels that
could be reused in special reactors to produce electricity. The
program, called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, also aims to
reduce the toxicity and amount of nuclear waste stored long term
at Yucca Mountain.
The Senate DOE appropriations bill would fund the partnership
program with the full $250 million the Bush Administration
requested. The House bill would provide only $120 million for
the program.
"We have disagreements about spending, but our goals are the
same," said Hobson, referring to the various nuclear waste
proposals that will need to be reconciled for a final
appropriations bill.
Domenici is less optimistic about a compromise. Inadequate funds
could hold up passage of nuclear energy-related spending bills,
he said.
"We don't have enough," Domenici told reporters, criticizing the
Bush administration's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal.
Domenici also pointed out that the DOE appropriations bill has
yet to be approved by the full Senate. "We're just worried about
when we're going to get a shot on the (Senate) floor," he said.
-By Maya Jackson Randall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9263;
Maya.Jackson-Randall@dowjones.com
Wednesday September 20th, 2006 / 1h23
sources : Dowjones Business News
Copyright © 2006 Easybourse.com - Tous droits réservés.
Euronext: cours différés d'au moins 15 minutes
*****************************************************************
67 StockInterview.com: Congress Needs to Wake Up To Nuclear Waste Disposal
September 19, 2006
By James Finch,
Yucca Mountain Delays Put 39 States at Risk
Power Plants are running out of space to store spent nuclear
fuel. Courtesy of NEI.
Over the past 24 years, each time your house or business
consumed a nuclear-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity, you
were billed by mandate of the U.S. government one-tenth of one
penny to pay for the storage of nuclear waste. And those pennies
add up. Since 1982, the Nuclear Waste Fund has grown to more
than $28 billion. The plan back then was to safely dispose of
the nuclear waste left over after providing 20 percent of the
nations electricity through nuclear energy. Instead, like a
ticking time bomb, about 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods
are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds never intended
for long-term use. Many are within a few dozen miles of large
cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Washington and Miami.
Now, at least nine states are heating up over the localized
nuclear waste issue. On September 13th, Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan joined state attorneys general in
California, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin in calling on Congress
to reject legislation enabling the federal government to
designate nuclear waste storage facilities in all states with
nuclear power plants, superceding objections by the states
governor or state and local zoning and environmental laws.
Spent nuclear fuel assemblies are now stored in either fuel
pools or dry caskets. Courtesy of NEI.
The endless merry-go-round of deciding upon a final resting
place for nuclear waste has been studied for more than two
decades, has cost taxpayers more than $9 billion and has
actually been solved. Unless of course, you are talking about an
ideal solution which is required to be as satisfactory for up to
one million years from now as it might be some 10,000 years into
the future. That appears to be the most recent verdict lets
keep nuclear waste in temporary storage scattered across
geologically challenged locations, some near major cities, for
decades to come, because a minority of environmentalists are
uncomfortable with a well-studied, scientifically satisfactory
centralized disposal site in a remote location. Instead of
moving forward with a site, which will reportedly store the
waste safely for 10,000 years (and probably up to 80,000 years),
the environmental lobby would prefer a toxic risk for tens of
millions of Americans from overcrowded temporary storage sites.
They would like to stall matters until scientists can prove a
centralized storage site can survive all potential abuse for up
to one million years.
Unfortunately, even if Congress acts in early 2007, the
best-case scenario for a centralized nuclear waste repository
brings us to 2017. And that would require quite a few
politicians and bureaucrats coming to their senses. While they
haggle over whether the nuclear waste can be safely stored for
10,000 years (which a number of scientific studies confirm that
it can), or whether the waste site must store the spent nuclear
fuel for one million years, electricity consumers are annually
paying $1 billion for temporary storage.
The amount of nuclear waste accumulating since U.S. utilities
began powering our homes with nuclear energy comes to about
54,000 metric tons over the past forty years. To put this in
perspective, it would take up the size of a football field with
a depth of less than 10 yards. Nuclear energy does not generate
carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, the amount of carbon
dioxide released into the atmosphere through fossil fuels is
enormous. According to one of the worlds leading environmental
scientists, James Lovelock, who recently authored The Revenge of
Gaia (Basic Books, 2006), one could freeze the annual carbon
dioxide emissions and create a mountain one mile high and twelve
miles in circumference. And thats each year. Using the same
yardstick since the 1960s, we would have 40 such mountains of
carbon dioxide, but one small football field of nuclear waste.
A Mountain Which Can Solve the Current Waste Disposal Issue
[Yucca Mountain]
Yucca Mountain is 90 miles north of Las Vegas on the Nevada Test
Site. The Nellis Air Force Range surrounds the site on three
sides. The airspace above it is restricted and the test site is
heavily guarded. Courtesy of NEI.
[Steve Kraft]
NEI Senior Director for Used Fuel Management, Steven Kraft. He
leads policy development and program management in both the
supply of nuclear fuel and management of fuel waste products on
behalf of the nuclear energy industry.
After passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) chose nine locations in six states as
potential permanent repository sites. The DOE whittled this list
down to five sites after various technical studies and
environmental assessments. After intensive scientific study,
the DOE chose its finalists: Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Deaf Smith
County, Texas and Hanford, Washington. Following lengthy
environmental studies of all three sites, Congress amended the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1987 and designated Yucca Mountain
to be studied as the final destination for nuclear waste.
Weve been studying Yucca Mountain for 22 years, Steven Kraft
told us during a recent telephone interview. Mr. Kraft is
mechanical engineer who serves as the senior director for Used
Fuel Management at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and was
part of the Recovery Team following the Three Mile Island
accident in March 1979. It is the most studied piece of real
estate on the face of the earth. There isnt anything we dont
know about it.
Why didnt they pick someplace far away like Mongolia, Siberia or
Greenland? Youre making the assumption that somehow the
remoteness of a location makes it okay, Kraft responded. Youre
talking about places where there are geologic instabilities or
the geology is very difficult to understand. There are also
proposals suggesting ice sheet disposal, deep ocean disposal, or
simply blasting the waste into outer space. Yucca Mountain meets
all of the requirements, and I cant think of a better site,
Kraft explained. They have an awful good rock body down there
that has withstood a lot of scientific scrutiny. It is by
happenstance of geology they have a good location.
And what is the key to geology? What makes Yucca Mountain such a
good site is, in the formation below the repository, are
naturally occurring zeolites, Kraft pointed out. Water softeners
rely upon zeolites as ion-exchange beds. Zeolites strip out a
lot of the radionuclides and belays the flow of water, he
explained. By the time you get to the accessible environment,
the dose rate stays well below EPA standards.
Zeolites are microporous solids known as molecular sieves.
Their high heat of adsorption and ability to hydrate and
dehydrate while maintaining structural stability makes them
effective in solar and waste heat energy.
No location is perfect. Even if all nuclear power plants were
turned off today, more than 108 million pounds of nuclear waste
would require disposition. You cant burn nuclear fuel pellets.
Nuclear waste is not flammable; it is too weak to explode. Each
year, the nations 103 reactors produce another 2,000 metric tons
of waste. It has to end up somewhere. The Yucca Mountain area is
geologically stable. The last volcanic eruption a small one
occurred 80,000 years ago. About 12 to 15 million years ago,
large eruptions north of Yucca Mountain laid down the sturdy
bedrock which formed this mountain.
Yucca Mountain may be the most studied piece of real estate on
the planet. Photos courtesy of NEI.
The Yucca Mountain area only receives about seven inches of
rainfall per year. Ninety percent runs off the side of the
mountain ridge and mostly evaporates or is absorbed by
vegetation. The proposed repository is 1000 feet underground.
