***************************************************************** 04/15/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.88 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 IRNA: Iran to study Pelosi's possible request for talks - 2 AFP: Egypt and Armenia discuss Iran's nuclear programme - 3 AFP: ElBaradei urges Israel, Iran to join nuclear-free Mideast - 4 [NYTr] Bush's Miserable North Korea Failure 5 [NYTr] N Korea ignores nuclear deadline, angering US officials 6 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Adviser Plays Key Role in N. Korea 7 Korea Times: Pyongyang Hints at Return of US Ship 8 AFP: North Korea will allow UN inspectors - Richardson - 9 AFP: North Korea wins time as nuke deadline slips - 10 RIA Novosti: Tests of Russia's newest ballistic missile to continue 11 washingtonpost.com: Diplomatic Exit - 12 Reuters: Russia launches new generation nuclear submarine | 13 Scotsman.com News - Revealed: the MOD plan to move Trident 14 UPI: IAEA: Nuclear GCC will take time 15 Antiwar.com: Conspiracy, Collusion, War - 16 AFP: After testing China-specific missile, India eyes ICBMs 17 ITAR-TASS: New Russian most powerful submarine emerges from shipyard 18 Hindustan Times: Pak finds 1,000 sites with possible uranium reserve 19 Scotsman.com: Trident rethink is dismissed as Labour spin 20 AFP: US eyes lucrative fighter jet deals in India - 21 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Building 1st Floating Nuke Plant NUCLEAR REACTORS 22 [NYTr] Fearing Iran, Arab states seek nuclear power 23 The Hindu: Nuclear Suppliers Group meet in Cape Town today 24 New York Times: With Eye on Iran, Rivals Also Want Nuclear Power - 25 Brampton Guardian: MDA secures deal with nuclear power station 26 US: Arizona Republic : Anti-nuclear power argument is flawed viewpoi 27 US: SF Chronicle: Nuclear power's flaws 28 US: JOURNAL NEWS: NRC denies Entergy request for more time to fix si 29 US: Worcester Telegram & Gazette News: The nuclear option 30 US: Decatur Daily: Contractor cited for misconduct at Browns Ferry 31 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Go nuclear (OP) 32 THERECORD.COM: Province's nuclear deal strangling spread of wind pow 33 US: Boston Herald: Nuclear power: Simple is best - 34 AFP: G7 ministers give nuclear energy a nod - 35 US: UPI: Analysis: Indian Point fails siren tests 36 Scotsman.com Business: Nuclear power attracting interest 37 AFP: IAEA to help Jordan get peaceful nuclear energy 38 US: KnoxNews: TVA may be facing action 39 US: REPUBLICAN & Herald: Nuclear energy can't be ignored 40 US: Saipan Tribune: Lawmakers push nuke power plant 41 IAEA: Countries Pursue Nuclear Energy for Water, Hydrogen Production 42 Guardian Unlimited: More Mideast States Eyeing Nuclear Power 43 US: Bangkok Post: Is Thailand serious about atomic energy? 44 Guardian Unlimited: France Wrestles With Its Own Decline NUCLEAR SECURITY 45 US: Chicago Tribune: Cheney: Nuclear terrorist attack inside the U.S 46 Daily Times: Nuclear terrorism chance in Pakistan low: expert NUCLEAR SAFETY 47 US: starbulletin.com: Concern rising over uranium at Schofield NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 48 reviewjournal.com: Nuke dump is dead? 49 Akron Beacon Journal: NRC license granted to planned uranium enrichm 50 US: newsobserver.com: Nuclear foes see danger in waste 51 Chillicothe Gazette: Piketon plant gets license 52 washingtonpost.com: Proposed Nuclear Waste Site Could Be Toxic Issue 53 US: UPI: Analysis: Uranium price surge to continue 54 Tonawanda News: LANDFILL: CURE to meet this week 55 Telegraph: US groups pull out of Sellafield bid 56 US: CBC News: Chesterfield Inlet residents want a say in uranium min 57 US: Hindustan Times: India receives 60 metric tonnes of Russian enri PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 KVII Online: Pantex lawsuit update ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IRNA: Iran to study Pelosi's possible request for talks - Tehran, April 15, IRNA Iran-US-Hosseini Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said here Sunday that Iran would study possible request by Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to visit Iran and hold talks with Iranian officials. "If any official request were made, we would discuss it on due time," Hosseini told domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press conference. "Pelosi's office has rejected news announcing her readiness to visit Iran," he said, adding that currently, there is no reliable news in this regard. Asked about sale of the US Embassy in Tehran, he said, "We have received no official and reliable report from official centers." The spokesman, however, added that Iran's judiciary system would make decision on the issue. On the exact date of the future visit to Tehran of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, he said, "The exact date has not been fixed yet." Mohammadi further announced that managing-director of the Russian contractor in charge of construction of Bushehr power plant is scheduled to arrive in Tehran within the next few days. Pointing to the continued seizure of five Iranian diplomats in the Iraqi city of Erbil, Hosseini expressed hope the US officials would leave obstinacy and release the diplomats at the earliest. US forces broke into Iran's consulate in Erbil on January 11 after disarming its guards and using force to break the gate of the consulate building. They ransacked the consulate, seized six consular staff (one of whom has been released). They also seized the consulate's computers and documents. As to upcoming meeting of Iraqi neighboring states in Iraq, he said, "Our priority is to hold the meeting with participation of Iraq's neighboring states plus Egypt and Bahrain." Consultations are underway on the issue, Hosseini added. News sent: 13:24 Sunday April 15, 2007 Print ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: Egypt and Armenia discuss Iran's nuclear programme - Sat Apr 14, 9:53 AM CAIRO (AFP) - Armenian President Robert Kocharian and President Hosni Mubarak discussed Iran's controversial nuclear programme in Cairo on Saturday. "Their talks covered the Iranian nuclear issue, developments in the region and the Gulf. Armenia is particularly interested in the nuclear file since it shares its southern frontier with Iran," Suleiman Awad told journalists. Iran says its uranium enrichment programme is for peaceful civilian purposes, but Western states suspect it may be used to develop a nuclear bomb, and have slapped sanctions on Tehran in a bid to get it to halt the project. "Iraq also featured in the discussions, which covered regional problems in Central Asia, particularly the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh," Awad said. During Kocharian's three-day visit, the interior ministers of both countries are expected to sign accords on organised crime, judicial cooperation and customs. On Sunday, Kocharian will meet the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, one of the most prominent figures in Sunni Islam. Once home to a massive Armenian community, Egypt has close historical ties with Armenia -- in 1878, Armenian Nubar Pasha became the country's first prime minister. In the 1940s some 40,000 Armenians lived in Egypt, mostly in Cairo and Alexandria, although many left in the 1960s with the rise of Egyptian nationalism and more socialist laws that hit Armenian businesses. Today some 8,000 people of Armenian origin live in Egypt, according to the community's website. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: ElBaradei urges Israel, Iran to join nuclear-free Mideast - Sun Apr 15, 9:13 AM ET AMMAN (AFP) - UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei called on Iran and Israel on Sunday to join a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, after talks in Jordan with King Abdullah II. "At the end of the day the Middle East should be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, a zone in which Israel and Iran are both members," ElBaradei said, according to a palace statement. "This is the last chance to build security in the Middle East based on trust and cooperation and not the possession of nuclear weapons," the International Atomic Energy Agency chief was quoted as saying. ElBaradei said a peace deal between Israel and its Arab neighbours "must be reached in parallel with a security agreement in the region based on ridding the region of all weapons of mass destruction." Israel is considered the sole, albeit undeclared, nuclear power in the region with an arsenal of around 200 warheads. Its archfoe Iran is suspected by the West of using a nuclear energy programme to try to develop atomic weapons, something Tehran vehemently denies. ElBaradei also noted that "Arab countries have joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty while Israel hasn't." He there was an "imbalance" in the nuclear capabilities of Israel and the Arab countries. Israel, he said, "has a nuclear deterrent force while all Arab countries have committed their programmes to peaceful purposes." He reiterated calls for Iran "to cooperate with us with sufficient transparency until we make sure that the Iranian programme is devoted to peaceful purposes." "We have not seen that this programme is devoted to military purposes and we have not seen underground facilities," he said. But he added: "There is fear over Iran's future intentions, not today but within the next five to 10 years. "We still have plenty of time to solve this issue peacefully, the only way to solve the Iranian problem is through negotiations," ElBaradei said, dismissing a military option concerning Iran as "unrealistic and disastrous." ElBaradei is in Jordan to discuss the country's desire to obtain nuclear energy to generate electricity and for other peaceful means. Amman is the third leg of a tour that has taken him to Saudi Arabia and Oman. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] Bush's Miserable North Korea Failure Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:38:20 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AP - Apr 14, 2006 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Reaction muted on N.Korea deadline miss By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- The latest missed deadline in the tortuous years of negotiations aimed at getting North Korea to stop making nuclear weapons is not expected to derail the process, but it is a sign of the lingering mistrust between Washington and the communist nation. North Korea failed to shut down and seal its sole operating nuclear reactor by Saturday as it pledged to do in February at six-nation talks. The country insisted Friday it would honor the commitment after confirming that funds frozen under U.S. sanctions have been released - its main condition for disarmament since late 2005. The only immediate effect of the missed deadline is that North Korea will not receive 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil it was promised - part of a total 1 million tons promised for dismantling its nuclear programs under the February agreement. The other parties in the talks - the United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea - are not expected to raise too much of a fuss, because Washington failed to resolve the dispute over frozen funds within 30 days as it had promised. The frozen $25 million - held in dozens of accounts at a bank in the Chinese territory of Macau - was only freed this past week due to technical difficulties, just days before the deadline to shut down its reactor at Yongbyon and allow verification by U.N. inspectors. In Beijing on Saturday, the main U.S. negotiator with North Korea refrained from directly criticizing North Korea. "We don't have a lot of momentum right now. That is for sure," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said. For North Korea, which joined the ranks of nuclear-armed states in October with an underground explosion of an atomic bomb, it's not just about the money. Pyongyang views the resolution of the financial dispute as an indication that Washington could be stepping back from its hard-line foreign policy that lumped the isolated communist regime in an "axis of evil" along with Iran and Saddam-era Iraq. The U.S. agreed in February to enter talks with North Korea aimed at normalizing relations and putting aside the hostility that has lingered since they fought each other in the 1950-53 Korean War. The conflict ended in a cease-fire that has never been replaced by a peace treaty. A Japanese newspaper aligned with the North Korean regime wrote recently that shutting down the reactor would mean Pyongyang "begins taking procedures to end war with the U.S. "It is out of question to give (nuclear facilities) up without a guarantee of peace," the Choson Sinbo said. North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation in the past week that it deserved another 30 days after the money was released to shut down the reactor. The delegation disagreed. No matter when the shutdown happens, it is still just a small step in the disarmament process and no great sacrifice for North Korea, because it could be easily reversed. A bigger hurdle will be persuading the North to dismantle all its atomic facilities involved in producing materials used to make bombs. No timeline has been set for that process, which could take years. Completing disarmament would entail a final step that North Korean leaders seem hesitant to commit to: giving up as many as a dozen nuclear bombs that may already be in their arsenal. To achieve that, U.S. officials will have to persuade the country that Washington is ready to deal with it as a respected fellow nation and that the "axis of evil" view is just a memory. [Burt Herman is chief of bureau in Korea for The Associated Press.] ) 2007 The Associated Press * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 [NYTr] N Korea ignores nuclear deadline, angering US officials Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:49:30 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The San Francisco Chronicle - Apr 15, 2007 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/15/MNGEGP90P21.DTL North Korea apparently ignores nuclear deadline, angering U.S. officials After $25 million was returned, fuel plant was to be shut down by David E. Sanger The New York Times (04-15) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The first deadline for North Korea to shut down and seal its main facility for manufacturing nuclear weapons fuel expired Saturday with no apparent action by the North to fulfill its commitments, while China asked angry officials in the Bush administration to show patience. The inaction leaves President Bush vulnerable to attacks from hawks in his own party, who have argued that it was a mistake to return $25 million in frozen funds to the North Koreans -- much of it believed to be from illicit sales of counterfeit currency and missiles -- and who doubt that the North Koreans will stop producing bomb fuel as well as give up all of their existing weapons. The White House was silent about the missed deadline, but the chief American negotiator dealing with the North, Christopher Hill, told reporters in Beijing, "We don't have a lot of momentum right now. That is for sure." Hill has traveled over the past week to Japan, South Korea and, most recently, China, where officials urged him to allow more time for the North Koreans to fulfill the accord. North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation last week that they would begin the process of shutting down their reactor at Yongbyon, where for years they have produced plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, as soon as the $25 million was returned. The process has taken far longer than U.S. officials expected, in part because the legal mechanisms for returning the money turned out to be enormously complicated, leading the Bush administration to give up its demand that all illicit funds had to be used for some kind of humanitarian purpose. The agreement that Hill signed with North Korea on Feb. 13 -- in talks that also included China, Russia, Japan and South Korea -- gave the North 60 days to deactivate and seal its main plant at Yongbyon, invite back international inspectors and provide a preliminary accounting of how much plutonium it has produced. The country had apparently taken none of those steps by Saturday. During a visit to North Korea last week by Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, officials in Pyongyang said they would fulfill those obligations within 30 days of receiving the money that was held in accounts of Banco Delta Asia, in Macao. Investigators from the U.S. Treasury and American intelligence agencies pored over records of the frozen accounts, mapped the banking activities of state-owned companies, arms traders and the leaders surrounding President Kim Jong Il. "This was the first thing we ever did that got the North Koreans' attention," a senior White House official said in an interview. With the money cleared for return, the Macao accounts no longer provide diplomatic leverage. That leaves the administration more dependent than ever on pressure from China, the North's main supplier of energy and aid, to force North Korea to live up to the agreement. Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that turning the money back to North Korea "complicates the logic of the Proliferation Security Initiative," the administration's plan to stop countries from illicit shipments of weapons, because it is allowing the North to retrieve its profits from those activities. "It also goes contrary to the (U.N.) Security Council resolution" passed at U.S. urging after North Korea's nuclear test on Oct. 9, he said. The test was something of a fizzle, yet it was enough to win unanimous passage of a resolution that imposes new economic sanctions on the North. In public statements, both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley have defended the accord as far more effective than an agreement signed between North Korea and President Bill Clinton in 1994, freezing the Yongbyon plant. "What you are hearing," one senior official said, "are the complaints of a lot of people who simply don't think we should be dealing with the North Koreans at all." This article appeared on page A - 16 of the San Francisco Chronicle * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Adviser Plays Key Role in N. Korea From the Associated Press Sunday April 15, 2007 9:31 PM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) - An American delegation traveled to North Korea last week ostensibly to recover the remains of missing U.S. troops. Hitching a ride, almost unnoticed, was the highest-ranking Bush administration official known to have visited Pyongyang since 2002. In public, Victor Cha, the White House's top adviser on North Korea and a deputy negotiator at six-nation nuclear talks with Pyongyang, was perhaps the quietest member of a group led by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, and former Veteran Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi. But in a series of private meetings with North Korea's chief nuclear negotiator, Kim Kye Gwan, Cha delivered a strong message from President Bush, according to a U.S. official with knowledge of the talks. Cha stressed the urgent need for the North to fulfill its pledge to begin dismantling its atomic program under a February agreement, the official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Despite the pressure, Pyongyang failed to meet a Saturday deadline to shut down its main nuclear reactor and allow in U.N. inspectors. But while the U.S. and others have urged the North to move quickly, criticism has been muted because the timetable was disrupted by delays in resolving U.S. financial sanctions until last week. Bush's decision to send a top adviser to push for action on the eve of the deadline shows how crucial the accord's success has become to a president who five years ago described North Korea as part of an ``axis of evil.'' With the Bush administration struggling with the war in Iraq and strong opposition from a new Democrat-led Congress, Bush is eager for a clear-cut foreign policy success. North Korea could have that potential. The importance of Cha's participation was not lost on the North Koreans. Kim, speaking prior to a meeting with the delegation at the North Korean Foreign Ministry, noted the ``very great significance'' of the inclusion of a Bush administration official in the 10-person bipartisan delegation. Richardson said the North grasped the symbolism of the White House's endorsement of the visit. ``The North Koreans always consider protocol very important,'' he said. ``They like to be considered a major power in the region.'' Michael Green, Bush's former chief adviser on Asia, said in an interview that such gestures are taken very seriously by North Korea. ``They understand power; they understand the seating chart in the White House; they know that (Cha) is close to the president,'' said Green, who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Richardson and Principi served as the public face of the mission, giving regular updates to two American reporters traveling with the delegation. Cha's only public comments with the delegation came during a news conference in New Mexico before the group left for North Korea. He spoke briefly of the humanitarian nature of the effort to bring back the remains of troops killed during the Korean War in 1950-53. At a news conference in Seoul after the visit, with dozens of South Korean and Western journalists gathered to hear about the trip, Cha sat quietly to the side. But his presence loomed large in Pyongyang. In a small scheduling booklet handed out to the delegation, the North Koreans proudly announced the private talks between Kim and Cha. Cha, who specializes in Asian affairs on Bush's National Security Council and speaks Korean as the son of Korean immigrants, met with Kim for several hours over the course of two days. The two also had discussions during more than 10 hours of meetings and dinners that included the entire delegation. Throughout, Cha pressed for action on the February pledge, repeatedly saying it was important for North Korea to show the world that it is taking the process seriously. Kim responded that Pyongyang would invite U.N. inspectors back as soon as it got possession of $25 million in funds frozen in a Macau bank blacklisted by Washington for allegedly abetting North Korean money laundering and counterfeiting. That cash wasn't freed up until last week. Although the Bush administration has insisted all discussions with North Korea occur within the framework of six-nation nuclear talks also involving China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, it has shown a willingness to meet with North Koreans privately. Leading up to the February deal, the head U.S. negotiator at the talks, Christopher Hill, met with Kim in Berlin to discuss ways to break an impasse. Cha's visit, however, was notable for its timing - coming just days before the deadline set by the February accord - and for its location. It took place in the North's showcase city, Pyongyang, a significant gesture for a country eager for U.S. recognition. The last time such a high-level U.S. official is known to have traveled to Pyongyang came in 2002 when former Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly accused the North of secretly beginning a nuclear program separate from the one it had agreed to freeze under a 1994 accord, said Green, who traveled with Kelly on the trip. The two countries are still dealing with the crisis that followed the Kelly visit. In the years since, the North withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, resumed its original nuclear program and, last year, test-launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan and exploded a nuclear bomb. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Times: Pyongyang Hints at Return of US Ship Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Lee Jin-woo Staff Reporter North Korea expressed its willingness to hand over a U.S. spy ship, the U.S.S Pueblo, captured by the NorthˇŻs navy in the late 1960s, on the visit of a U.S. governor to Pyongyang last week, diplomatic sources in Seoul said yesterday. It was belatedly known that the North hinted at the possible return of the captured U.S. spy ship, which has been exhibited as a war trophy at a North Korean port for three decades, to Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and his delegation, according to the Yonhap News Agency. The delegation, which also included Anthony Principi, a former U.S. secretary for veteran affairs, and Victor Cha, a White House advisor on inter-Korean affairs, was invited to see the insides of the 906-ton ship, which has been displayed near a river at the NorthˇŻs capital since 1999. Last Wednesday, Gov. Richardson crossed the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to Seoul with the remains of six U.S. soldiers killed during the 1950-53 Korean War after wrapping up his four-day trip to the reclusive North. The Stalinist state, however, did not disclose any specific plan on when and how they would return the ship. ``It remains to be seen whether the North has a sincere attitude about returning the symbol of Cold War confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington,ˇŻˇŻ an unnamed diplomatic source was quoted as saying by Yonhap. If the U.S. takes concrete steps to normalize relations with North Korea, the Pyongyang regime may actually give back the ship, said the diplomatic source. The North has disclosed its intention to return the ship several times. After a 2005 visit to Pyongyang, former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Donald Gregg quoted North Korean officials as saying that they had no need to keep the ship if a top-level American official makes a trip to the North, a goodwill gesture toward normalizing relations between the two countries. Aides to former Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan said Lee demanded that North Korea send back the ship to the U.S. during his four-day trip to Pyongyang last month. However, as no reporter was allowed to accompany him on the trip, details of the discussions have not been revealed to the public. The latest gesture comes amid active international efforts to denuclearize North Korea. A Feb. 13 accord at the six-party talks calls for the normalization of diplomatic ties between Pyongyang and Washington, in addition to making the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free. The U.S. ship was seized off North KoreaˇŻs coast on Jan. 23, 1968. In the attack, one U.S. crewmember was killed and several others wounded. Eighty-two surviving sailors were held there for 11 months before they were released. The North Koreans contended that the Pueblo had violated their territorial waters, a claim vigorously denied by the United States. The crewmembers were repatriated on Dec. 23, 1968. The ship was retained by North Korea, though she is still the property of the U.S. Navy, according to its Naval Historical Center. things@koreatimes.co.kr 04-15-2007 19:30 ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: North Korea will allow UN inspectors - Richardson - Sun Apr 15, 5:39 PM WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US envoy Bill Richardson said on Sunday he was optimistic North Korea will begin taking steps to shut down its nuclear program despite failing to meet a promised deadline at the weekend. Richardson, who served as US ambassador to the United Nations during former president Bill Clinton's administration, said he believed North Korea would allow in UN inspectors and move to shut down a nuclear reactor as part of an international agreement. "My prediction ... is that early this week, they will invite the inspectors. They will start the process of shutting down the reactor," said Richardson, governor of the US state of New Mexico, in an interview with ABC television. Richardson, a Democratic presidential hopeful who has conducted negotiations in the past with North Korea, said he had received positive assurances during a visit to North Korea last week as part of a US delegation. "They committed to me on April 12, my last day in North Korea with a bipartisan delegation, that they would shut down the reactor shortly, that they would also invite international inspectors to monitor that, shut down their reprocessing facility," Richardson said. Under a breakthrough February 13 deal, the North was supposed to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor within 60 days -- a deadline that expired Saturday -- and to invite UN inspectors back in. But the impoverished Stalinist state has refused to budge until it has confirmed US assertions that 25 million dollars of cash has been released from a Macau bank where it had been frozen by sanctions since 2005. Richardson said it was "frustrating" North Korea had missed the deadline but said the leadership had made a strategic decision to dismantle its program. "I believe they've made the strategic decision, the North Koreans, and I've been there six times. I know them. They're very difficult but I do believe that they've made that decision to move forward," Richardson said. "But at the same time, the nuclear card is their biggest asset so they're going to play it to the hilt." Richardson travelled to North Korea last week in a US delegation to receive the recovered remains of US servicemen killed during the Korean war, which he said on Sunday was an encouraging sign. "The fact that they turned over to our bipartisan delegation the remains of six Americans, six fallen heroes from the Korean war, unconditionally, without strings attached, was a gesture -- a reconciliation gesture -- that I believe is going to lead to continued progress and cooperation," he said. He said the North Korean regime was often difficult to negotiate with but said the country would opt to cooperate on the nuclear deal. "They're unpredictable. They're isolated," he said. "But at the same time, I do believe that next week they're going to come forward and say, 'We're shutting down this reactor, we're inviting the international inspectors, we're going to go into the second phase of negotiations to turn off a lot of our other nuclear assets." Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: North Korea wins time as nuke deadline slips - Sunday April 15, 08:11 PM PYONGYANG (AFP) - North Korea won a few more days to start shutting down its nuclear programme Sunday after missing a first key deadline, even as the United States and Japan piled pressure on the regime to comply. As the communist state celebrated the 95th birth anniversary of its founder Kim Il-Sung, diplomats involved in disarmament efforts said they would give it more time to shut down its nuclear reactor. China, its closest ally and the host of international talks on the crisis, called for patience, and a senior US State Department official downplayed the significance of Saturday's missed deadline. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Washington was willing to accommodate delays over the next few days. The top US nuclear negotiator, Christopher Hill, expressed his frustration and said it was time for North Korea to comply, but also advised caution. "Needless to say we are not happy that the DPRK has essentially missed this very important deadline," he told a press conference, referring to North Korea by its formal initials. "The ball is in their court," Hill said in Beijing, where he earlier spoke with his Chinese counterpart Wu Dawei. "China has asked us to be patient for three or four days, that seems like a wise thing to do. It's not for the US to take unilateral actions. "We need to work closely, multilaterally with our partners." In Pyongyang, there was no official word Sunday on the nuclear deadline as the nation focused on its festivities. Thousands of people filed through the marble mausoleum housing the embalmed body of Kim Il-Sung, who died in 1994 but still retains the title of "eternal president." After passing through strict security, visitors bowed four times -- at the feet, head and both sides of Kim's body -- as a revolutionary hymn played. Under a February 13 deal, the North was supposed to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor within 60 days -- expiring Saturday -- and to invite UN atomic inspectors back in. But the impoverished nation has refused to budge until it has confirmed US assertions that 25 million dollars of cash has been released from a Macau bank where it had been frozen by sanctions since 2005. "Our patience is not in infinite supply but given the kind of complexities that did arise with some of the banking issues, it is probably prudent to give this a few more days to see if the statement of February 13 is something they are going to follow through on," the State Department official said. "We're going to see if we can get this back on track. We'd like it to be on in the coming days," she added. The State Department urged North Korea to turn Yongbyon off immediately, a call echoed by Japan. "Although the deadline has passed it is still extremely important for North Korea to take initial action as soon as possible," warned Noriyuki Shikata, a Japanese foreign ministry spokesman. The banking row is merely the latest hurdle to the six-nation negotiations that China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia first launched on Pyongyang's nuclear programme in 2003. Efforts took on added urgency last year, when the North test-fired several missiles in July followed in October by its first ever atom bomb test. The February 13 accord promises North Korea, one of the world's poorest and most isolated nations, up to one million tons of fuel aid or its equivalent in return for dismantling its nuclear programme. A North Korean foreign ministry official told AFP on Friday that Pyongyang stood behind the deal but would not act until it saw the money from the Macau bank. "There is no reason to be pessimistic," said Kim Son-gyong, deputy director of the ministry's European department. "We will be faithful to this agreement if the Americans respect its clauses." Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Australia & NZ Pty Limited. All rights ***************************************************************** 10 RIA Novosti: Tests of Russia's newest ballistic missile to continue in summer 11:41 | 15/ 04/ 2007 SEVERODVINSK (northern Russia), April 15 (RIA Novosti) - The tests of Russia's newest missile system, Bulava, will be continued in summer, a top defense official said Sunday. The national defense program envisions the deployment of the Bulava on nuclear submarines beginning in 2007. The missiles are expected to become the mainstay of the Russian Navy's strategic nuclear forces in decades to come. However, the missile tests failed late last year, despite previous successful launches. "I believe the new missile tests will be held not earlier than July," Deputy Defense Minister Aleksei Moskovsky said. The R-30 Bulava (SS-NX-30) ballistic missile was developed at the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology. It can carry up to 10 nuclear warheads and has a range of 8,000 kilometers (about 5,000 miles). "We do not dramatize the situation. We need to remove purely technological faults in the missile's first stage," the deputy defense minister said. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 11 washingtonpost.com: Diplomatic Exit - For Iran's Javad Zarif, a Curtain Call Behind the Scenes By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page D01 Javad Zarif, the highest-ranking Iranian diplomat in the United States, made a rare trip to Washington last month. The timing could not have been worse. Five days earlier, Iran's Revolutionary Guard had seized 15 British sailors in the Persian Gulf. The U.N. Security Council had just imposed new sanctions on Iran for failing to ensure that its nuclear energy program could not be subverted to make the world's deadliest weapon. Javad Zarif, Iranian envoy to the United Nations, was widely welcomed last month while in Washington. (By Helayne Seidman For The Washington Post) Yet Zarif, whose five-year stint as Tehran's ambassador to the United Nations is about to end, was widely welcomed here, getting access that would make envoys from America's closest allies green with undiplomatic envy. He was even invited to Capitol Hill to chat with with presidential hopefuls from both sides of the aisle. "Zarif is a tough advocate but he's also pragmatic, not dogmatic. He can play an important role in helping to resolve our significant differences with Iran peacefully," Democrat Joe Biden said afterward. Noting his previous talks with the Iranian envoy, Republican Chuck Hagel called for "direct engagement" between Washington and Tehran. "Isolating nations does not fix problems," Hagel said. During Zarif's talk with Democrat Dianne Feinstein, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican John Warner of the Armed Services Committee dropped by to have a word. "I find him to be a positive, reasonable figure, and it would be useful if he could stay at the U.N.," Feinstein said later. Similar encomiums were heard as Zarif made the rounds of Washington think tanks. At a luncheon hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, Martin Indyk, the former ambassador to Israel, turned to the Iranian envoy and said, "We're going to miss you." At a dinner hosted by the Nixon Center, its president, Dmitri Simes, introduced Zarif as "one of the most impressive diplomats I've met anywhere. He obviously is a strong spokesman for his country, but he knows how to do it with eloquence and credibility." All this transpired in just over 24 hours -- the time limit dictated by a special State Department permit that allowed him to leave the 25-mile quarantine imposed on Iranian diplomats at the United Nations. * * * Ever since the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, relations between Washington and Tehran have devolved into a bizarre mix of non-communication, misunderstanding and occasional farce. With Iran's history of arming Iraqi, Lebanese and Palestinian militias, seizing British sailors, refusing to support Arab-Israeli peace, allegedly having a nuclear weapons program, and swinging from revolutionary to reformist back to hard-line politics, both Republican and Democratic administrations have struggled with whether there is any Iranian official that the United States can talk to -- and actually believe. Some U.S. foreign policy experts say Zarif may be one of the few. Simes compares Zarif to Anatoly Dobrynin, the legendary Soviet ambassador who served in Washington for a quarter-century during the Cold War. "Both countries were lucky to have someone who was willing to serve as an honest communication channel, who knew there were a lot of voices in both countries who wanted to destroy the relationship," says Simes. "Dobrynin's role was to keep a modicum of cooperation alive. That's what Zarif is trying to do." Others think Zarif is just more skilled at talking out of both sides of his mouth -- and that anyone in the current regime shares the same extremist agenda. "All their goals are the same. They all want to destroy Israel," says Kenneth Timmerman, executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and author of "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran." "But there are tactical differences on how to achieve it," he says. "Some think they can trick the U.S. into making a deal that would be advantageous to the regime and keep it in power. Others are willing to be more confrontational. But there's no doubt that they're all out to get nuclear weapons." "He's very used to Western habits, so he is the perfect face for an unreasonable regime," says former U.N. ambassador John Bolton. "But he has no independent discretion on what he does." Before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's announcement last year that the United States was willing to join Europe in talks with the Iranians if they suspended uranium enrichment, Bolton was asked to deliver an advance text to let Tehran know. His secretary notified the Iranian U.N. mission and set up a time for Bolton to hand it to Zarif. But a half-hour later, the mission called back to say the Iranian government did not want a meeting. "I called him and said: 'I have to give you this piece of paper and you have instructions not to meet me. So what do we do?' " Bolton recalled. "We agreed to have it sent by messenger." Ironically, Zarif is suspect among hard-liners at home, too -- one reason analysts believe he is being recalled this summer. Zarif follows the rules of the revolutionary Islamic regime: He won't shake a woman's hand or wear a tie, which is disparaged as a symbol of the West. But he speaks English with an American accent after getting two degrees at San Francisco State and a doctorate in international relations at the University of Denver. He was at Denver shortly after Rice finished her PhD there in the same subject. "We had some of the same professors," Zarif says with a chuckle. He then moved to New York for his first U.N. posting, before going home to become deputy foreign minister. As he often notes, he has spent more of his adult life in the United States than in Iran. Both of his grown children are currently living in the United States. "In America, he's the face of the Islamic Republic, and in Iran hard-liners view him as the face of America," says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Being in the middle has taken a physical toll. Zarif's hair has gone from a little salt in a lot of pepper to snowy white during his time at the United Nations -- and he is only 47. Even unofficial dialogue between Washington and Tehran has been an elusive goal since the Carter administration broke off relations after the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy. Each country has made overtures to the other, but rarely at the same time. The one connection imploded in the disastrous arms-for-hostage swap during the Reagan administration. Indyk, who served in the Clinton administration, recalls when he and two other State Department officials went to New York for a speech to the Asia Society by then-Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. They dispersed around the room, Indyk says, to try to meet him. But when a mutual contact offered to make introductions, Kharrazi apparently got wind of it and quickly left. On another occasion, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright attended a small U.N. meeting on Afghanistan in part to have contact with her Iranian counterpart, Indyk says. But the Unites States knew so little about what Iranian officials looked like that they did not realize he had sent his deputy. The foreign minister had skipped the meeting to avoid the potential controversy at home of meeting with Albright. After the 9/11 attacks, diplomats from the two countries began to actually meet when they were in the same room. In 2001, Zarif was Iran's emissary to U.N. talks on the future of Afghanistan after the Taliban's ouster. In Bonn, Germany, he met daily with U.S. envoy James Dobbins, who credits Zarif with preventing the conference from collapsing because of last-minute demands by the Northern Alliance to control the new government. "It was about 2 in the morning," Dobbins recalls. The Northern Alliance, an ethnic faction backed by the United States, Iran and Russia, insisted on 18 of 24 ministries, excessive given the population and political realities, Dobbins says. "Finally, Zarif took him aside and whispered to him for a few moments, after which the Northern Alliance envoy returned to the table and said, 'Okay, I give up,' " says Dobbins, who is now director of the Rand Corp.'s International Security and Defense Policy Center. Assigned to the United Nations in 2002, Zarif met three times in 2003 with then-National Security Council staffer Zalmay Khalilzad or Ambassador Ryan Crocker about Afghanistan and Iraq, a tentative behind-the-scenes effort that died after a massive suicide bombing by al-Qaeda in Riyadh that initially appeared to have possible Iranian links. Since then, Zarif has continued "Track 2" diplomacy. In 2005 he agreed to a dinner-party debate on Iran's nuclear program with Robert Einhorn, former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, sponsored by the International Crisis Group and hosted by board member George Soros. Einhorn is among those who believe that Iran is worth dealing with -- eventually. "I'm not sure it would be productive at this juncture," he says. "But in six to 12 months, if Iran comes to the conclusion that it's playing a losing hand and it needs a better deal, there is no one better than Zarif to do that." Last year Zarif participated in a Princeton seminar -- by video, as he could not get State Department permission to travel from New York -- when he was pressed on Iran's position on the Holocaust. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had just questioned whether it truly happened. As he has often said publicly, Zarif said he believed the Holocaust took place and that it was genocide and a crime against humanity. He then countered that the Palestinians should not have to pay the price for mass murder by the Germans. Only later did he learn that the questioner was Uri Lubrani, Israel's envoy to Iran before the 1979 revolution. "I asked him a very tough question. He is a very loyal and able servant of his masters," Lubrani recalls. "But I have a notion -- only a notion -- that he did not agree with his boss." And when former secretary of state James A. Baker III was working on the Iraq Study Group report, he went to dinner at Zarif's elegant diplomatic residence across from Central Park to talk about cooperation on Iraq. The most controversial section of the final report recommended diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq. Unlike most of Iran's reclusive envoys, Zarif has also been a regular on American television, from "The Charlie Rose Show" to C-SPAN. But his willingness to talk doesn't mean any give in his defense of his country's positions: He insists that Iran is not interested in developing a nuclear weapon. He says Iran wants stability in Iraq, its neighbor. And he denies that Iran is trying to create a "Shiite crescent" running from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. "It is a scare tactic," he said on "Charlie Rose" in February. On the issue of terrorism, Zarif counters the long list of extremist movements supported by Iran by noting that U.S. troops in Iraq are not taking action against the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, a group that is both the leading Iranian opposition group and on the State Department's terrorism list. What draws former U.S. officials and Middle East analysts to Zarif is his willingness to talk about solutions to policy differences. Arms specialists credit him with meeting American scientists to discuss ways to allow Iran to enrich uranium, while guaranteeing Tehran could not use it for bombmaking. As he prepares to leave the United Nations, Zarif warns that time is running out. "It would have been far easier to resolve the nuclear issue two years ago, a year ago or last week than it is now," he said at the Nixon Center dinner. "And it is far easier to resolve the nuclear issue today than in two or three months' time, after the next Security Council resolution against Iran. I know if you follow this path, you will have a few more resolutions and we will have a few more centrifuges spinning in Natanz." "The outcome is not resolution but greater confrontation on both sides," Zarif said. "That is not the path that is needed." The Bush administration remains skeptical. A senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says Zarif has presented a "user-friendly face" for the Iranian regime. "But the fact of the matter is that their behavior has belied his smooth diplomatic effort." Zarif is sanguine about his failure to bring down the "wall of mistrust," his mandate when he was originally dispatched by the comparatively reformist government of President Mohammad Khatami. Asked what he has achieved during his U.N. stint, Zarif says, "Not much. "I don't think that the West interpreted our openings and accommodations the way they should have. They interpreted them as a sign of weakness, whereas it was a genuine desire by people like me to change the nature of the relationship," he says. "Since it was misinterpreted, the reaction was disappointing and in fact only heightened tension and increased mistrust. "A stupid idealist who has not achieved anything in his diplomatic life after giving one-sided concessions -- this is what I'm called in Iran." Some U.S. analysts suggest that Zarif may have played more of a role than he realizes. "The history of relations since the revolution has been ships passing in the night," says Indyk. "When we were ready to talk, they weren't, and when they were, we weren't. We've never been able to get to the table. With him there, we had the best chance. Without him, it will be much more difficult." © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 12 Reuters: Russia launches new generation nuclear submarine | Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:03AM EDT MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia on Sunday launched its first new generation nuclear submarine since the fall of the Soviet Union as the Kremlin seeks to upgrade its undersea nuclear strike force. The long delayed Yuri Dolgoruky, the first Borei-class (Arctic Wind) nuclear submarine, was moved to the dry docks at a highly secret submarine base in the Arctic town of Severodvinsk, the heart of Russia's northern submarine fleet. Sergei Ivanov, Russia's powerful first deputy prime minister who rules the military-industrial sector, took part in the ceremony along with the navy top brass and Kremlin advisors. "For the first time in 17 years we are launching such a vessel -- in essence this is the first Russian strategic submarine, a submarine of the new generation," Ivanov said, the RIA news agency reported. "We have done a great thing -- shown that our shipbuilding sector is developing and that we can build such unique armaments," said Ivanov. The launch of the new submarine is part of a plan, approved by President Vladimir Putin, to upgrade the core of Russia's undersea nuclear attack forces, military analysts said. The Yuri Dolgoruky has taken 12 years to build after problems with state funding in the chaos of the 1990s, when the post-Soviet navy and shipbuilding industry lost much of its talent. Putin has boosted funding for the submarine fleet, which has been involved in a string of fatal accidents including the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea in August 2000. All 118 sailors aboard the Kursk perished. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Scotsman.com News - Revealed: the MOD plan to move Trident Sun 15 Apr 2007 HMS Victorious, one of the Royal Navy's four strategic missile submarines, departs her home port at HM Naval Base Clyde at Faslane. Picture: Tam McDonald/Royal Navy BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR MILITARY chiefs are drawing up plans to move the UK's nuclear missiles south of the Border as concern mounts that Scotland is heading towards independence. Scotland on Sunday can reveal the Ministry of Defence is so worried about the march of the Nationalists it has closely examined four sites for Trident's replacement outside of Scotland. Devonport, near Plymouth, has emerged as the MoD's favourite alternative to Faslane. The base is almost certain to become the new home of the submarines and missiles that form the UK's nuclear deterrent should Scotland become independent. But military planners have not ruled out withdrawing from the Royal Navy base on the Clyde at Faslane long before a decision on independence. The revelation was last night seized upon by the SNP as a massive endorsement of their controversial anti-nuclear stance. It also returned the issue of independence to the heart of the Holyrood election. But there was also widespread concern at any plan to move the missiles out of Scotland, where ministers claim the livelihoods of 11,000 shipyard workers depend on Trident. Experts putting together proposals to renew the UK's Trident missile-delivery system were ordered to consider alternatives amid fears control of the Clyde base would be wrested from the MoD if the SNP won control at Holyrood and moved Scotland closer to "home rule". Scotland on Sunday has learned that the swing towards the SNP forced the MoD to review three sites in England and one in Wales. The sites were originally considered as potential hosts for the UK's nuclear deterrent when the government was seeking a base for the Polaris system in the 1960s. Devonport, where the four Vanguard-class submarines are refitted and refuelled, is considered the second-best option, but it does not presently have a facility - unlike Coulport - where missiles can be loaded, unloaded and stored. A new missile depot, would cost millions of pounds and inevitably provoke enormous protests from local people. But it could be built near Devonport. A senior MoD source said last night: "We have to look at everything that might have an impact on this project, and the possibility of a change in the devolution settlement - however remote that may seem - is one of those factors." William Walker, a defence expert at St Andrews University, said the Trident question was a fundamental issue which would have a far-reaching impact on the future of Scotland. He claimed senior Navy officers in Scotland had been trying to alert their bosses to the dangers posed by devolution since the Scots elected their first modern parliament in 1999. "Even if independence isn't inevitable, more devolution is, and that will inevitably affect the relationship over Trident," said Prof Walker. "Until now, it seems the MoD has adopted a head-in-the-sand attitude to this question." "There is now a consensus against Trident in this country which the government cannot ignore," an SNP spokesman said last night. "We will do everything we can to carry out the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people." A Tory spokesman said last night: "This is a perfect example of the dangers the SNP poses to the Scottish people and the rest of the UK. "If anyone is really considering voting for this party, they should ask themselves whether they want to break up the UK, to undermine its fundamental defences and, now, to threaten thousands of jobs in one of our remaining industries." A spokesman for the Labour party declined to comment. The MoD refused to comment. Related topics * Nuclear defence http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=373 * Holyrood Elections http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=757 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=577262007 Last updated: 15-Apr-07 01:25 BST ***************************************************************** 14 UPI: IAEA: Nuclear GCC will take time United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: April 13, 2007 at 5:48 PM RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, April 13, 2007 (UPI) -- The top international nuclear official said while in Saudi Arabia that a plan for Gulf countries to develop nuclear energy must include a decade of training. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said after a meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council, "building up national expertise that will be ready and able to use this technology ... will be vital." He said the countries will need to train nuclear experts as well as study nuclear energy feasibility and sites, Gulf Daily News reports. The GCC is made up of Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait. Last year, the group decided to explore nuclear power as an option for meeting increased energy demand. The GCC says it wants nuclear energy to supply its growing demand for electricity, and allow it to sell more oil and natural gas. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Antiwar.com: Conspiracy, Collusion, War - April 14, 2007 by Gordon Prather On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported [.pdf] to the UN Security Council that "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." After conducting a total of 218 inspections at 141 sites ? including 21 sites suggested by the CIA! ? ElBaradei reported "There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. "There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. "There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question." Hans Blix, Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, made a similar, but somewhat less conclusive, report concerning chemical and biological weapons (and the makings thereof), noting that the remaining significant uncertainty had to do with the actual quantities of chemical and biological agents that were unilaterally destroyed by the Iraqis in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War. And that, of course, is what the neo-crazies had feared. That the UN Inspectors would tell the whole world what the neo-crazies had known for years. That Saddam Hussein had long been in substantive compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions requiring "the destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision," of all so-called "weapons of mass destruction" and the makings thereof. Therefore, Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat to peace in the region. According to Walter Pincus, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet had produced in December, 2002, a 2-inch-thick book that listed high-, medium- and low-priority sites in Iraq, suspected of being related to weapons of mass destruction. So, on March 7, 2003, apparently alarmed at what Blix and ElBaradei were reporting they hadn?t found in Iraq, Carl Levin (D,MI), then Ranking Democrat (and now Chairman) of the Senate Armed Service Committee, wrote DCI Tenet questioning how Tenet?s report to the SASC could be true that the United States has "now provided detailed information on all of the high-value and moderate-value sites," as well as "far more than half of these lower-interest sites" to the inspectors. Also alarmed at what Blix and ElBaradei were reporting, Henry Waxman [D,CA], then the Ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [but now Chairman], began ten days later formally requesting [.pdf] of Condi Rice, then Bush?s National Security Adviser, an explanation of the use, by President Bush and other top Administration officials, of "fabricated intelligence" in an attempt to "justify" Bush?s exercise of the highly conditional authority Congress had provided under the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Amy Goodman recently interviewed, on Democracy Now!, Peter Eisner, co-author of the book The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq, and Carlo Bonini, co-author of the book Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror. Unfortunately, most of the interview ? as well as most current media interest ? revolves about the "fake letter" delivered to the US Embassy in Rome on October 9, 2002, which purported to confirm that Niger had agreed in 2000 to supply up to 500 tons of "yellowcake" to Saddam Hussein. But even Eisner ? apparently aware that Bonini had revealed in articles published back in 2005 in La Repubblica, the collusion of the Brits and Italians (but not the French) with the U.S. to "fix the intelligence to fit the policy," and had now amplified on that theme in his book ? had this to say about the "significance" of the "fake letter." "It comes in the context of a plan that had been hatched in the White House in the summer of 2002. The White House Iraq Group, which was basically a propaganda operation that realized that the one thing that needed to be done to sell the war in Iraq was to not deal with biological weapons, not deal with chemical weapons, but to deal with the fear and threat of a mushroom cloud ? and the purveyors of language specifically said, 'Let's use and start hammering away the idea that a mushroom cloud is on the horizon, that we can't wait until we have firm information, but we have information. We've got to act now.' "And it was decided to wait specifically until September 8, 2002 to make that claim and to make it in a public relations campaign that included appearances on television, on radio, speeches around the world by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and others, along with selling the story to the New York Times, which, in fact, they did." We all now know ? and many high-level government officials, here and in London and Rome, knew it at the time ? that President Bush had decided many months earlier to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, the principal objective being to depose Saddam Hussein. As Bonini reports, the military intervention in Iraq was "justified" by two hoaxes, that Saddam Hussein had attempted to acquire [1] tons of "yellowcake" from Niger for enrichment with gas centrifuges built with [2] aluminum tubes imported from Italy. SIMSI, the Italian equivalent of our CIA, may or may not have been responsible for perpetrating these two hoaxes, but SIMSI and MI-6, the Brit equivalent of our CIA, certainly perpetuated them. SIMSI knew the Niger yellowcake dossier was fake from the gitgo and knew the aluminum tubes were replacement parts for rockets the Italians had sold the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq War. But, there is a danger is focusing on the "fake letter," as Eisner and the mainstream media have tended to do. The focus should be on the conspirators: the Cheney Cabal and the White House Iraq Group. Here is the question that desperately needs to be answered. How were the conspirators able to get Congress, the mainstream media and most Americans to totally disregard the null findings of UN inspectors under Director-General ElBaradei and Chairman Blix? Why desperately? Well, the conspirators are nigh onto doing it again, getting Congress, the mainstream media and most Americans to totally disregard the null findings of Director-General ElBaradei in Iran. Former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D, WV) was one of the few who tried to stop Bush from attacking Iraq. On February 12, 2003, Byrd had this to say on the floor of the Senate. "This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. "The doctrine of preemption ? the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future ? is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. "It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. "And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our ? or some other nation's ? hit list." Iran doesn?t wonder; it knows. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: After testing China-specific missile, India eyes ICBMs by Pratap Chakravarty Sun Apr 15, 3:20 AM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - Buoyed by the successful test of a missile that can hit China, India says it can extend its nuclear range beyond Asia, but experts say it is unlikely to take such a step for fear of upsetting the West. The launch on Thursday of the intermediate-range Agni-III missile capped New Delhi's drive to produce a device capable of striking targets 3,500 kilometres (2,170 miles) inside China, which has an unresolved border dispute with India. The government's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) now says it now has the technology to build Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) that would extend nuclear-armed India's reach beyond Asia. "We have achieved the capability to make missiles with a range of 5,500 kilometres but the decision to develop an ICBM has to be taken by the political leadership," DRDO chief M. Natarajan told reporters in New Delhi on Friday. Natarajan, India's chief military scientist, said a day after the Agni-III's test flight that the DRDO, which launched India's guided missile development project in 1983, had already begun to design an ICBM. "DRDO scientists are working on miniaturising systems of Agni-III so that a third stage can be squeezed into the 16-metre-long missile to enable it to go up to 5,500 kilometres with the same 1.5-tonne payload," he said. Agni-III project chief Avinash Chander told AFP that a second test of the intermediate-range missile would take place either in August or October. DRDO sources said the agency, which is also jointly developing a supersonic cruise missile with Russia, would seek New Delhi's clearance before it actually began building an ICBM prototype after the second Agni-III test. India started working secretly on nuclear weapons after China conducted its first atomic test in 1964 -- two years after Beijing fought a brief but bloody border war with its neighbour. New Delhi detonated its first atom bomb in 1974 and, 24 years later, declared itself a full-fledged nuclear weapons state following a series of tests including that of a 46-megatonne-yield thermo-nuclear device. Former DRDO chief K. Santhanam said while India was capable of building an ICBM, production of one "would unnecessarily affect ties" between India and the United States, which in 2005 agreed on a historic civilian nuclear energy deal. "Even in its wildest dreams, India does not plan to be a global superpower but in the regional perspective a 3,500-plus-kilometre range IRBM is enough to deter adventurism from across our two borders," Santhanam said, referring to Pakistan and China. Since the subcontinent's 1947 independence, India has fought three wars with Pakistan, which declared itself a nuclear weapons state after carrying out copycat tests in 1998. "Given our robust economic growth, resurgent markets and our nuclear-tipped stockpile of (1,000-kilometre-range) Agni-Is and (2,000-kilometre) Agni-IIs, we should be satisfied as a leading regional power," Santhanam said. Kapil Kak, director of the independent Centre for Strategic Studies think-tank, agreed. "Given the international security situation and emerging power configurations, a programme to develop ICBMs is definitely unsuited for India's interests," he said. "It would raise hackles in the US," said Kak, a former air marshal. Sources say the DRDO's most treasured dream -- denied in public -- remains the development of an ICBM with a range of 15,000 kilometres, already christened Surya or sun, to match Chinese DF-3 ICBMs that can hit US cities. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 ITAR-TASS: New Russian most powerful submarine emerges from shipyard’s shed 15.04.2007, 14.20 SEVERODVINSK, April 15 (Itar-Tass) - The new Russian nuclear submarine Yuri Dolgoruky of the fourth generation smoothly emerged on Sunday from the shed of the Sevmash shipyard. The ceremony was attended by over a dozen of high-ranking guests and more than 100 reporters. Severodvinsk was visited by first vice-premier Sergei Ivanov, head of the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power (Rosatom) Sergei Kiriyenko, commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy Vladimir Masorin, Deputy Defence Minister Alexei Moskovsky, adviser to the Russian president on the military and industrial policy Alexander Burutin and Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov. Ivanov called the construction of the Yuri Dolgoruky nuclear submarine a great and unique event. “This is a holiday for Russia, for industry, the navy and the Armed Forces. We have now not only what to protect, but with what to protect,” he added. Ivanov admitted that while speaking at the ceremony, he was very agitated. “I’m also agitated, since we are launching, for the first time in 17 years, such a ship – a nuclear missile cruiser. In actual fact, it is the first Russian strategic nuclear submarine. Besides, it is of a new generation,” the vice-premier continued. Ivanov along with the Moscow mayor, the commander-in-chief of the navy and the deputy defence minister signed a memorial certificate on the launching of the Yuri Dolgoruky from the shipyard. “While signing this certificate, I felt that it is much more pleasant to sign such things than international treaties or any formal papers,” the vice-premier acknowledged. He emphasized that “labour was put up in the submarine’s construction at a very difficult historic period”. Ivanov thanked “designers, engineers and workers of the Sevmash shipyard for what they have done. They have done a great thing and proved that ship-building is developing, and that Russia is capable of making such unique complexes of armaments”. Ivanov heartily thanked the Moscow city government and the Moscow mayor who took construction of the submarine under their patronage. “The very name is symbolic: as was the case with Yuri Dolgoruky who united lands around Moscow, so the submarine united thousands of highly technological enterprises, working for the final result,” the vice-premier went on to say. “It is now everything is more or less well at the shipyard; there are orders, and you have to work in three shifts, but let us remember the late 1990s when wages were not paid, and women had to take children to the shipyard so as to feed them. And the Moscow city government helped you at that difficult time,” Ivanov stressed. The commander-in-chief of the navy expressed confidence that the Yuri Dolgoruky is the world’s best submarine. Besides, it will be equipped with the Bulava missiles. “This Sunday will remain in history as a day of which our navy can be proud of,” Masorin said at the ceremony. “We have marine strategic nuclear forces. Just a few states in the world – there are enough fingers on one hand to count them – have such forces, and even less states have such weapons,” the commander-in-chief stressed. In Masorin’s opinion, “two or three countries can build such ships independently. This is expensive and difficult. They cooperate. We can build”. Turning to the Bulava missiles designer, Masorin said: “We are sure that our missiles will fly and hit targets precisely.” The commander-in-chief underlined that the Yuri Dolgoruky is the world’s best nuclear submarine, and it will be an honour for sailors to serve on it. Head of the Rubin design office Igor Spassky where the submarine had been designed, noted that this ship “was born, as a baby, in labors”. “A difficult time is in store now – to teach it to sail and speak, to speak very seriously and loudly,” he added. He conveyed the submarine crew a sanctified Nicholas the Miracle-Maker icon from a Petersburg temple. The guests at the ceremony cut jointly a blue ribbon to launch the submarine. According to a naval tradition, a bottle of champagne was smashed against the ship’s board. The cost of the state contract for the construction of the submarine totaled 23 billion roubles, out of the total, 14 billion – for construction. The volume of the state defence order in 2007 for the ship’s construction amounted to 4,920 million roubles. Work will be completed in 2008. The submarine is now ready 82 percent. When finishing work of the submarine is started, the stage of mooring trials will begin. They are planned to end in October 2007, and then the stage of shipyard running trials will set in. Another two similar missile subs – the Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh – were laid down at the shipyard in 2004 and 2006. These ships are also of the Borei class. The submarines were designed by the Rubin design office of marine technology (Petersburg). While building the Borei submarines, specialists used the latest achievements in ship radio-electronic means and in lowering noises. Submarines of this project are equipped with a surfacing escape chamber, designed for the entire crew. Each submarine will have 12 intercontinental ballistic solid fuel missiles of the Bulava type with the warhead of ten independently targetable charges. The length of the Borei type subs is 170 meters and width – 13.5 meters, diving depth – 450 meters and the crew – 107 men. According to statements by the naval command, the Borei submarines will be the main naval component part of Russian nuclear forces in the 21st century. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Hindustan Times: Pak finds 1,000 sites with possible uranium reserves- Press Trust Of India Islamabad, April 14, 2007 Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) has claimed to have discovered around 1,000 uranium favourable sites which could provide the required fuel for its proposed nuclear power plants. Four of the 1000 sites were being mined and another nine with potential uranium reserves had been identified as very promising, Dawn quoted officials as saying. "The effort was rewarded with the discovery of a large number of sites which have indicated their potential for hosting uranium reserves," it said quoting a latest official document. It said that uranium favourable rocks constituted 12 per cent of the total areas of Pakistan. "More than 65 per cent of the favourable sites have been scanned through airborne gamma-spectrometric and foot radiometry surveys for its potential, while 35 per cent is yet to be checked," the document said. The initial exploration will be carried out throughout Pakistan using airborne, car-borne, foot survey, geo-chemical and geo-physical techniques to delineate anomalous sites. After delineation of anomalous sites, a detailed exploration will be carried out by means of exploratory drilling to establish uranium reserves. The officials said the PAEC had finalised a plan to establish more than 6,000 tons of reasonably assured reserves (RAR) of uranium by 2011 to fulfil the one-third requirement of fuel for producing 8,800mw of nuclear power. They said the government was expected to make available Rs 4.5 billion to the PAEC to implement a five-year uranium exploration programme (2006-2011) in the four provinces. The plan is expected to ensure indigenous supply of fuel for country's future needs. An increased nuclear power will facilitate the overall industrial as well as infrastructure development. A separate provision will be required for mining projects discovered as a result of these investigations. "It is estimated that 350 tons of yellow cake (U3O8) will be required annually to achieve the target of 8,800mw of nuclear power. Therefore, the initiation of effort to bridge the gap between demand and supply of nuclear fuel is the need of the time," the document said. The exploration to establish additional uranium reserves will be carried out through the establishment of mineral sector of the PAEC, including the Atomic Energy Minerals Centre, Lahore, and Detailed Exploration for Uranium projects in Kohat and Dera Ghazi Khan. At present there are two nuclear power plants which produce 380mw of electricity -- 80mw KANUPP and 300mw CHASNUPP-1. For these, the PAEC mineral sector is partially fulfilling the requirement of uranium. The document said that country's electricity supply and demand gap needed to be bridged with additional generation of electricity through various sources -- hydro, thermal, nuclear and solar. The share of nuclear sector is presently very low for which the PAEC has embarked upon a programme for the installation of several nuclear power plants in the coming years. ***************************************************************** 19 Scotsman.com: Trident rethink is dismissed as Labour spin Monday, 16th April 2007 Ministry of Defence officials insisted that there are no such plans to move the Trident nuclear system out of Scotland, and a Commons vote last month had effectively decided nuclear weapons will remain on the Clyde for the foreseeable future. Picture: Royal Navy JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL EDITOR () LABOUR ministers in London were last night accused of spin over a report that the Ministry of Defence is preparing plans to move the Trident nuclear system out of Scotland. Scotland on Sunday yesterday quoted a "senior MoD source" as saying that the ministry is so concerned about the prospect of Scotland becoming independent that officials are looking at alternatives to the Clyde bases that are home to Britain's nuclear submarines and Trident missiles. But yesterday, Ministry of Defence officials insisted that there are no such