And the site is 1000 feet above the water table. Rainwater
seeping through rock fractures is negligible and would likely be
trapped inside the mountain.
Inside Alloy 22 Engineered Barrier Canisters
Potential waste package designs for spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste. On the right a close up of the canister.
Courtesy of NEI
Within the first 1,000 years, about 99 percent of the
radioactivity in the reactor fuel will have dissipated through
the natural process of radioactive decay. For those who believe
the nuclear waste will be dumped in some hole in the ground as
some fanatical environmentalists falsely compared this to a
landfill disposal think again. The Department of Energy
designed rust-resistant canisters lined with titanium drip
shield to prevent water entry. A new alloy for these canisters
was created in 1987 called Alloy 22, which is a blend of nickel,
chromium and other corrosive-resistant metals.
In one DOE simulation, it was found the waste canisters wouldnt
begin to rust for about 80,000 years. Kraft told us, From the
presentations at the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
meetings, the amount of time that the metal is actually
subjected to the corrosive environment is actually far less in
terms of hundreds of years. And whos to say how much technology
will advance over the next 10,000 or 80,000 years? Imagine for a
moment how much technology has changed our lives over the past
one hundred years, let alone over the previous 10,000 years. The
fact is we will all be long dead before a single drop of
moisture ever rusts one of those canisters. And so will the next
2000 generations of our great grandchildren.
As a result of the geological and man-made barriers, scientific
reports demonstrate the largest expected annual radiation dose
near Yucca Mountain would be 0.1 millirem. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) set an annual 15-millirem limit. The
EPAs dosage is about one-half what most of us get from cosmic
rays every year. A chest x-ray gives you a much higher dose.
Occupational standards for workers at nuclear power plants are
ten times higher. Clearly, both science and logical rationale
are being ignored when politicians and environmentalists dream
up such Twilight Zone guidelines for Yucca Mountain. When the
EPA standard of one million years was proposed, based upon a
1995 National Academy of Science study, it was unprecedented
worldwide, Kraft said.
[Yucca Mountain Natural Barriers] Multiple layers of barriers
to prevent leakage of nuclear waste. Courtesy of NEI.
Is Transporting the Nuclear Waste to Yucca Mountain Safe?
Critics worry about the dangers of transporting nuclear waste
from local sites to Yucca Mountain. They seem to overlook an
important fact. During the past 30 years, more than 3000
shipments have traveled across the United States over 1.6
million highway and rail miles without a single radioactive
episode. Used nuclear fuel has been safely shipped tens of
thousands of times outside the United States. Environmentalists
would have already pounced had there been an accident involving
radioactive releases.
Sandia National Laboratories has run numerous accident
scenarios, including crashing a truck into a concrete wall at 65
mph, broadsiding the truck by a racing locomotive and setting
the canisters on fire at 1475 degrees Fahrenheit. In every test,
the canisters passed without incident.
The DOE estimates about 175 used fuel shipments will travel to
Yucca Mountain each year for 24 years, transporting between 300
and 500 containers. Numerous tests performed by Sandia National
Laboratories to destroy the canisters demonstrated the
ruggedness of the containers. Crashing trucks into concrete
barriers at 65 mph, trains broadsiding the trucks at 80 mph and
engulfing the trucks and canisters at crispy temperatures failed
to destroy the canisters. To get a certificate from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), they have to pass very severe
accident tests, Kraft explained. My guess is that, at this
point, it will be fundamentally rail shipments with limited
trucking, but we had to analyze both.
Fear of terrorists? Before September 11, 2001, these (nuclear
storage facilities) were the most secure, heavily guarded
industrial sites there were, Kraft told us. And they have only
gotten even more protected. We have increased the number of
guards, the stand-off distance from the gate, and other things I
cant talk about because of the nature of the information. We do
have very good terrorist protection.
But what about on the open road? The DOE hope to construct a
300-mile railroad spur to connect the nations existing rail
system to Yucca Mountain. In an August 2006 Fact Sheet, the NEI
writes, The shipments are heavily guarded. Travel routes and
times for shipment are not publicly available; transport
vehicles are equipped with devices to prevent unauthorized
movement; and satellites track shipments constantly. Sandia
National Laboratories also simulated a terrorist attack using a
weapon 30 times more powerful than a shoulder-fired, anti-tank
missile. The result? The weapon made only a quarter-inch hole,
which the NRC estimated would release only about one-third of an
ounce of radioactive material, a minute amount of radiation
posing no risk beyond the immediate vicinity, and would be easy
to clean up.
U.S. Left Behind in the Nuclear Renaissance?
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
amending in 1987, levied a tax on consumers for electricity
generated by nuclear power, and set a 1998 deadline to begin
accepting used fuel. The U.S. government defaulted. 1998 has
come and gone, said Kraft. Its almost nine years later and 50
utilities are suing. Lawsuits are in the multiple, multiple
billions of dollars. One wonders if the federal government will
actually honor this obligation. No one is being helped by this,
Kraft complained. The DOE has settled with Exelon and a few
others to repay their interim storage costs. Utilities have been
paying about $750 million per year since 1982. For example,
Illinois consumers have paid $3.5 billion since the inception of
the Nuclear Waste Fund; Pennsylvania consumers have paid $2.4
billion.
There are a lot of places that want to build new nuclear plants,
Kraft pointed out. There are about 30 on the boards right now.
But a lot of the communities are asking, Wait a minute, we still
have the spent fuel from the other reactor, when is all that
stuff going to leave the site?
Kraft explained, What the communities are not asking for is an
actual functioning disposal system, but a believable sustainable
plan for getting there. At the moment, the DOE program does not
look terribly sustainable to these communities. In each case
that wants a facility, the community is making it very clear we
want to know what the plans are for moving the nuclear waste
offsite. We have to be able to answer those questions.
He is earnest about moving Yucca Mountain into the operational
stage. Ive been waking up for the past 30 years wanting to solve
this problem, Kraft told us. The person that has to wake up is
Congress.
In a September 13th press release, the NEI wrote, To meet a
projected increase in electricity demand of 45 percent by 2030,
12 companies or groups of companies are developing federal
construction and operating license applications, and four
companies already have filed applications for early site permits
with the NRC. The first wave of those nuclear power plants could
be ready for commercial operation in the 2014 to 2015 time frame.
In a nutshell, U.S. consumers would be in a no-win situation in
the absence of nuclear power. More than 70 percent of the
electricity which comes from energy sources that do not bring
about greenhouse gases or are linked to smog and acid rain comes
from nuclear energy. The rest comes from renewables, especially
hydroelectric power. By shutting down 20 percent of our
electricity doesnt make sense for this country, Kraft argued.
Its not something the average ordinary homeowner is going to
want to have happen.
And the fate of the emerging nuclear revival, or the nuclear
renaissance, hangs by the decisions Congress must soon make in
honoring the governments obligation as the ultimate stewards of
the nuclear waste. We capture all our waste, said Kraft. We
store it all, we know where it is, we got it numbered and we
treat it with great respect. Ironically, with the ongoing
renaissance in uranium mining in the United States, if there
were no reversal by Congress, the yellowcake would end up in
Asia or elsewhere to fuel their galloping nuclear energy
programs.
In 2002, after more than 60 public hearings were held in Nevada,
then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham certified that Yucca
Mountain meets the site selection requirements. Both house of
Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site in July 2002. Yucca
Mountain is an approved project as far as Congress and the
President are concerned, concluded Kraft. And now we have the
license application to complete, get it through the NRC, and
start building it. Approval for Yucca Mountain came after one of
the most extensive scientific investigations in U.S. history.