plans being drawn up, and that a Commons vote last month to renew Trident had effectively decided nuclear weapons will remain on the Clyde for the foreseeable future. Privately, MoD officials dismissed yesterday's report as electioneering by the Labour Party. Both Des Browne, the defence secretary, and Adam Ingram, his deputy, are Scots. The SNP has made opposition to Trident a key plank of its Holyrood campaign. Labour has repeatedly argued that the Faslane naval base on the Clyde supports as many as 11,000 jobs, posts that would be lost to an independent Scotland. The Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank, earlier this year suggested that the MoD should consider the prospect of Scottish independence when thinking about replacing Trident. But the MoD's White Paper on nuclear defence makes no mention of basing decisions, and ministers made clear during parliamentary debates that Britain's nuclear weapons will remain in Scotland. One MoD official yesterday dismissed the report about Trident leaving Scotland. "This looks like a Scottish election thing - it certainly doesn't reflect anything going on in the department," the official said. Another said it was "no secret that our ministers are worried about the effect the Trident decision [in March] had on public opinion in Scotland - they've been paying more and more attention to Scotland". Angus Robertson, the SNP election co-ordinator, said the report was a Labour election tactic. "Dumping a new generation of weapons of mass destruction in Scotland - at a cost of up to ÂŁ100 billion - is opposed by the vast majority of people, Scottish civic society, the churches, and a majority of Scottish MPs," he said. "At the very least, this story indicates that the MoD are having to pay attention to the strength of opposition to Trident in Scotland." Related topics * Nuclear defence http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=373 * Government and the media http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=432 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=580882007 Last updated: 15-Apr-07 00:36 BST Nuclear defence ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: US eyes lucrative fighter jet deals in India - by P. Parameswaran Sat Apr 14, 11:50 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States wants to compete in multibillion dollar deals to sell fighter jets to India in a bid to further firm up ties after their landmark nuclear pact, an official said Friday. India has traditionally relied on Russia for its combat jets because of its frosty ties with Washington during the Cold War but the signing of a civilian nuclear deal recently has paved the way for multifaceted cooperation. "The next opportunity to take the step ahead beyond the nuclear agreement is the competition in India for the multirole combat aircraft because historically, the United States has not been able to compete for Indian defense procurement," said US Undersecretary of Commerce Franklin Lavin. "Now it's a new era, it's a new relationship, the defense relationship is improving," Lavin told a joint forum of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. US and Indian officials had "a number of discussions" on the aircraft deals and "our major providers intend to compete for this," he said. Amid the warm ties, American aircraft manufacturers are hoping to penetrate the Indian defense market, especially their requirement for 126 multi-role fighter aircraft valued up to 10 billion dollars in the next decade. Lavin indicated that Washington might have to review its export control laws to enable Americans to bid for the Indian contracts. "From the Indian perspective, they will have access to very fine products and from a US perceptive ... this helps our system think through this licensing and export control system because they have a specific proposal in front of them that they have to respond to, so that is a healthy development as well," he said. Although the United States has removed most of the sanctions imposed on India for its 1998 nuclear tests, it still has export controls on sensitive items and technologies, which may have to be reviewed if US firms want to sell fighter jets to New Delhi. The Indian government, under a new defense procurement policy, requires suppliers to spend or invest 30 percent of the contract value in designing, technology development, co-production and related activities in India. Despite improving ties, India has been wary of forging deals with US weapons suppliers over fears that Washington could reimpose sanctions and choke off vital spare parts and technology. "The challenge is that the relationship between US and India is moving so rapidly ahead that sometimes the licensing approval regime doesn't always keep up -- so you got to continually adjust that to reflect the fact that it is a very different relationship," Lavin said. Washington made a rare exception to US law to pave the way for US sales of nuclear fuel and technology to India under the civilian atomic deal, details of which are still being worked out. On investment and trade ties, Lavin called on India to review its limits on foreign investment and ownership in businesses and lower its tariffs, which he said were still high compared with the rest of the world. "India's tariffs average more than 20 percent, and in some cases tariffs are more than 100 percent. Compare India's average tariff on industrial goods of 10 percent to the US four percent average," he said. On reforms in India, Lavin said the United States was prepared to work with it in the postal sector to allow competition from express delivery companies as well as in the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade in medical devices. It was also willing to cooperate with India in liberalizing its financial sector in a bid to create a regional financial center in the flourishing business hub of Mumbai, and open access to foreign broadcasting and cable television, Lavin said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Building 1st Floating Nuke Plant From the Associated Press Sunday April 15, 2007 7:46 PM MOSCOW (AP) - Russia began construction of its first floating nuclear power plant Sunday, and plans to build at least six more despite long-standing environmental concerns that they are vulnerable to accidents at sea, Russian news agencies reported. Russia justifies the program as a way of bringing power to some of the country's most remote areas, also saying some of the plants could be sold to other nations. The head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, said the plants will be safe. ``This plant is much safer than atomic energy stations on the ground,'' the RIA-Novosti news agency quoted him as saying at a formal ceremony at the Sevmash fabricating plant in Severodvinsk on the White Sea coast. He cited the 2000 sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk as evidence of the reliability of the plants, which will use reactors similar to those on the submarine. ``After the boat was raised, specialists proved that the reactor could be put into service that very moment,'' he said, according to RIA-Novosti. The atomic energy agency and Sevmash on Sunday signed a document on their intent to build six more floating power plants, the ITAR-Tass news agency said. It cited the atomic energy agency as saying that talks were under way on selling the plants to unspecified Asian and African countries as well as to Russian regions. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 22 [NYTr] Fearing Iran, Arab states seek nuclear power Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:49:40 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The International Herald Tribune - Apr 15, 2007 http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5293038 Fearing Iran, Arab states seek nuclear power By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Two years ago, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told international atomic regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors. Turkey too is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East. "The rules have changed," King Abdullah II of Jordan recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Everybody's going for nuclear programs." The Middle Eastern states say they only want atomic power. Some probably do. But U.S. government and private analysts say they believe that the rush of activity is also intended to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran. By nature, the underlying technologies of nuclear power can make electricity or, with more effort, warheads, as nations have demonstrated over the decades by turning ostensibly civilian programs into sources of bomb fuel. The uneasy neighbors of Iran, analysts say, may be positioning themselves to do the same. "One danger of Iran going nuclear has always been that it might provoke others," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London. "So when you see the development of nuclear power elsewhere in the region, it's a cause for some concern." Many states, of course, may eventually decide that the costs and risks outweigh the benefits - as South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa and Libya did after investing heavily in arms programs. Some analysts ask why Arab states in the Gulf, which hold nearly half the world's oil reserves, would want to shoulder the high costs and obligations of a temperamental form of energy. They reply that they must invest in the future, for the day when the flow of oil dries up. But with Shiite Iran increasingly ascendant in the region, Sunni countries have alluded to other motives. Officials from 21 governments in and around the Middle East warned at an Arab summit meeting in March that the Iranian drive for atomic technology could result in the beginning of "a grave and destructive nuclear arms race in the region." In Washington, officials are seizing on such developments to build their case for stepping up pressure on Iran. President George W. Bush has talked privately to experts on the Middle East about his fears of a "Sunni bomb," and his concerns that countries in the Middle East may turn to the only nuclear-armed Sunni state, Pakistan, for help. Even so, that concern is tempered by caution. In an interview Thursday, a senior Bush administration official said that the recent announcements were "clearly part of an effort to send a signal to Iran that two can play this game." And, he added, "among the non-Iranian programs I've heard about in the region, I have not heard talk of reprocessing or enrichment, which is what would worry us the most." The Middle East has seen hints of a regional nuclear-arms race before. After Israel obtained its first weapon four decades ago, several countries took steps down the nuclear road. Many analysts say it is Iranian atomic intransigence that has now prodded the Sunni powers into getting serious about hedging their bets and, like Iran, financing them with $65-a-barrel oil. "Now's the time to worry," said Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East expert at the Nixon Center, a Washington policy institute. "The Iranians have to worry, too. The idea that they'll emerge as the regional hegemon is silly. There will be a very serious counterreaction, certainly in conventional military buildups, but also in examining the nuclear option." No Arab country has a power reactor, whose spent fuel can be mined for plutonium, one of the two favored materials - along with uranium - for making the cores of atom bombs. Some Arab states do, however, engage in civilian atomic research. Analysts caution that a chain reaction of nuclear emulation is not foreordained. States in the Middle East appear to be waiting to see which way the Iranian nuclear standoff with the UN Security Council goes before committing themselves wholeheartedly to costly programs of atomic development. And even if Middle Eastern nations do obtain nuclear power, political alliances and arms-control agreements could still make individual states hesitate before crossing the line to obtain warheads. Many diplomats and analysts say that the Sunni Arab governments are so anxious about the Iranian nuclear progress that they would even, grudgingly, support a U.S. military strike against Iran. "If push comes to shove, if the choice is between an Iranian nuclear bomb and a U.S. military strike, then the Arab gulf states have no choice but to quietly support" the United States, said Christian Koch, director of international studies at the Gulf Research Center, a private group in Dubai. Decades ago, it was Israel's drive for nuclear arms that brought about the region's first atomic jitters. Even some Israeli leaders found themselves "preaching caution because of the reaction," said Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at the University of Maryland and the author of "Israel and the Bomb." Egypt responded first. In 1960, after the disclosure of the Israeli work on a nuclear reactor, Cairo threatened to acquire atomic arms and sought its own reactor. Years of technical and political hurdles ultimately ended that plan. Iraq came next. But in June 1981, Israeli fighter jets bombed its reactor just days before engineers planned to install the radioactive core. The bombing ignited a global debate over how close Iraq had come to nuclear arms. It also prompted Iran, then fighting a war with Iraq, to embark on a covert response. Dr. Alireza Assar, a nuclear adviser to the Iranian Defense Ministry, who later defected, said he attended a secret meeting in 1987 at which the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Iran had to do whatever was necessary to achieve victory. "We need to have all the technical requirements in our possession," Assar recalled the commander as saying, even the means to "build a nuclear bomb." Iran toiled in secret for 18 years before its nuclear efforts were disclosed in 2003. Intelligence agencies and nuclear experts now estimate that Tehran is 2 to 10 years away from having the means to make a uranium-based bomb. It says its uranium enrichment work is entirely peaceful and meant only to fuel reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency's concerns peaked when inspectors found evidence of still-unexplained ties between the ostensibly peaceful Iranian program and its military, including work on high explosives, missiles and warheads. That combination, the inspectors said in early 2006, suggested a "military nuclear dimension." Before such disclosures, few if any states in the Middle East attended the atomic agency's meetings on nuclear power development. Now, roughly a dozen are doing so and drawing up atomic plans. The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates - Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn. "They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power," said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the atomic agency at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs. Saudi Arabia, since reversing itself on reactors, has become a whirlwind of atomic interest. It recently invited President Vladimir Putin to become the first Russian head of state to visit the desert kingdom. He did so in February, offering a range of nuclear aid. Diplomats and analysts say Saudi Arabia leads the drive for nuclear power within the Gulf Cooperation Council, based in Riyadh. In addition to the Saudis, the council consists of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - Washington's closest Arab allies. Its member states hug the western shores of the Gulf and control about 45 percent of the world's oil reserves. Late last year, the council announced that it would embark on a nuclear energy program. Its officials have said they want to get it under way by 2009. "We will develop it openly," Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said of the council's effort. "We want no bombs. "All we want is a whole Middle East that is free from weapons of mass destruction," an Arab reference to the Israeli and Iranian nuclear programs. In February, the council and the atomic agency struck a deal to work together on a nuclear power plan for the Arab Gulf states. Abdul Rahman ibn Hamad al-Attiya, the council's secretary general, told reporters in March that the agency would provide technical expertise and that the council would hire a consulting firm to speed its nuclear deliberations. Already, Saudi officials are traveling regularly to Vienna and agency officials are going to Riyadh, the Saudi capital. "It's a natural right," Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency's director general, said recently of the council's energy plan, estimating that carrying it out might take up to 15 years. Every Gulf state except Iraq has declared an interest in nuclear power. By comparison, 15 percent of South American nations and 20 percent of African ones have done so. One factor in that exceptional level of interest is that the Gulf states have the means. Typically, a large commercial reactor costs up to $4 billion. The six countries of the Gulf council are estimated to be investing in nonnuclear projects valued at more than $1 trillion. Another factor is Iran. Its shores at some points are visible across the waters of the Gulf - the Arabian Gulf to Arabs, the Persian Gulf to Iranians. The council wants "its own regional initiative to counter the possible threat from an aggressive neighbor armed with nuclear weapons," said Nicole Stracke, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center. Its members, she added, "felt they could no longer lag behind Iran." A similar technology push is under way in Turkey, where long-simmering plans for nuclear power have caught fire. Last year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey called for three plants. "We want to benefit from nuclear energy as soon as possible," he said. Turkey plans to put its first reactor near the Black Sea port of Sinop, and to start construction this year. Egypt, too, is moving forward. Last year, it announced plans for a reactor at El-Dabaa, about 60 miles west of Alexandria. "We do not start from a vacuum," President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt told the governing National Democracy Party's annual conference. His remark was understated given Cairo's decades of atomic research.Robert Joseph, a former under secretary of state for arms control and international security who is now Bush's envoy on nuclear nonproliferation, visited Egypt earlier this year. According to officials briefed on the conversations, officials from the Ministry of Electricity indicated that if Egypt was confident that it could have a reliable supply of reactor fuel, it would have little desire to invest in the costly process of manufacturing its own nuclear fuel - the enterprise that experts fear could let Iran build a bomb.Other officials, especially those responsible for Egyptian security, focused more on the possibility of further proliferation in the region if Iran succeeded in its effort to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. "I don't know how much of it is real," Robert Joseph, a former U.S. under secretary of state for arms control and international security who is now Bush's envoy on nuclear nonproliferation, said of a potential arms race. "But it is becoming urgent for us to shape the future expansion of nuclear energy in a way that reduces the risks of proliferation, while meeting our energy and environmental goals." * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 23 The Hindu: Nuclear Suppliers Group meet in Cape Town today Monday, April 16, 2007 : 0300 Hrs Durban, April 16 (PTI): As a crucial meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) begins in Cape Town today, India is expected to present its case informally as part of its efforts to join the international nuclear commerce regime. Though the Indo-US civil nuclear deal is not part of the official agenda of the five-day plenary meet of the 45-nation grouping, the issue is likely to be discussed informally, sources said. India is sending its High Commissioner to Singapore, S Jaishankar, who had been involved in the negotiations on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, to the South African city in this regard. The Indian side is expected to brief the meeting about the deal with the US while seeking to allay fears with regard to proliferation by citing the country's "impeccable record" in this regard. India maintains that it requires civil nuclear energy to help meet the country's growing needs in view of rapid economic development. After the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, the NSG is required to change its guidelines to allow the international community to have cooperation in this field with India. New Delhi has been approaching NSG members individually and most of them expressed readiness to back it. However, some of the members, including The Netherlands and Norway, still have reservations as India has not signed the NPT and their support is crucial as NSG works by consensus. South Africa's Department of Minerals and Energy Affairs spokesperson, Nellie Magubane, said that the conference was an "extremely important" one for the world. "Delegates from around the world will be present to discuss the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons," she said. Significantly, the NSG plenary meeting will be discussing issues related to enhancing efficiency of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The meeting will also discuss facilitation of information exchange among the NSG members and strengthening of the NSG guidelines. Jaishankar is also expected to hold a meeting with US Director of Nuclear Division in State Department, Richard Stratford, on the sidelines of the NSG meet, about a month after their talks here. The two are expected to hold discussions on the proposed bilateral agreement, called 123 agreement, which will operationalise the deal concluded in March, last year. The meeting comes amidst reports that the US is frustrated over India's insistence on certain elements like access to reprocessing of nuclear fuel and waiving of legal commitment on future atomic tests. After the last round of talks here, the US had said that the progress was not as much as they had expected. Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 24 New York Times: With Eye on Iran, Rivals Also Want Nuclear Power - Dmitry Astakhov/Presidential Press Service, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who is offering nuclear aid. By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER Published: April 15, 2007 regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors. Sunni Nuclear Concerns A Nuclear Race? So, too, Turkey is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East. “The rules have changed,” King Abdullah II of Jordan recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “Everybody’s going for nuclear programs.” The Middle East states say they only want atomic power. Some probably do. But United States government and private analysts say they believe that the rush of activity is also intended to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran. By nature, the underlying technologies of nuclear power can make electricity or, with more effort, warheads, as nations have demonstrated over the decades by turning ostensibly civilian programs into sources of bomb fuel. Iran’s uneasy neighbors, analysts say, may be positioning themselves to do the same. “One danger of Iran going nuclear has always been that it might provoke others,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London. “So when you see the development of nuclear power elsewhere in the region, it’s a cause for some concern.” Some analysts ask why Arab states in the Persian Gulf, which hold nearly half the world’s oil reserves, would want to shoulder the high costs and obligations of a temperamental form of energy. They reply that they must invest in the future, for the day when the flow of oil dries up. But with Shiite Iran increasingly ascendant in the region, Sunni countries have alluded to other motives. Officials from 21 governments in and around the Middle East warned at a meeting of Arab leaders in March that Iran’s drive for atomic technology could result in the beginning of “a grave and destructive nuclear arms race in the region.” In Washington, officials are seizing on such developments to build their case for stepping up pressure on Iran. President Bush has talked privately to experts on the Middle East about his fears of a “Sunni bomb,” and his concerns that countries in the Middle East may turn to the only nuclear-armed Sunni state, Pakistan, for help. Even so, that concern is tempered by caution. In an interview on Thursday, a senior administration official said that the recent announcements were “clearly part of an effort to send a signal to Iran that two can play this game.” And, he added, “among the non-Iranian programs I’ve heard about in the region, I have not heard talk of reprocessing or enrichment, which is what would worry us the most.” The Middle East has seen hints of a regional nuclear-arms race before. After Israel obtained its first weapon four decades ago, several countries took steps down the nuclear road. But many analysts say it is Iran’s atomic intransigence that has now prodded the Sunni powers into getting serious about hedging their bets and, like Iran, financing them with $65-a-barrel oil. “Now’s the time to worry,” said Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East expert at the Nixon Center, a Washington policy institute. “The Iranians have to worry, too. The idea that they’ll emerge as the regional hegemon is silly. There will be a very serious counterreaction, certainly in conventional military buildups but also in examining the nuclear option.” No Arab country now has a power reactor, whose spent fuel can be mined for plutonium, one of the two favored materials — along with uranium — for making the cores of atom bombs. Some Arab states do, however, engage in civilian atomic research. Analysts caution that a chain reaction of nuclear emulation is not foreordained. States in the Middle East appear to be waiting to see which way Tehran’s nuclear standoff with the United Nations Security Council goes before committing themselves wholeheartedly to costly programs of atomic development. Even if Middle Eastern nations do obtain nuclear power, political alliances and arms-control agreements could still make individual states hesitate before crossing the line to obtain warheads. Many may eventually decide that the costs and risks outweigh the benefits — as South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa and Libya did after investing heavily in arms programs. But many diplomats and analysts say that the Sunni Arab governments are so anxious about Iran’s nuclear progress that they would even, grudgingly, support a United States military strike against Iran. "If push comes to shove, if the choice is between an Iranian nuclear bomb and a U.S. military strike, then the Arab gulf states have no choice but to quietly support the U.S.," said Christian Koch, director of international studies at the Gulf Research Center, a private group in Dubai. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia Sunni Nuclear ConcernsVideo Sunni Nuclear Concerns A Nuclear Race?Map A Nuclear Race? Decades ago, it was Israel's drive for nuclear arms that brought about the region's first atomic jitters. Even some Israeli leaders found themselves "preaching caution because of the reaction," said Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at the University of Maryland and the author of "Israel and the Bomb." Egypt responded first. In 1960, after the disclosure of Israel's work on a nuclear reactor, Cairo threatened to acquire atomic arms and sought its own reactor. Years of technical and political hurdles ultimately ended that plan. Iraq came next. But in June 1981, Israeli fighter jets bombed its reactor just days before engineers planned to install the radioactive core. The bombing ignited a global debate over how close Iraq had come to nuclear arms. It also prompted Iran, then fighting a war with Iraq, to embark on a covert response. Alireza Assar, a nuclear adviser to Iran's Ministry of Defense who later defected, said he attended a secret meeting in 1987 at which the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Iran had to do whatever was necessary to achieve victory. "We need to have all the technical requirements in our possession," Dr. Assar recalled the commander as saying, even the means to "build a nuclear bomb." In all, Iran toiled in secret for 18 years before its nuclear efforts were disclosed in 2003. Intelligence agencies and nuclear experts now estimate that the Iranians are 2 to 10 years away from having the means to make a uranium-based bomb. It says its uranium enrichment work is entirely peaceful and meant only to fuel reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency's concerns grew when inspectors found evidence of still-unexplained ties between Iran's ostensibly peaceful program and its military, including work on high explosives, missiles and warheads. That combination, the inspectors said in early 2006, suggested a "military nuclear dimension." Before such disclosures, few if any states in the Middle East attended the atomic agency's meetings on nuclear power development. Now, roughly a dozen are doing so and drawing up atomic plans. The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates - Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn. "They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power," said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its headquarters in Vienna. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs. Saudi Arabia, since reversing itself on reactors, has become a whirlwind of atomic interest. It recently invited President Vladimir V. Putin to become the first Russian head of state to visit the desert kingdom. He did so in February, offering a range of nuclear aid. Diplomats and analysts say Saudi Arabia leads the drive for nuclear power within the Gulf Cooperation Council, based in Riyadh. In addition to the Saudis, the council includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates - Washington's closest Arab allies. Its member states hug the western shores of the Persian Gulf and control about 45 percent of the world's oil reserves. Late last year, the council announced that it would embark on a nuclear energy program. Its officials have said they want to get it under way by 2009. "We will develop it openly," Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said of the council's effort. "We want no bombs. All we want is a whole Middle East that is free from weapons of mass destruction," an Arab reference to both Israel's and Iran's nuclear programs. In February, the council and the I.A.E.A. struck a deal to work together on a nuclear power plan for the Arab gulf states. Abdul Rahman ibn Hamad al-Attiya, the council's secretary general, told reporters in March that the agency would provide technical expertise and that the council would hire a consulting firm to speed its nuclear deliberations. Already, Saudi officials are traveling regularly to Vienna, and I.A.E.A. officials to Riyadh, the Saudi capital. "It's a natural right," Mohamed ElBaradei, the atomic agency's director general, said recently of the council's energy plan, estimating that carrying it out might take up to 15 years. Every gulf state except Iraq has declared an interest in nuclear power. By comparison, 15 percent of South American nations and 20 percent of African ones have done so. One factor in that exceptional level of interest is that the Persian Gulf states have the means. Typically, a large commercial reactor costs up to $4 billion. The six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are estimated to be investing in nonnuclear projects valued at more than $1 trillion. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia Sunni Nuclear ConcernsVideo Sunni Nuclear Concerns A Nuclear Race?Map A Nuclear Race? Another factor is Iran. Its shores at some points are visible across the waters of the gulf - called the Arabian Gulf by Arabs and the Persian Gulf by Iranians. The council wants "its own regional initiative to counter the possible threat from an aggressive neighbor armed with nuclear weapons," said Nicole Stracke, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center. Its members, she added, "felt they could no longer lag behind Iran." A similar technology push is under way in Turkey, where long-simmering plans for nuclear power have caught fire. Last year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for three plants. "We want to benefit from nuclear energy as soon as possible," he said. Turkey plans to put its first reactor near the Black Sea port of Sinop, and to start construction this year. Egypt, too, is moving forward. Last year, it announced plans for a reactor at El-Dabaa, about 60 miles west of Alexandria. "We do not start from a vacuum," President Hosni Mubarak told the governing National Democracy Party's annual conference. His remark was understated given Cairo's decades of atomic research. Robert Joseph, a former under secretary of state for arms control and international security who is now Mr. Bush's envoy on nuclear nonproliferation, visited Egypt earlier this year. According to officials briefed on the conversations, officials from the Ministry of Electricity indicated that if Egypt was confident that it could have a reliable supply of reactor fuel, it would have little desire to invest in the costly process of manufacturing its own nuclear fuel - the enterprise that experts fear could let Iran build a bomb. Other officials, especially those responsible for Egypt's security, focused more on the possibility of further proliferation in the region if Iran succeeded in its effort to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. "I don't know how much of it is real," Mr. Joseph said of a potential arms race. "But it is becoming urgent for us to shape the future expansion of nuclear energy in a way that reduces the risks of proliferation, while meeting our energy and environmental goals." ***************************************************************** 25 Brampton Guardian: MDA secures deal with nuclear power station Providing Local Community News for Brampton, Ontario 24/7 PETER CRISCIONE Brampton's MDA Canada has secured a contract with Ontario Power Generation to provide technology that would allow inaccessible areas of the Pickering nuclear power station to be inspected. MDA announced recently that it will commence developing machinery capable of remotely inspecting the Calandria vault, a secure and highly radioactive quarter within the Pickering A Nuclear Generation station. This portion of the nuclear plant houses something called the Candu vessel, a reactor that boasts such high radiation fields that it prevents personnel from safely getting to it. MDA is the creator of the Canadarm. "Our objective to apply the knowledge and capabilities gained by operating in space to terrestrial solutions that operate in equally hazardous environments, is further advanced with this project," said MDA's general manger Paul Cooper. Once developed, OPG will use the technology to inspect the vaults literally "hands free," thus preventing personnel from being exposed to hazardous radiation. MDA officials said that the finished product could be expanded in the future to carry out other tasks, such as refurbishing and general maintenance work. The design of the technology, which will take roughly two years to develop, would largely be based on the Canadarm, a company spokesperson told The Guardian. The Brampton outfit will also provide training and support to OPG once it is complete, officials added. Details of the contract, most notably how much it's worth, have not been disclosed publicly. © Copyright 1996 - 2007 Metroland Media Group Ltd. All rights ***************************************************************** 26 Arizona Republic : Anti-nuclear power argument is flawed viewpoint Apr. 14, 2007 12:00 AM The argument that nuclear power is a significant source of carbon dioxide and should not be pursued as one answer to global warming is disingenuous ("Nuclear energy is wrong investment," Letters, Sunday). It's an old argument that environmentalists against nuclear power have used to portray nuclear as a carbon-loaded energy source when, in fact, it is carbon free. Electricity is produced in nuclear power plants by using the heat energy generated by breaking apart uranium atoms. No carbon dioxide is produced or released in the process. However, in the procurement of nuclear fuels, some amount of petroleum (i.e., fossil) fuels are used in mining operations. It is this source of carbon dioxide that has been linked to nuclear power. Using the environmentalists' argument, you would also have to conclude that wind and solar power also generate carbon dioxide. The 2007 Oxford Research Group report, questioning the cleanliness of nuclear power, notes that nuclear power produces about 10 times less carbon per kilowatt hour than fossil fuels (coal) and is comparable to the carbon emissions produced from wind-power technologies. Nuclear power is an important component in solving the global-warming problem. Nuclear power does have risks, including radioactive waste disposal. But disposing of radioactive waste is highly controlled; greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere are not. - Kenneth L. Mossman,Tempe The writer is professor of health physics in the School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University. Copyright © 2007, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 SF Chronicle: Nuclear power's flaws Sunday, April 15, 2007 Letters to the Editor Editor -- There is a reason why California should not adopt the nuclear power option at this time ("Fresno a player in debate over nuclear power,'' April 8). In brief, the water that cools each nuclear reactor's core is at a much higher pressure than its surroundings. Thus, the water is susceptible to leaking, producing a meltdown of the core. If the core melts, intensely radioactive substances may well be released into the environment, causing deaths and injuries and making large areas of land uninhabitable. Safety inspections are conducted in an attempt at heading off leakage. The designs of the inspection systems are seriously flawed, but the nuclear industry and its federal regulatory agency refuse to correct the flaws. TERRY OLDBERG Los Altos Hills Editor -- The April 8 article on nuclear power did a good job explaining the reasons why additional nuclear plants are needed, including reducing foreign energy dependence, reducing air pollution and alleviating global warming. A few statements made in the article, however, require response. Many communities very much do want new nuclear plants "in their backyard." Strong majorities of the local populations around existing plants favor adding new units to the site. Many of these communities are competing with each other for new reactors by offering a host of economic incentives. The waste problem is far more solved for nuclear than it is for fossil fuels. Fossil fuel wastes, freely released into the air, cause 25,000 deaths every year, as well as global warming. Nuclear waste has always been completely contained and has never had any impact on public health or the environment. The Yucca Mountain project is being delayed for purely political reasons. Finally, concerning economics, all I can say to Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Charles Cicchetti of Pacific Economics Group is, if you're so certain that nuclear will not be able to compete with renewables in California, than why not lift the nuclear moratorium and see what happens? JAMES HOPF San Jose San Francisco Chronicle © 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 28 JOURNAL NEWS: NRC denies Entergy request for more time to fix sirens Saturday, April 14, 2007 By JORGE FITZ-GIBBON BUCHANAN - The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission last night denied a request by the Indian Point nuclear power plants for a four-month delay in the installation of a new emergency alert system. In a terse letter to the president of Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plants' owner, the NRC said the company had "not demonstrated good cause" for a second extension of its deadline to put in place a new $15 million, 150-siren alert system. Entergy had requested the extension earlier in the day. The NRC not only denied the request, but said it would "consider (disciplinary) action under the NRC's enforcement policy" because Entergy would not have the new system in place by tomorrow, as required under an earlier extension it was granted in January. The latest developments came one day after a third and final test of the new sirens failed to meet federal standards. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said the company probably could fix the glitches within 30 days. But he said Entergy wanted the deadline extended until Aug. 31 so it could give county officials the opportunity to become "more comfortable" with the new system. "In order for us to ensure that the counties are completely satisfied, are fully comfortable with accepting the system, we're just going to need the extra time to walk through it with them," Steets said yesterday. "And that's what we're going to be doing." The existing alert system, with 156 sirens, remains in place pending completion of the new one. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, said the agency would determine if Entergy was subject to fines or disciplinary action for its failure to meet tomorrow's deadline for the new system. "That's what our office of enforcement will have to look at," Sheehan said. "They consider a number of different factors, including whether there was anything the company could've done to prevent this, corrective actions they take. So there are a number of things that go into that." Entergy's request for an extension came on the same day that the NRC officially downgraded the plant's safety rating in the wake of an April 6 fire. The plants' rating will drop from green, the highest possible, to white, prompting more inspections, the NRC said yesterday. Steets said Entergy would adhere to any new restrictions. The company last year hired Boston-based Acoustic Technology Inc. to build and install the new emergency alarm system. The troublesome sirens were supposed to be ready by now. But Entergy requested and received an extension in January, pushing the deadline until tomorrow. The first two of three tests on the system on Thursday proved successful, with 100 percent and 98 percent of the sirens responding. But in the third, which used microwave signals to trigger the alarms, 31 of the sirens failed, including all 14 in Putnam County. With only one business day before tomorrow's deadline, Entergy decided to seek another delay. "We're definitely not pleased with their not meeting this deadline," said David Novich, a spokesman for the Westchester County Department of Emergency Services. "But, in this case, we don't have a choice here," Novich said. "They have to have the system working properly if it's going to be up and running. It's not really a question of whether we support it. We have to have it working." C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, said the new request for an extension was frustrating and put the alarm system a total of eight months behind its original due date. "The counties would be a lot more comfortable if the system was working," Miller said. "But it would make us a lot more unhappy if the system went in and it wasn't working. ... "Do they need another four months in order to make this thing work? Take it." The expected delay in the emergency alarm system didn't go unnoticed in the political arena. In a statement released yesterday, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., called the delay "completely unacceptable" and "extremely troubling." Clinton said that if Entergy does miss tomorrow's deadline, "then the NRC should take whatever action is necessary to ensure public safety." But Steets, the Entergy spokesman, said the company simply wants to make certain that the plant's "very complex" network of sirens is fully operational, and that the counties that will be in charge of it are at ease. "It's a very sophisticated system," Steets said. "It's like putting an alarm system on a house that's the size of 400 square miles." The system's radio-signal test failed, in part, because of the Lower Hudson Valley's topography. Steets said raising the height of the microwave dishes that send the signals is one solution. But he said that since the signals reached the sirens in past tests, the glitch probably was not limited to the landscape. Reach Jorge Fitz-Gibbon at jfitzgib@lohud.com or 914-694-5016. Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper ***************************************************************** 29 Worcester Telegram & Gazette News: The nuclear option Sunday, April 15, 2007 Needed: Renewed focus on non-fossil power source President Bush’s warning in 2005 that “a secure energy future for America must include more nuclear power” has been largely ignored in the course of the national energy debate, doomed by political indifference and the pervasive nuclear phobia in some parts of environmental establishment. Today, escalating concerns about the effect of fossil fuels on the climate and uncertainty about oil sources in the Mideast, Venezuela and Mexico are prompting an overdue reassessment of nuclear power by politicians and environmentalists alike. Of all currently available technologies, none holds greater promise than nuclear power of drastically reducing the United States’ dependence on foreign oil — and on electricity produced by coal, oil and natural gas generation. The safety and efficacy of nuclear power has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt for more than four decades. In France, for instance, more than 50 nuclear plants supply 80 percent of the country’s electricity and export power to several neighboring countries as well. Although many Americans may be unaware of it, nuclear generation accounts for one-fifth of the nation’s electricity supply, even though political reaction to the Three-Mile Island accident has stopped the industry dead in its tracks nearly three decades. Even in Massachusetts, which currently has just one operating nuclear power plant, figures from the Energy Information Administration show that as of December 2006 nuclear power accounted for 11.4 percent of the state’s electricity (compared with 83 percent from polluting fossil fuels). Based on EPA figures, the Nuclear Energy Institute calculates that, in 2005, electricity from the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth avoided emissions of acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide totaling 10,300 tons and greenhouse gas carbon dioxide totaling 3.4 million metric tons. It also avoided emissions of smog-producing nitrogen oxides totaling 2,700 tons — the amount released in a year by 140,000 passenger cars. To be sure, safety issues need to be addressed. The ill-fated Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union — an unmitigated failure of management and design — made a seemingly indelible impression on the American psyche. Managerial arrogance figured in the accident at Three-Mile Island as well, but the fact is that the containment system worked as designed — the horror scenario of the fictional “China Syndrome” notwithstanding. The Navy’s nuclear fleet also is proof of the safety of properly designed plants, as is the equally enviable safety record of civilian nuclear power, both in the United States and Europe. • What to do with the spent fuel is a legitimate concern. Part of the solution is reprocessing and reusing spent fuel rods, a proven option as long as security concerns are fully addressed. The Carter administration rejected reprocessing because of nuclear proliferation fears. Long-term storage is another. The Yucca Mountain site under construction in Nevada has been delayed by political opposition for nearly two decades. Meanwhile, spent fuel is being held in temporary storage at more than 100 civilian and military locations in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and 34 other states. The sooner it is entombed in stable rock strata hundreds of feet below the surface the better. The record of nuclear power industry in the United States and abroad shows it to be a safe, clean alternative to fossil fuels. It certainly is the most readily achievable means to reduce fossil fuels’ very real environmental and geopolitical risks. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. ***************************************************************** 30 Decatur Daily: Contractor cited for misconduct at Browns Ferry SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2007 By Duncan Mansfield Associated Press Writer KNOXVILLE — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Friday a contractor foreman committed “deliberate misconduct” in removing paint at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens. Robbie Balentine “willfully directed and allowed” open sandblasting inside the plant’s long-idled Unit 1 reactor in early 2004 in violation of permit requirements and verbal instructions, the regulatory agency said. That resulted “in an internal contamination event involving a painter under his supervision as well as a violation of a portion of the Browns Ferry nuclear plant license related to radiation protection,” a commission statement said. After conducting its own investigation, TVA told the NRC in October that “we do not believe that any deliberate misconduct took place and as a result there was no violation,” TVA spokesman John Moulton said. “We never heard back. We are still waiting for a reply from the NRC on that,” he said. The painter received a “very, very low internal contamination dose — nothing that would create any health effects,” commission spokesman Roger Hannah said. “But the bottom line was the willful violation of the procedures.” Balentine worked for Stone and Webster Engineering Co., a contractor on TVA’s five-year, $1.8 billion rehabilitation of Browns Ferry Unit 1. TVA hopes to return the reactor to service in May after a 22-year shutdown. Balentine’s crew was removing paint from a huge, ring-shaped metal structure below the Unit 1 reactor vessel called a torus. The device is designed to collect excess steam in the event of a cooling system breakdown. The torus is “slightly contaminated” with radiation, Hannah said. The rules prohibited open sandblasting on “uneven or rough surfaces without checking with somebody first or making sure it was permitted,” he said. Balentine apparently did neither. However, the commission imposed no sanctions against him. The case was resolved through mediation. Balentine agreed to follow the rules and to participate in any programs that “use this event as training for others.” Moulton said Balentine was placed on administrative leave by Stone and Webster last August after TVA was told about the problem by the NRC and decided to conduct its own probe. “We concluded that TVA maintained proper oversight,” Moulton said. As for Balentine, Moulton said, “He no longer works at Browns Ferry.” Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. THE DECATUR DAILY 201 First Ave. S.E. P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, AL 35609 (256) 353-4612 www.decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 31 Salt Lake Tribune: Go nuclear (OP) Public Forum Letter Article Last Updated: 04/13/2007 08:40:31 PM MDT There are two events that are inevitable and will transpire during the first half of the 21st century. First, world population, presently over 6 billion, will approach 10 billion, with the greatest increase occurring in the developing nations of China and India where one third of the world's population will reside. Second, our fluid fuels - oil and natural gas - will approach exhaustion with coal the only available remaining fossil fuel. Renewable energy sources - hydro, wind, solar and biomass - cannot satisfy this increased demand for energy for the inevitable growth in population. Nuclear energy must be used to meet the energy demands of the developed nations and expectations of the developing nations without irreparable impacts from greenhouse gases and economic and military conflict for dwindling fluid fossil fuels. The fluid fuels that are free of greenhouse gases needed for the second half of the 21st century must be supplied by hydrogen produced mainly from nuclear energy. We must carefully and rationally assess our current energy situation and policy, and then we will recognize the imperative need for nuclear energy in the 21st century. Gary M. Sandquist Salt Lake City © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 32 THERECORD.COM: Province's nuclear deal strangling spread of wind power SANDRA MOOIBROEK RECORD PHOTO Fields of windmill generators churn out electricity in the rural area north of Toronto, near Shelburne. (Apr 14, 2007) It's common that hard-to-digest news is released just before a holiday weekend, and this past Easter was no exception. Three developments made public on Good Friday -- one global, one provincial, and one local -- give an unwelcome education into the costly impact of time and risk assessment. On the global scale, more bad news was expressed with greater certainty from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC scientists and policy-makers stressed that immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will mitigate -- but not eliminate -- the extreme risk and high cost of adapting to climate change, the effects of which are already being observed. Do nothing and we risk total disaster; act immediately and some of the risks will be reduced. The provincial Liberal government faced a similarly unpalatable choice two years ago. Their successful election bid had been premised upon a campaign promise to shut down polluting coal-fired generating stations. Once elected, the Liberals became convinced they had to choose between shutting down dirty coal power, which carried a high risk of more shortages and blackouts, or securing more expensive nuclear electricity, with a high risk of cost overruns and lengthy lead-times. They chose the latter, and this week we received the unusual opportunity of examining the resulting Bruce Power deal from the provincial auditor general's viewpoint. As the auditor general pointed out, negotiating a deal when you believe you have no choice is not a position of strength. The Liberal government, finely attuned to political risk, was eager to minimize both the initial electricity purchase price and the risk of expensive cost overruns. These goals were largely achieved. So even though the auditor general found that the negotiated cost was higher than it needed to be, the political fallout from this report is likely to be minimal. That's the assessment from the viewpoint of financial risk. What wasn't dealt with is the risk from a climate change perspective, and this is where the provincial giveaways in the Bruce negotiation are already biting local renewable energy proponents, years in advance of any electricity supply or price increase. Six months ago, Milverton-based Countryside Energy Cooperative was buoyed with excellent wind resource data, clean environmental and connection impact assessments, and the prospect of selling 10 megawatts of wind power under the terms of the provincial standard offer program announced last spring. Countryside's project exemplified all that the Liberals hoped for with the new policy: a community-supported wind project that would produce emission-free electricity at a reasonable price, help ease supply constraint and spread jobs and economic benefits in a rural area. Potential funders included the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and a host of local businesses and individuals. Then the first shoe dropped. Back when they negotiated the Bruce Power deal, the Liberals guaranteed full payment for production from all eight reactors, whether or not the transmission capacity existed to transport that power. To accommodate this increase, plus new renewable energy generation and the phase-out of the coal plants, the government directed the Ontario Power Authority to make necessary upgrades to the transmission and distribution system. In response, the OPA conducted a full review of the network and concluded that "there is inadequate transmission out of the Bruce area to accommodate both the expected wind developments... and the expanded capacity of the Bruce nuclear station." A "transmission restriction zone" was immediately dropped over a large portion of southwest Ontario extending from Waterloo Region over to Lake Huron, encompassing the Countryside wind project area and many others. A range of short-, medium-, and long-term solutions was proposed to fix the problem. The accepted proposal was the recently announced $600 million, 500 kilo-volt transmission line from Bruce down to the GTA. That's the long-term solution necessary only for additional nuclear power, and it won't be completed for several years, perhaps not even in time for the refurbished Bruce A reactors. This month, the second shoe dropped for wind projects "in progress" in the transmission restricted zone. The would-be generators received letters from Hydro One revoking previously awarded connection impact agreements due to lack of capacity in the distribution grid. It appears that all wind projects in the prime southwest Ontario wind regime are blocked because funds for the necessary upgrades have already been committed to that expensive, lengthy transmission line project. The impact of the Bruce deal is now clear. The choice of prioritizing nuclear electricity supply has iced the government's renewable energy and coal shutdown goals indefinitely -- a delay risk that the small renewable energy players will likely not be able to swallow. The real and pressing need to make immediate, deep cuts to emissions is being held hostage to the nuclear timetable. What can be done? In spite of the financial risk, the Bruce Power agreement is a done deal and the province has little choice but to get moving on the new 500 kV transmission line. But there's no need to tie our climate change plans to this project. The Minister of Energy should insist that the short term system upgrades that will accommodate wind projects be done first. It's an extra cost, but a cheaper and quicker way to avoid the bigger, more urgent risk of climate change. Sandra Mooibroek holds a PhD in chemistry and is president of Community Renewable Energy Waterloo. 