The NRC review may take up to three years.
The remaining stumbling block appears to be the 1995 report by
the National Academy of Sciences, and adopted by the EPA,
demanding a million-year guarantee of safety at Yucca Mountain.
This came about while Yucca Mountain was passing every
scientific test for the original 10,000-year safeguard. Congress
can remedy this absurdity with legislation relieving this EPA
standard. In other words, it is time to get realistic.
Otherwise, the nuclear waste remains in limbo, chilling out in
the cooling ponds or dry casket storage instead of the Yucca
Mountain tunnels.
The Yucca Mountain tunnels seven miles of tunnels to store
nearly one-half century of nuclear waste for eternity.
*****************************************************************
68 UPI: Serbia transports nuclear waste to Russia
United Press International - NewsTrack -
9/19/2006 1:46:00 PM -0400
BELGRADE, Serbia, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- The Serbian government
signed an agreement with three Russian companies Tuesday to
transport spent nuclear fuel from Belgrade to Russia.
The agreement on the waste from the Serbian Institute for
Nuclear Research at Vinca, outside Belgrade, to Russia was
signed at a general conference of the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Vienna, Belgrade's B92 radio reported.
A consortium of three Russian companies is to pack and transport
the nuclear waste from the Vinca institute, which was closed in
2003.
Three years ago, the United States, Russia and the Vienna agency
agreed to transport 2.5 tons of nuclear waste to Russia, the
country of the fuel's origin.
Serbia, with financial assistance from the Vienna atomic agency,
plans to complete transporting nuclear waste to Russia by the
middle of 2008, the report said.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
69 UPI: Radioactive material removed from Chechnya
United Press International - Security &Terrorism -
9/19/2006 3:10:00 PM -0400
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- U.S. officials have successfully
removed radioactive material that could be used for "dirty"
bombs from Chechnya.
The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration has revealed that more than 5,500 curies of
radioactive cobalt-60 and cesium-137, enough material for at
least five "dirty bombs," have been removed from Chechnya and
safely returned to Russia for protection.
The NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, or GTRI, and the
government of the Russian Federation "jointly supported the
mission to remove the radioactive sources from a petrochemical
production site in Chechnya," the agency announced in a
statement last month.
"It is critical to international security that high-risk,
radiological material is safely removed and secured before it
falls into the hands of terrorists. Through joint cooperation
with Russia, dangerous material has been removed from an area
known for violence," said Linton F. Brooks, head of NNSA.
The radioactive materials were extracted from their original
location in rebellion-torn Chechnya and placed into two special
transportation casks, the NNSA said. "The casks were loaded onto
a truck and securely delivered to a facility in the Moscow
region to be analyzed and stored temporarily. Once the materials
are evaluated, they will be transferred to the Radon Moscow
Scientific Production Association for permanent disposal. The
work was carried out by a group of Russian specialists," the
agency said.
The NNSA described GTRI's mission as being "to identify, secure,
recover and/or facilitate the final disposition of high-risk
vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world
as quickly as possible."
"In the past three years under GTRI, over 200 radiological
dispersion devices worth of material has been recovered from 23
different sites in cooperation with the Russian Federation," it
said.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
70 UPI: Analysis: Nuclear waste safe on site
United Press International - Energy -
9/19/2006 1:15:00 PM -0400
By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- The head of the U.S. nuclear
industry's policy organization says there's nothing wrong with
keeping nuclear waste at nuclear plants, except it will undercut
the high-level of support nuclear power is now experiencing.
Adm. Frank L. "Skip" Bowman, U.S. Navy, retired, president and
chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said
storing highly radioactive nuclear waste at the plants, where it
was produced, poses no threat.
"Leaving used fuel exactly where it is right now ... is
perfectly safe," Bowman said Monday at a Defense Department
program on energy policy.
Still, he is in favor or a more progressive approach to storing
the 2,000 metric tons of byproduct produced at the 103 civilian
nuclear plants across the country each year in a geologic
repository and, until that opens, at interim sites.
Bowman spoke to industry, government and military officials, and
others interested in "Energy: A Conversation About Our National
Addiction," a monthly speaking series on various energy topics
hosted by the Naval Postgraduate School's Cebrowski Institute.
There are about 54,000 metric tons of nuclear waste cooling or
being stored now, an amount growing not only in size but in
importance in the debate over nuclear power in the United
States.
By late next year, the first of what could be applications for
about 27 new nuclear reactors are expected to be submitted to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (no new nuclear plant has
been approved since 1978 and none have come online since 1996).
Alan Beamon, director of coal and electrical power forecasting
at the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. Energy
Department's data arm, said an annual prediction made late last
year that U.S. nuclear capacity will increase by 9,000 megawatts
by 2030 -- 6,000 megawatts from new reactors -- is probably too
low an estimate (a fresh forecast will be released soon).
What to do with the waste is a question seen as a costly
roadblock to adding more nuclear power to the U.S. energy feed
-- four hearings on aspects of the issue were held last week by
four different congressional subcommittees.
"It is clear to me that our nuclear energy strategy must not
only address new plants, but must solve the waste problem as
well," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., at a hearing Thursday.
The chairman of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee is one
of Congress' most pro-nuclear advocates.
Although Congress in 1954 took ownership over nuclear waste
produced at U.S. plants, eventually deciding it should be stored
deep within Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las
Vegas, the waste is far from heading there.
After 20 years and $10 billion later the U.S. Energy Department,
fighting legal challenges and internal incompetence, has yet to
apply to the NRC to open the site. A timeline recently set to
open Yucca Mountain by 2017 is somewhat of a new joke in
Washington -- especially after Edward Sproat, director of the
Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, told a House subcommittee last week the timeline is
"the best achievable, not most probable."
While the NEI's Bowman is "not Yucca or bust," he says it should
be opened -- and remain open indefinitely -- and viewed as an
ever-evolving repository for nuclear waste, improving as new
technology is applied, including innovations in storage and
reprocessing.
In the meantime, interim storage sites should be set up, but not
using the same method used to choose Yucca Mountain. "No more
picking a state and forcing it down somebody's throat," said
Bowman, adding states could see it as an economic boon and
wouldn't put up the fight Nevada has. (Nevada's congressional
delegation and its state government oppose Yucca Mountain as is,
fighting it in the court system, legislative and bureaucratic
process, a battle Bowman said anyone in their position would
wage.)
Still, keeping the waste at the nuclear plants -- whether
temporarily or permanently -- is a safe option, Bowman said. But
it's not viable for the industry.
A survey by Bisconti Research Inc., conducted for NEI in May,
found 68 percent of the public "favors" nuclear energy (the
survey had a 3 percent margin of error), an approval rating
Bowman said would erode if there was no plan to move the nuclear
waste.
(A study conducted in July by Deloitte &Touche USA LLP, however,
found only 49 percent of the public "favor" nuclear power and
only two-thirds of those support a new plant within 20 miles of
where they live. It had a 3.1 percent margin of error.)
Gilbert Brown, director and professor at University of
Massachusetts Lowell's Nuclear Engineering Program, also thinks
on-site storage of nuclear waste is safe, but the waste issue
isn't a business blocker for new nuclear plants.
"It's not going to hamstring the industry in any greater or
lesser way than it already does," Brown told United Press
International. "I don't view it as a show stopper."
--
(Comments to energy@upi.com)
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
71 times and star: No restart for Thorp until next year
workington lake district,
Published on 19/09/2006
SELLAFIELD’S troubled Thorp reprocessing plant will NOT re-open
this year because there is still too much to do following a
massive radioactive leak which closed it 17 months ago.
The news is a further blow for the ÂŁ1.8bn flagship plant, which
was closed when 83,000 litres of highly radioactive liquor
leaked from a fractured pipe last April. It went undetected for
nine months.
Site operator British Nuclear Group, which has been fined
ÂŁ2million for failing to meet high quality safety and
environmental requirements – and still faces an unlimited
crown court fine for the incident – had hoped to restart Thorp
this summer.
But after failing to meet that target, it said an autumn restart
was more likely.
BNG has now announced that it will not be in a position to
re-open Thorp until next year.
Workers were told the news on Friday.
A BNG spokeswoman said: “British Nuclear Group is carrying out
final preparations to get Thorp operational again.
“The plant can only re-start once all of the necessary
permissions have been obtained from the Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate(NII)and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
“While all necessary improvements to the plant will be
completed by the end of September, it is now clear that the
process of closing out the NII recommendations and related work
will take some time.
“BNG and the NII are seeking to complete this work as quickly
as possible but it is likely that this will run until the end of
December, leading to a restart in early 2007.”
Since the leak from a fractured pipe within the Feed
Clarification Cell, BNG has been giving Thorp staff training in
“behaviour and technical matters” and a new CCTV camera has
been installed.
Shadow trade secretary David Willets said at the time the leak
was discovered, on April 19, 2005, that it was a failure
“worthy of Homer Simpson” – the inept nuclear plant worker
from TV cartoon series The Simpsons.
BNG has admitted three charges brought by the Health and Safety
Executive and faces an unlimited fine.
The spokeswoman added: “We deeply regret the incident, which
clearly should not have happened and are determined to do
everything necessary to ensure that nothing similar can ever
happen again.
“The safety of our employees, local communities and the
environment remains our number one priority. At no time did this
incident pose any actual or potential threat from a health,
safety or environment perspective.”
The NDA said today that despite the further delay, it still
considers Thorp viable for a re-start.
A spokesman said: “We always place safety as the absolute
priority. We understand that the NII must have the time it needs
to complete its assessments and determine whether the plant is
safe to re-start.
“Any final decision to restart Thorp will be made by the NDA
given that this was a major incident.”
*****************************************************************
72 Construction and Maintenance: Areva-led team responds to DOE Nuclear Initiative
Areva, the largest nuclear energy vendor in America, Washington
Group International and BWX Technologies have jointly submitted
Expressions of Interest (EOI) to the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) for both the development and deployment of a Consolidated
Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC) and an Advanced Burner Reactor
(ABR).
The DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative
aims to expand the use of nuclear power to address the growing
demand for energy. The initiative can increase U.S. and global
energy security and provide for a safe expansion of clean
nuclear power.
The CFTC will be capable of processing used nuclear fuel into
recyclable, energy-producing components and final waste
materials. It will serve also as a fuel manufacturing plant. The
ABR, a new type of nuclear reactor, will be designed to use
recycled nuclear materials in a way that generates electricity
with the valuable content of the irradiated fuel as well as to
consume minor actinides.
© 2005 construction news
*****************************************************************
73 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford workers' medical care compromised and delayed
[seattlepi.com]
[OPINION]
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
By LEA MITCHELL GUEST COLUMNIST
During World War II, Washington state aided the national interest
by using Hanford to manufacture plutonium for the world's first
atomic bombs. Although that era may be a thing of the past, the
byproducts of it are not.
Hanford is now the most contaminated place in the Western
hemisphere and the largest environmental remediation project in
history. Gov. Chris Gregoire led the charge to hold the federal
government accountable for promises made to our state, our
representatives fight year after year for sufficient cleanup
funds and Washington voters have supported cleanup efforts. It
is time now to also turn up the heat on another key part of the
cleanup -- providing medical assessment and compensation to
Hanford workers who get ill or injured on the job.
A recent report issued by the Government Accountability Project
exposes the Department of Energy's systemic interference with
workers' compensation claims. The findings assert that DOE's
program delays, denies and compromises workers' medical care. In
addition, it challenges the DOE and state officials to ensure
that the federal government does not create another generation
of workers who are denied access to adequate medical care and
compensation.
Injured workers are shuffled to Hanford's onsite medical
provider who works for and is paid by the DOE. Records
established here may assert that ailments are not work-related
or omit crucial information about worksite conditions. Many
workers are required to go to an "independent" medical examiner
who is paid for and selected by the DOE. Some of those examiners
do not have complete records, perform limited additional
testing, and reach conclusions used to overturn diagnoses made
by a worker's personal physician. One worker found that
examiners changed their conclusions after being contacted by
DOE's lawyers.
Responding to worker concerns, the DOE recently hired Washington
State Department of Labor and Industries to review the program.
The L report has been cited by the DOE as proof that there are
no major problems with the program. In fact, the scope of the
review was carefully orchestrated -- and limited -- by the DOE
itself. Despite the self-serving nature of the review, it found
that Hanford compensation claims are denied at double the rate
of other self-insured employers. It also found that nearly half
of all claims files were managed in a "fair" or "poor" manner
and that DOE's program often failed to track down critical
medical information.
Since DOE took over the program from L in 2000, the rate of
claim denials has tripled. Workers who appeal the denials of
their claims often face aggressive DOE legal tactics financed by
your tax dollars.
Is this how we want to treat workers who take risks in order to
leave Washington citizens a cleaner, better state?
It will take at least 30 more years to clean the waste the
federal government left behind. We cannot forget workers when
they become ill or injured on the job and seek compensation.
Federal compensation programs alone are not sufficient, and were
never meant to be. Neither is a self-insured program run by the
DOE with little state oversight.
Eliminating DOE's systemic interference with workers claims
requires putting the program back into the hands of L and
closing loopholes in state law allowing for deviations that
"aide the national interest."
Generations from now, the success of the Hanford cleanup will be
measured not only by how clean the environment is, but also by
how Hanford workers were treated when they sought medical
assessment, care, and compensation. Let's be sure we can look
back and say they were treated well. Lea Mitchell is nuclear
oversight investigator for the Government Accountability
Project, West Coast office, in Seattle.
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA
98119 (206) 448-8000
Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
74 Local News 8: Audit Finds Contractor for INL Received Bloated Bonuses
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) - An audit has found that the contractor
running the Idaho National Laboratory has received more than $2
million in overly liberal bonus money.
The audit by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector
General found that Battelle Energy Alliance received the money in
reward fees since February 2005 when it took over operations at
INL.
The INL is the 890-square-mile federal nuclear research area in
eastern Idaho.
The audit, released in August, also found that goals set by the
department were months late, and on some occasions came after
the work was done.
Officials at the department acknowledged that due dates had
been missed, but said deciding whether reward fees were
reasonable was subjective.
Story Created: Sep 19, 2006 at 1:38 PM MST
*****************************************************************
75 DOE: Secretary Bodman Addresses IAEA General Conference in Vienna
September 18, 2006
Highlights President Bushs global initiatives to expand
international access to nuclear energy and promote
nonproliferation
VIENNA, AUSTRIA U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
today discussed the need to further expand international
cooperative work in safely expanding the use of nuclear energy
as a clean and affordable energy source while strengthening
nuclear nonproliferation in remarks he delivered to the 50th
Annual International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General
Conference in Vienna, Austria.
As an international community, we must work together to
globally expand clean, reliable, and affordable nuclear energy
in ways that reduce proliferation risks, increase global energy
security, and limit pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The
decisions we make today in terms of both reliable energy supply
and nuclear nonproliferation will have an affect for generations
to come, Secretary Bodman said. I also would like to
congratulate the IAEA on its 50th anniversary. As developing
and developed countries turn to nuclear power as a key component
of their energy mix, the IAEA plays an important role in
safeguarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy and helping
countries meet the highest standards of safety, security, and
nonproliferation.
To guide international efforts to expand nuclear power,
Secretary Bodman highlighted the global vision of President
Bushs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which seeks to
work with international partners to promote the use of advanced
nuclear energy systems in order to provide a reliable fuel
source in an economically competitive basis worldwide. Through
GNEP, nations will develop enhanced nuclear safeguards in
cooperation with the IAEA as an integral part of the development
of advanced nuclear facilities. Secretary Bodman cited the need
for mutually beneficial partnerships with nations to ensure that
appropriate investments are made to demonstrate technologies
that recycle nuclear fuel, reduce waste, and provide developing
nations reliable access to clean nuclear energy for electricity.
Secretary Bodman also highlighted the nonproliferation successes
achieved internationally through the Presidents Global Threat
Reduction Initiative. He stressed the need for all nations to
redouble efforts to secure radioactive and radiological material
and further expand cooperative work in nuclear nonproliferation.
Secretary Bodman encouraged compliance with international
safeguards, the amended Convention on the Physical Protection of
Nuclear Materials and Facilities, and related requirements for
nuclear safety and security. He discussed the United States and
Russias Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism which
aims to secure nuclear materials and called on all nations to
act decisively and responsibly to thwart terrorists bent on
nuclear and radiological violence.
In addition to giving his speech in Vienna, Secretary Bodman met
with IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei; Russian Rosatom
Director Sergei Kiriyenko; Indian Atomic Energy Commission
Chairman Dr. Anil Kakodkar; Japanese Cabinet Minister for
Science and Technology Iwao Matsuda; French Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission Alain Bugat; and Chinas Atomic Energy
Authority Chairman Sun Qin.
Joining Secretary Bodman in his official delegation are DOE
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon and
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Deputy
Administrator William Tobey.
The IAEA was formed within the United Nations (UN) system in
1957 as an outgrowth of President Dwight D. Eisenhowers 1953
Atoms for Peace initiative. The IAEA has 140 member states
and is the worlds forum for nuclear, scientific, and technical
cooperation, and the international inspectorate for safeguards
required under the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT).
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
76 Tri-City Herald: DOE science manager retiring
Published Tuesday, September 19th, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
The Department of Energy is looking for new top managers for two
of its three Tri-City offices.
Paul Kruger, the manager of the Department of Energy office
responsible for oversight of Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, is retiring, DOE said in an internal announcement
Monday.
On Friday, staff at Hanford's DOE Office of River Protection
learned that manager Roy Schepens would be leav-ing to take a
newly created job in Washington, D.C.
Both the Hanford Office of River Protection and the Hanford
Richland Operations Office, headed by Keith Klein, are
responsible for Hanford cleanup under DOE's Office of
Environmental Management. Kruger works for the Office of
Science.
Kruger, 49, who declined to be interviewed Monday, has worked
for the federal government for 27 years and has been manager of
DOE's Pacific Northwest Site Office since it was created in
December 2003.
"Paul has been a friend to PNNL since he assumed oversight of
the lab," Len Peters, PNNL director, said in a statement.
Kruger pushed for continual improvement in the quality of the
lab's science and technology, even as PNNL was receiving
"outstanding" ratings from DOE, Peters said.
"Paul has led the way within DOE to make sure PNNL continues to
have the facilities and capabilities needed to carry out its
growing energy, environment and national security missions,"
Peters said.
The change in leadership at the DOE office comes as DOE is
reconsidering its decision to tear down all the buildings in the
300 Area as part of the Hanford nuclear reservation cleanup.
A planned replacement facility for laboratory staff to be paid
for by the federal government would cost more than expected.
However, no decision has been made on how to proceed.
Kruger's retirement also comes as DOE prepares to seek
competitive bids for operating the national laboratory in
Richland. Battelle Memorial Institute has had an exclusive
renewable contract for four decades, but the current five-year
contract expires in a year.
"Paul has been a strong advocate for worker safety," wrote
George Malosh, chief operating officer for DOE's Office of
Science, in a DOE message Monday. Kruger has been a leader in
establishing the Voluntary Protection Program and an integrated
safety management program, according to Malosh.
"Recently, under his leadership PNNL has been rated the best for
safety performance among the Office of Science's multi-program
laboratories," Malosh said.
Kruger also has been a key supporter of the Volpentest HAMMER
training center, which trains workers in cleanup performance and
safety excellence, Malosh wrote.
Kruger began his career with the federal government as an
environmental scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and
Bureau of Land Management in 1979. He transferred to DOE as a
program manager in the Laboratory Management division in 1989.
At DOE he was a leader in various environmental, safety and
health programs at DOE's Han-ford Richland Operations Office and
Office of River Protection, according to Malosh. In 2004, when
DOE was forming offices of science at each of its national
laboratories, Kruger was named to head the Pacific Northwest
Site Office in Richland.
Julie Erickson, the deputy site office manager, will serve as
acting office manager when Kruger retires at the end of the
month.
Among her previous jobs has been manager of the Project Hanford
Management Contract transition and director of the Environmental
Restoration Project for DOE's Hanford Richland Operations
Office.
She has a bachelor's of science degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Idaho.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
77 Hanford News: Hanford cleanup surpasses milestone
This story was published Tuesday, September 19th, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Hanford workers have treated and disposed of 24,000 drums worth
of low-level radioactive waste mixed with hazardous chemicals
well ahead of a legal deadline.
The waste includes sludge left from the production of uranium
fuel elements for N Reactor and some packaged waste dug up from
burial trenches in central Hanford.
All the waste has been stored at Hanford for well over a decade,
some of it in temporary burial trenches.
"The goal here is to get out of the waste storage business,"
said Mark French, the Department of Energy federal project
director for waste treatment and disposal, in a statement. "We
are clearing out the backlog of stored drums and getting the
waste treated and into final disposal that is safe and
protective of the environment."
DOE had a legal deadline under the Tri-Party Agreement to treat
and dispose of enough mixed low level waste to fill 23,500 drums
by the end of December.
In total, it must have enough waste to fill 50,000 drums
disposed of by June 2009. After that it must treat and dispose
of any new mixed low level waste within a year of when it is
generated.
Most of the waste disposed of so far came from the production of
fuel elements for N Reactor in the 300 Area just north of
Richland. Several million gallons of salt solutions were left by
the process. The brine was trucked to four water-retention
basins near the H Reactor along the Columbia River from the
mid-1970s to the mid-1980s. Water was evaporated from the basins
leaving being nitrate salts and sludge.
From 1986 to 1989 the waste that had not evaporated was pumped
out of the basins, mixed with grout and packaged into 55-gallon
steel drums. They were stored outside first, then later at the
Central Waste Complex in central Hanford.
Within a few years of storage, many of the drums began to bulge.
DOE determined that the problem might have been caused by the
contents of the drum expanding during the winter freeze. In
addition, some of the drums developed white spots that turned
into pinhole leaks caused by corrosion from the salts in the
waste.
From 1992-99 more than 75 percent of the drums were repackaged
inside larger 85-gallon drums to protect workers and the
environment. Last year, work was completed to ship all the drums
to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in central
Hanford for permanent disposal.
The remainder of the waste treated and disposed of by DOE
contractor Fluor Hanford to meet the legal deadline was in the
form of contaminated debris, tools, clothing and other materials
from the 1970s and '80s.
In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission ruled that transuranic
waste - typically waste contaminated with long-lived plutonium -
must be buried in a deep geological repository. With no
repository open, Hanford workers temporarily buried on-site
waste they thought might qualify as transuranic until the
repository opened in New Mexico in 1999.
About half the suspected transuranic that has been dug up since
has qualified as mixed low-level radioactive waste rather than
transuranic waste.
To meet the Tri-Party Agreement deadline, DOE has compacted and
mixed enough of that mixed low level radioactive waste with
grout to fill 3,500 drums. Grouting was done at the Pacific
EcoSolutions in Richland and PermaFix Environmental in
Tennessee.
"Meeting this milestone gets us significantly down the path of
clearing this backlog of stored waste drums," Dale McKenney,
Fluor Hanford vice president of waste stabilization and
disposition, said in a statement.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
78 Hanford News: Fluor's layoffs don't hit as hard
This story was published Tuesday, September 19th, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Fluor Hanford gave layoff notices to 53 employees Monday, about
half the number it had anticipated this summer, as planning was
under way for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
The contractor at the Hanford nuclear reservation had announced
that up to 100 positions might be cut because of projects ending
and changing work priorities.
Of the 53 people laid off, 34 volunteered and 19 others were
picked by Fluor Hanford. The total included 20 organized labor
workers.
Fluor was able to reduce the size of the planned layoff because
some additional work was found at the Plutonium Finishing Plant,
said Fluor Hanford spokesman Geoff Tyree.
Work to dismantle the plant has slowed from earlier accelerated
plans as weapons grade plutonium stored there has remained at
Hanford longer than expected. The Department of Energy plans to
consolidate weapons-grade plutonium possibly in Savannah River,
S.C., which would reduce security requirements at the Plutonium
Finishing Plant that have complicated cleanup.
Some additional work was found at the Plutonium Finishing Plant,
cleaning out equipment and glove boxes to prepare for eventual
dismantling of buildings there.
Layoffs were not just at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, but also
across the Hanford nuclear reservation.
Workers were given two weeks notice. They will receive one
week's severance pay for each year of service, up to 20 years.
Fluor Hanford and its major subcontractors have about 3,500
employees.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
79 toledoblade.com: Ottawa County selected for beryllium plant
Article published Tuesday, September 19, 2006
ELMORE - Brush Wellman Inc. said yesterday it has chosen this
Ottawa County town for an automated beryllium-processing plant.
The plant, which would cost between $40 million and $60 million
and would be largely paid for by the U.S. Department of Defense,
would create 25 jobs but would not be ready until at least 2010.
The company also had considered a site in Utah, but before
anything is built, Congress would have to appropriate money.
"The thing is, the announcement doesn't mean a plant definitely
will be going to Elmore," said Patrick Carpenter, a company
spokesman.
The Defense Department, a large customer of the new plant's
eventual products, would foot nearly 80 percent of the cost of
construction. Brush Wellman would likely be responsible for
about $10 million, Mr. Carpenter said.
An actual price isn't known because the company will spend the
next year designing and developing the plant, which will be
largely automated to minimize potential safety hazards.
Construction would take four years, Mr. Carpenter said.
The plant would be adjacent to the existing Elmore plant, which
has 580 employees. That plant takes processed beryllium and
turns it into finished products.
Another benefit of the addition to its Elmore site is
preserving 120 jobs at the current facility. The new jobs would
pay about $24 an hour, the company has told the state. The
company has received other incentives from the state for the
project, such as a low-interest loan and a grant for site
improvements.
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
80 Inside Bay Area: Scientists discuss urgency of energy solutions
Article Last Updated: 09/19/2006 02:52:11 AM PDT
Conferees at Stanford this week hope to come up with action plan
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
The world has plenty of energy, enough for 500 years and
probably 1,000 or more.
"And that's the bad news. Because it's fossil energy," Nobel
laureate physicist and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Director Steve Chu told fellow scientists Monday at Stanford
University.
Left to their present course, both industrialized and developing
nations are planning to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels,
driven increasingly to carbon-rich coal by high oil and gas
prices.
China alone is building the equivalent of a Manhattan every year
and a large coal-fired power plant every week. It consumed more
coal last year than the United States, Russia and India
combined.
"China is a coal economy. You don't change that overnight," said
Doug Ogden, director of the China Sustainable Energy program for
the San Francisco-based Energy Foundation.
That's likely to push the chemistry of the atmosphere past a
doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations and toward a
quadrupling, trapping more heat at the Earth's surface and
pushing average temperatures from an increase of a few degrees
to an increase of 15 degrees or
more. People hear about uncertainty in climate change, Chu said,
and "the public assumes, 'Well, maybe it's not true.'"
In fact, he said, "the spread is between bad and very, very
bad."
What exactly to do about the planet's energy and climate dilemma
has biologists, physicists, geologists and economist assembled
this week for a conference held by Stanford's Global Climate and
Energy Program, and sponsored by Toyota and General Electric
Co., as well as ExxonMobile Corp. and well-servicing giant
Schlumberger.
Avoiding significantly more warming means drastically cutting
releases of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Energy
analysts John Ziagos and Gene Berry at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory set off to find out what that might mean just
for the United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse
gases.
Putting the rest of the nation on California's low-carbon diet
could mean replacing the entire U.S. vehicle fleet with hydrogen
cars and trucks, capturing carbon dioxide from all fossil-fuel
power plants and building 300 nuclear power stations, Ziagos
said.
That's building a half-dozen nuclear plants every year.
Moving to this "massively carbonless" future by 2050 also would
mean boosting the efficiency of electricity production by 50
percent, covering North Dakota in wind turbines and installing
at least 500 square feet of solar panels for every man, woman
and child, he said.
That takes time.
"If we're going to reach that, we're going to have to turn
around soon," Ziagos said. "If we expect to achieve these
reductions, our emissions have to peak in 2010."
There's a debate among various carbon-free energy sources:
nuclear versus capture of carbon from coal-fired power plants,
and biofuels versus better fuel economy.
"The bottom line is we need to do it all," Ziagos said, "and we
need to get started right away."
Chu is calling for his lab's scientists to fail, or at least
risk failure, by moving out of their career research and into
advanced solar and bioenergy research.
Those scientists will attack the toughest pieces of energy
problems, the likeliest "showstoppers," as Chu put it, so that
"they're going to fail often, but you're also going to fail
fast."
© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
81 Times-News Online: Audit finds contractor for INL received bloated bonuses
Twin Falls, ID
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 •
Twin Falls, Idaho
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) -- The contractor running the Idaho
National Laboratory has received more than $2 million in overly
liberal bonus money, an audit has found.
The audit by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Inspector
General found that Battelle Energy Alliance received the money
in reward fees since February 2005 when it took over operations
at INL, the 890-square-mile federal nuclear research area in
eastern Idaho.
The audit, released in August, also found that goals set by the
department were months late, and on some occasions came after
the work was done.
Officials at the department acknowledged that due dates had been
missed, but said deciding whether reward fees were reasonable
was subjective.
"It may be impossible to ever consistently meet the expectations
of the (inspector general) regarding fee allocations," Dennis
Spurgeon, the department's assistant secretary for nuclear
energy, said in a written response.
The audit report cited seven cases of bonus fees that were too
large. Four of the cases gave Battelle a "sales commission" for
getting new projects. The contractor, in one case, could earn
$499,000 for getting $100,000 worth of work.
In another example, the audit found that the cost of completing
some steps to establish the Center for Advanced Energy Studies
would be $220,000 for labor. But Battelle could earn $600,000
for completing the steps.
John Lindsay, a Battelle spokesman, said the report on the
Center for Advanced Energy Studies work was unfair because the
collaborative work with the state, universities and others was
not considered.
Battelle, in a written response, also said the fees were based
on the value of the work to the government, and that the fees
were a good value to the department and taxpayers.
The audit blamed the department for releasing performance plans
months after the fiscal year started. At least one performance
deadline had passed by the time the department had told Battelle
of its priorities.
---
Information from: Post Register, http://www.idahonews.com
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc.
Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News,
published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St.,
*****************************************************************
82 KNDO/KNDU: Hanford 300-Area Buildings may not be Destroyed
Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA |
DOE Reconsiders Plans in 300 Area Demolition
RICHLAND, Wash.- The Department of Energy is reconsidering plans
to tear down the entire 300-Area at Hanford.
DOE is looking at keeping some of the vital research buildings
used by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory at the 300-Area
after contractors told them replacement costs would be much more
than expected.
With demolition already being done on the 300-Area, DOE is
reviewing plans to totally flatten the area.
"One of the options is for the Lab to leave the 300-Area
completely which can be done safely without impacting the
cleanup schedule out there," said Megan Barnett, a DOE
Spokesperson.
About 1,000 PNNL employees work in the buildings that were
scheduled for demolition, jobs that could leave the area if the
buildings are demolished.
"1,000 jobs out of a 4,000 employer agency is a huge impact, and
then what do you do for an encore. That's a huge level of
revenue, a lot of people and critical skills that helps other
things happen at this site and this community as well," said
Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver.
Environmentalists and the Washington Department of Ecology are
up in arms over leaving buildings in tact. They said some of
them are contaminated with more than just uranium.
"The buildings are known to have contamination including
beryllium and it is unsafe to send workers in there," said Gerry
Pollet, Executive Director of Heart of America Northwest, a
Hanford watchdog group.
The Department of Energy hasn't made a final decision yet, but
said they are committed to both missions.
No matter what happens the Department of Energy said
contaminated groundwater under the site will be cleaned up.
A final decision for the 300-Area should come sometime soon.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and
KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
83 SR.com: State seeks fine for toxic spill at Hanford
Shannon Dininny
Associated Press
September 19, 2006
RICHLAND (AP) — Washington state issued a notice of violation
today to the U.S. Department of Energy for leaking a highly
toxic and potential cancer-causing agent into ground at the
heavily contaminated Hanford nuclear reservation.
The leak of sodium dichromate occurred as workers were digging
up an old pipeline near a nuclear reactor, about a half-mile
from the Columbia River.
The concentrated material potentially endangered workers, as
well as the already contaminated groundwater and the spawning
salmon and other fish species in the river, said Jay Manning
director of the Washington Department of Ecology.
The notice alerts the Energy Department that the state believes
the agency and its contractors violated the Tri-Party Agreement,
the legal cleanup pact signed by the state, Energy Department
and federal Environmental Protection Agency, Manning said. The
state also asked the EPA, which regulates cleanup at that part
of the site, to issue a fine.
“They should have known what they were getting into. They should
have been prepared. They weren’t,” Manning said, noting that
contractors at the site have generally performed well. “This was
a notable and very disappointing exception.”
The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of
the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Over
the next 40 years, nine reactors were built to produce plutonium
for the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal.
Contractors have been working to “cocoon” those reactors, which
involves demolishing nonradioactive portions of the buildings
and sealing the reactor cores in concrete shields. They also
must dig up ancillary pipes and so-called “burial grounds,”
where contaminated equipment and junk were buried.
When the leak occurred, workers were using heavy equipment to
remotely dig up a pipe that carried sodium dichromate near the D
Reactor, which operated from 1944 to 1967.
Sodium dichromate is considered to be a carcinogenic, or
cancer-causing compound. It was used to inhibit corrosion of the
reactor’s cooling system pipelines that carried Columbia River
water into the reactor core to cool it.
An estimated 30 gallons of sodium dichromate leaked into the
ground during one excavation project June 15. Another 3 gallons
leaked into the ground from the same pipeline in another spot
June 19.
Sampling of the liquid sodium dichromate showed concentrations
of 44,000 parts per million, 22,000 times over limits considered
safe for direct contact with humans.
Todd Nelson, spokesman for contractor Washington Closure
Hanford, said workers immediately halted the excavation June 15
after the first leak, digging up the contaminated soil. They
pinched off the ends of the pipe so nothing else could leak out,
and covered the area with uncontaminated soil to protect the
site until a new work plan could be established.
In trying to determine where else material may have collected in
the pipe, the second leak occurred, Nelson said, and workers
immediately halted excavation.
“Typically, when we encounter an anomaly, we shut down work,
secure the site and prepare a new plan. And sometimes that
requires more investigation,” Nelson said. “All of that was done
in this case.”
Washington Closure officials, in tandem with the Energy
Department and the state Department of Ecology, agreed upon a
new plan and restarted cleanup in the area in August, he said.
One worker was in the immediate area of the leaks, working
inside a piece of heavy equipment. No workers were contaminated,
and all contaminated soil has been collected, Nelson said.
The EPA will review the Department of Ecology’s request, conduct
an additional investigation as necessary and determine if any
other action is required, program manager Nick Ceto said in a
statement.
“It is essential that all cleanup work be completed in a way
that is protective of both workers and the environment,” he
said.
Cleanup at the 586-square-mile site is expected to continue
through 2035. That includes treatment of an estimated 80 square
miles of groundwater contaminated when 1.7 trillion gallons of
radioactive and hazardous waste leaked into the soil.
The Spokesman-Review'sonline auction continues through Tuesday,
Sept. 26.
*****************************************************************
84 KNDO/KNDU: Department of Ecology Issues Notice of Violation for Hanford Subcontractor Work
Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA |
RICHLAND, Wash.- The U.S. Department of Energy is being
criticized for it's handling of a chemical spill at Hanford.
The Washington Department of Ecology is issuing a Notice of
Violation after they said workers for a Washington Closure
Hanford subcontractor reportedly spilled 33 gallons of
hexavalent chromium during cleanup work on the 100-D Reactor.
On June 15 and 19, 2006, workers were excavating pipes around
the 100-D Reactor when they ruptured a pipe, spilling
radioactive waste.
"The pipes contained a bright red and a bright green liquid. The
liquids as it turns out, contained high levels, very high
levels, of hexavalent chromium," said Jay Manning, head of the
state Department of Ecology.
Hexavalent chromium is highly radioactive, but in a statement
released by Washington Closure Hanford today, they said worker
safety was not compromised by the incident.
A part of the statement read: "To isolate and protect workers
from any potential exposure, the work was being done remotely
via machine with all workers other than the equipment operator
outside the 30-foot exclusion zone."
The Department of Energy is now doing their own assessment of
the incident.
"We're going to continue to have discussions with Ecology, with
EPA and with our contractor to determine the factual accuracy of
the report and its conclusions as well as to ensure that
whatever corrective actions that need to be taken are being
taken at the site," said Colleen French, a spokesperson for the
Department of Energy.
Neither side is denying the spill, the issue of contention is
whether the contractor handled it correctly.
Department of Ecology workers say the contractor did not take
the right steps.
"They did not take the samples that are required by the
workplan, and that's one of the violations that we're enforcing
against them," said John Price, a project manager for the
Department of Ecology.
Chromium was used to cool the reactor during before it shut down
in 1967.
Hexavalent chromium is known to cause cancer and can be fatal if
ingested. It is the same substance that spurred the movie "Erin
Brockovich."
The Department of Ecology is forwarding their research to the
EPA, who will decide whether to fine the Department of Energy
for the apparent violation.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and
KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
85 NewsBlaze: Remarks on behalf of U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
IAEA Special Event on "Assurances of Nuclear Supply and
Nonproliferation"
Thank you, Charlie, for the introduction and the opportunity to
address this Special Event. My remarks are on behalf of U.S.
Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman. The Secretary asked that I
extend his best wishes for a successful conference and commend
the IAEA for taking this vital initiative.
As indicated by Secretary Bodman yesterday in his address to the
General Conference, the United States recognizes the very
serious challenge arising from the need to develop sources of
energy that support economic expansion and sustainable
development that reduce carbon emissions and that improve our
security.
As a proven technology, and as the only non-fossil alternative
for large-scale electricity production, nuclear power must be
part of the solution. This is the conclusion reached by my
government.
We recognize too, however, that to realize significant increases
in nuclear power, a new framework for the utilization of nuclear
energy is needed.
This new framework should encourage the growth of nuclear power
as a cost-competitive alternative to other options. It should
embrace the highest standards for safety. It should provide for
the responsible management of spent fuel and waste. And it
should address security and proliferation risks.
Our goal is to have energy and security. It is to ensure that
states adhering strictly to nonproliferation norms and standards
can enjoy the fullest possible exchange of nuclear energy and
technology.
The international nonproliferation regime has served us well to
limit proliferation dangers. But as the experience with Iran and
North Korea make clear, we must go farther.
To foster the more global use of nuclear energy, actions are
needed that discourage States from acquiring enrichment and
reprocessing capabilities - capabilities that serve peaceful
ends but are also essential for weapons.
As proposed by President Bush in 2004, a new framework for
nuclear energy is needed to "create a safe, orderly system to
field civilian nuclear plants without adding to the danger of
weapons proliferation."
Yesterday, Secretary Bodman described our vision for such a
framework, which we call the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
or GNEP.
The purpose of GNEP is to facilitate the safe, secure, and
economic expansion of nuclear energy use by:
+ developing and deploying advanced, proliferation resistant
nuclear energy systems that avoid separation of pure plutonium
and make it as difficult as possible to misuse or divert nuclear
materials to weapons;
+ promoting small and medium size proliferation-resistant
reactors designed to meet the needs of developing economies; and
+ providing assurances of fresh fuel and spent fuel management
to states that agree not to pursue enrichment and reprocessing
programs.
Of course, each state is free to make its own decisions with
respect to nuclear energy policy, consistent with its
international obligations.
Our intent is not to infringe on the sovereignty of states in
making those decisions, but to provide alternatives that secure
energy supplies and promote our shared nonproliferation goals.
Today's technologies require further development before the
United States or others will be able to fully manifest the GNEP
promise.
But because the global demand for electricity-generated power
will rise so significantly over the next 25 years, we must begin
now to formalize provisions for suppliers and recipients and
arrangements involving interim storage, processing, and
management of the world's spent nuclear fuel.
Using enrichment capacity and excess HEU available today, the
United States is ready to participate in assurances of supply of
fresh fuel consistent with U.S. law and our international
commitments.
The Russian Federation and others have also put forward
proposals, and we are ready to work cooperatively with other
nations, the IAEA, and industry in developing a suitable path
forward - a path that should enshrine diversity of supply as the
best means to promote confidence that supply disruptions will be
addressed.
A first order priority is the establishment of a mechanism for
reliable access to nuclear fuel, such as the concept of the
United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands
and Russia that was circulated to IAEA members, and a reserve of
nuclear fuel to back it up.
Last year, Secretary of Energy Bodman announced that the United
States would convert roughly 17 metric tons of highly enriched
uranium removed from our defense programs to low enriched
uranium for use in a reserve.
We encourage additional contributions of materials that could be
held nationally or controlled and administered by the IAEA.
The proposal of the six supplier states also makes clear that we
welcome and will help facilitate arrangements among commercial
suppliers of enriched uranium for the purpose of creating a
system, with IAEA support if appropriate, by which suppliers
would substitute material for one another at fair market rates
in the event of a supply disruption unrelated to
nonproliferation violations.
As work proceeds to establish reliable access to nuclear fuel,
we recognize that arrangements for services for the back-end of
the fuel cycle require further development.
While the spent fuel would not have to be returned to the
country that supplied the fuel, the supplier would retain
responsibility to ensure the material is secure, safeguarded,
and protected.
The creation of a comprehensive framework for fuel supply and
subsequent disposition is a large, complex undertaking. It will
require a step-by-step approach that encourages international
participation and support, coordination with suppliers and
industry, and the further development of technology.
We should avoid attempts to develop complete solutions at once,
just as we should avoid the pitfall of standing still.
Standing still is not an option if nuclear energy use is to
expand globally without increasing proliferation risks,
especially risks associated with the spread of sensitive nuclear
technologies and the build-up of separated stocks of civil
plutonium.
In thinking about the path forward, allow me to offer a few
thoughts:
First, the IAEA Secretariat should begin consultations promptly
with member states on implementation of the six-supplier
mechanism on reliable access to nuclear fuel and President
Putin's initiative on international nuclear fuel service
centers.
These complementary initiatives could be put in place
immediately. The IAEA's consultations should be completed on an
urgent basis so that the Board of Governors can take early
action.
Second, in fulfillment of Secretary Bodman's decision to set
aside HEU for a nuclear fuel reserve, the Department of Energy
will over the next year, begin converting the material to low
enriched uranium and will establish arrangements and procedures
for its release.
Third, the United States welcomes discussion on a possible
international fuel bank administered by the IAEA.
We recommend that the Secretariat be tasked to present a report
to the Board of Governors on the possibility of establishing a
bank to serve as a fuel supply of last resort.
This report should comprehensively survey the issues associated
with such a bank, including its management, structure, criteria
for access to nuclear fuel, and financing. The report could also
assess options for the Board to consider in defining the concept
more precisely.
Fourth, the United States encourages the participation of
industry, whose support is essential, particularly in response
to fuel disruptions that cannot be corrected through normal
commercial mechanisms.
We should identify possible supply chain concerns and steps that
governments can take to address them. Industry must also look
closer at its own business practices to determine how fuel
leasing - GNEP's longer-term goal - can be employed as a
standard business practice for the supply of nuclear fuel.
Finally, a more formal review of services related to the
back-end of the fuel cycle is needed. We recommend that States
in a position to do so work with the IAEA Secretariat to
complete such a review over the next year.
The review should consider the full range of legal, political,
and technical issues relating to spent fuel storage and
processing.
Looking farther head, the United States seeks to build consensus
on a comprehensive framework for fuel supply and subsequent
disposition based on recycling technologies that do not result
in the separation of plutonium.
States receiving spent fuel would deploy advanced fast reactors
that transmute spent fuel into less toxic forms while generating
electricity.
Transitioning to new technologies and fuel leasing cannot be
accomplished overnight. Time is needed for concepts to germinate
and for the feasibility of these approaches to be demonstrated.
I am certain that many good ideas will be put on the table over
the next two days. Our task is to organize those ideas and
consider how best to put them into practice.
The challenge we face is critical. I commend this initiative and
pledge the resources of the United States to develop a framework
for the utilization of nuclear power in the 21st century, a
framework that serves to expand global reliance on nuclear power
by addressing the needs of the international community, fuel
cycle service providers, and states ready to rely on nuclear
power.
Thank you for you attention.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
judythpiazza@gmail.com
Copyright © 2006, NewsBlaze, Daily News
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************