160 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 519-894-2231 ***************************************************************** 33 Boston Herald: Nuclear power: Simple is best - Opinion & Editorial - BostonHerald.com By Boston Herald editorial staff Sunday, April 15, 2007 TXU Corp., formerly Texas Utilities, says it wants to build nuclear plants instead of the 11 large coal-fired plants - so scorned by environmentalists - that it announced earlier this year. It’s another welcome sign of the return to favor of nuclear power, which generates no greenhouse gases said to warm the earth. The problem is that TXU, one of more than a dozen utilities considering nuclear projects, wants a new plant design. But one of the reasons nuclear fell from favor was that U.S. utilities vastly overestimated their ability to cope with the new designs they kept ordering throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Of the 105 nuclear plants operating in 1986 (there are 102 today), there were 62 designs. One reason for the success of nuclear power in France is that nearly all the 59 reactors there share a common design. U.S. reactors steadily got bigger as companies sought to spread the costs over more megawatts of output. The reactors became dauntingly complicated faster than understanding of them could spread. The two major U.S. reactor suppliers, General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Corp. (now controlled by Toshiba Corp. of Japan), spent more than a decade coming up with simpler, safer designs and winning approval of them from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That means they may be used as an off-the-shelf item without further approval, and most nuclear-planning utilities have chosen one company or the other. TXU had said earlier it expected to build a Westinghouse design of 1,150 megawatts. Now it says it wants two to five 1,700-megawatt plants from Japan’s Mitsubishi Corp. - for the old familiar reason that it can spread costs over more output. This could risk a rerun of all the problems of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, from vast construction cost overruns to mysterious plant disturbances and shutdowns. The Mitsubishi design has not been studied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and approval will take a long time. Going with Mitsubishi could risk a failure that would seriously set back the nuclear revival. © Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media. ***************************************************************** 34 AFP: G7 ministers give nuclear energy a nod - by Veronique Dupont Sat Apr 14, 5:23 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Finance chiefs from the G7 industrialized countries have endorsed nuclear energy, an increasingly attractive power source as governments confront global warming and over-dependence on fossil fuels. The Group of Seven, following a meeting here Friday, described energy diversification as an important priority for both rich and poor nations. "Diversification can include advanced energy technologies such as renewable, nuclear and clean coal," said the ministers and central bank governors from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States. The group at previous meetings had been unable to agree on a text citing nuclear power, notably in the face of opposition from Germany. But a steady rise in oil prices, from less than 30 dollars a barrel in April 2003 to nearly 80 dollars last year, as well as increased energy nationalism in producers such as Russia, Venezuela and Iran have managed to change minds. France, which has long advocated the adoption of an international nuclear power program as a "clean" alternative to fossil fuels, hailed the G7's latest initiative. French Finance Minister Thierry Breton said he had put "a lot of energy" into getting the G7 to include "nuclear" among potential alternative power sources. "It wasn't my first attempt but it was the first time it was unanimously accepted," he said. France gets 78 percent of its electricity production from nuclear sources, against an average of just 16 percent worldwide and 32 percent in Europe, and is home to several major nuclear energy companies, such as Areva. Nuclear advocates had already gained some ground with a recent resolution adopted by the European Union calling for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 20 percent between now and 2020. The resolution, adopted by EU leaders at a summit last month, mentioned nuclear power as a legitimate means of meeting the reduction target. US President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address in January also referred to nuclear energy as a way of diversifying US electricity supply. But in the United States, where no nuclear plant has been built in the past 30 years, and where oil and coal remain the principal power sources, big energy companies have been reluctant to invest. They are seeking legal and financial support from the government before going ahead with nuclear projects, which they see as largely governed by political and environmental -- rather than purely economic -- considerations. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 UPI: Analysis: Indian Point fails siren tests United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: April 13, 2007 at 2:54 PM By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent BUCHANAN, N.Y., , April 13, 2007 (UPI) -- New York's Indian Point nuclear plant's new siren system can't pass federal standards, forcing it to request a stay of Sunday's deadline. Although the plant, owned by Entergy Nuclear Northeast, passed federal standards on most tests, it had a 20 percent failure rate on its radio-controlled activation system, two times what the law allows, The Journal News reports. The sirens also blared softer than federal emergency requirements. "It's not clear where we're heading, except we'll keep working on it," said Michael Slobedien, head of emergency readiness for Entergy. He said the company needs to understand what went wrong before determining what to do next. It has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an extension to the Sunday deadline, but NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission would likely not rule on it by then. The NRC, which gave Entergy a 75-day extension in January, would move as quick as possible, Sheehan said. Community officials said they were disappointed in Entergy. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 Scotsman.com Business: Nuclear power attracting interest Monday, 16th April 2007 PETER JONES BRITISH Energy (BE), the Livingston-based nuclear electricity generator, has received expressions of interest from companies looking to share in projects to build new nuclear power stations. The disclosure was made at a Royal Society of Edinburgh meeting to discuss the future of the energy industry in Scotland. Last year, the society issued a report warning that, unless decisions were taken now to build new power stations, Scotland could face electricity black-outs by 2015. BE has eight nuclear power stations, generating about 20 per cent of Britain's electricity needs. Two Scottish stations - Hunterston B and Torness - generate about 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity supply. Hunterston is scheduled to close between 2011 and 2014 and Cockenzie, a coal-fired station owned by ScottishPower, is expected to close between 2012 and 2016. This means that, without replacement generating capacity, Scotland would need to import electricity from England, though the cross-Border inter-connector link also needs to be upgraded. Robert Armour, BE's company secretary, said: "We have invited companies interested in new nuclear stations to come forward. This has brought interest from a variety of companies - existing utilities, financial institutions and some [large-scale industrial] customers." Armour acknowledged that the political climate in Scotland is hostile to new nuclear power, with only the Conservative party supportive. The SNP and Liberal Democrats are implacably opposed and Labour is equivocal. Opinion polls show the Scottish public was in principle two-thirds opposed to nuclear power, but when asked if nuclear should be part of a mix of generation in order to ensure continuity of supply, two-thirds were supportive. The UK government is due to publish an energy white paper next month setting out a strategy for replacing Britain's ageing fleet of coal and nuclear power stations. Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth in Scotland, told the meeting that investment should be in renewables and greater energy efficiency. He said the Sustainable Development Commission contended that nuclear energy was "not sustainable, and not necessary". Last updated: 15-Apr-07 00:36 BST ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 37 AFP: IAEA to help Jordan get peaceful nuclear energy Sun Apr 15, 7:31 AM ET AMMAN (AFP) - The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency is ready to help Jordan acquire nuclear energy, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said on Sunday after talks with King Abdullah II. "The IAEA is ready to help Jordan take advantage of nuclear energy for peaceful use," ElBaradei said, according to a palace statement. "We will send an IAEA team next week to follow up on the project that Jordan will launch to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," ElBaradei said without elaborating. Officials had told AFP that Jordan wanted a nuclear plant by 2015 to generate electricity, as well as to use nuclear technology in education and to desalinate water for the largely desert kingdom. Jordan imports 95 percent of its energy needs and is one of the 10 most water-impoverished countries in the world, with its annual water deficit exceeding 500 million cubic metres, according to official estimates. Parliament will hold an extraordinary session on Wednesday to vote on draft laws submitted by the government, including one on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, according to deputies. King Abdullah II thanked ElBaradei for the IAEA's support and said "Jordan will be an example of the peaceful usage of nuclear energy" in line with international rules, the palace said. "The IAEA's support for Jordan, including technical support and developing (human) capabilities, will guarantee the success of its nuclear programme," the king said. In an interview with AFP last week the Jordanian monarch said Amman wanted "alternative energy sources that will help us alleviate the increasing burdens of importing energy amid rising fuel prices." "We in Jordan feel, as do other countries, the need to secure the transfer and establishment of nuclear energy technology as an alternative to importing oil for generating electricity and water desalination," he said. "This will help us fulfill our energy needs," the king said, adding that he would discuss the issue with ElBaradei. Maher Hijjazin, director of Jordan's Natural Resources Authority, told AFP that Jordan has "tens of thousands of tonnes" of uranium reserves, a fraction of which could be used to power nuclear plants. ElBaradei began a three-day visit to Jordan on Saturday, the final leg of a tour that has already taken him to Saudi Arabia and Oman. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 38 KnoxNews: TVA may be facing action NRC deciding if utility mishandled probe of '04 nuke plant incident By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com April 14, 2007 TVA could face action from federal regulators after a foreman for a TVA contractor was sanctioned for "deliberate misconduct" in an incident that took place three years ago at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday. TVA responded that its own investigation found no deliberate misconduct and no violation of TVA procedures. The incident in question occurred in early 2004 during activities to revamp the Unit 1 reactor at Browns Ferry, near Athens, Ala. According to the NRC, Robbie Balentine, a foreman for Stone and Webster Engineering Co., ordered open blasting during paint removal on a piece of equipment below the nuclear reactor vessel. The action violated both the requirements of a radiation work permit and verbal instructions, according to the NRC. The blast caused a painter under Balentine's supervision to breathe in a small amount of radioactive material, though NRC spokesman Ken Clark said Friday the worker suffered no serious effects. Clark said the incident came to the NRC's attention at a later date when it received reports of the employee's possible exposure. The NRC launched an investigation in February 2005, Clark said. The order announced Friday states that Balentine will participate "in any initiatives established by TVA or Stone and Webster to use this event as training for others." Clark said the NRC still is determining whether TVA violated any regulations in its handling of the incident. "There will be a decision as to whether or not any further regulatory action is warranted in regard to TVA," he said. TVA spokesman John Moulton said the federal utility first learned of the potential violation from the NRC in August 2006. TVA then asked Stone and Webster to place Balentine - who no longer works at Browns Ferry - on administrative leave and conducted its own investigation into the incident, Moulton said. In October 2006, TVA told the NRC that its investigation found no deliberate misconduct and no violations of TVA procedures, Moulton said. "We concluded TVA maintained proper oversight and that proper work practices were followed," he said. TVA is nearing the end of a five-year, $1.8 billion restart effort for Unit 1. On April 23, the NRC plans to send in a team of seven inspectors for an "operational readiness assessment," which the NRC conducts on new plants or those restarting after an extended outage. Clark said the incident involving Balentine should not have an impact on the restart. TVA expects Unit 1 to resume operations next month, giving Browns Ferry three operating reactors for the first time since 1985. "We're ready for the NRC to come in and assess our readiness to operate the plant," Moulton said. Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 39 REPUBLICAN & Herald: Nuclear energy can't be ignored 04/14/2007 Energy awareness tends to rise and fall in direct proportion to the retail prices of gasoline and electricity. That is part of the reason that it is so difficult for politicians to move the country toward energy independence. The challenge is not just to develop alternative energy sources, but products that are comparably priced relative to gasoline and electricity produced from conventional sources. When pump prices are high, public sentiment leans toward alternatives, but when prices decline, public sentiment leans toward joy rides. ? Gov. Ed Rendell has proposed a comprehensive package of energy initiatives, in the form of four major pieces of legislation that will be on the table when the state Legislature returns from its current recess and begins to take up the budget. Some of the initiatives are just good sense. With regulatory caps on retail electricity prices scheduled to expire over the next four years, the governor proposes lifting, as well, restrictions on utilities? ability to purchase power for the long term. There is some dispute within the regulatory community over the meaning of current rules, but they might limit companies to power-purchasing contracts of no more than three years, thus subjecting them, and ultimately consumers, to buying far more expensive power on spot markets as the need arises. Rendell proposes clear rules that allow contracts of at least 10 years, with rate increases being passed on to consumers in three-year increments, rather than instantaneously. The governor also seeks mandated peak and off-peak pricing of electricity in order to encourage energy conservation and to balance generating needs. He also would further conservation through incentives for homeowners to install solar and wind-power systems. Unfortunately, the policies lean heavily toward coal-fired production of electricity, while eschewing a budding national revival of safe, abundant nuclear power production. Given projections for vastly increased demand, nuclear production is almost mandatory, especially given new generations of safe production designs. The key issue remains waste disposal, which the federal government must finally resolve in the name of energy security. The state already has taken significant steps in wind generation, both in the actual production of electricity and as a leading national producer of wind turbines and related products. And, the state also is poised to become a major player in the production of ethanol from corn and, especially, the production of biodiesel fuel from soy. ? Energy programs most often are viewed in terms of cost. Rendell?s proposal, for example, would require the issuance of $850 million in bonds to promote research and development of biofuels, solar and wind power, clean coal technology and conservation through home energy systems and efficient appliances. But energy programs are not just about costs. Private investments in biofuel refining, wind-energy development, research and other components would generate up to 13,000 jobs and $3.5 billion in private investment, atop the $24 billion that has been invested over the last five years. The comprehensive proposals are subject to fine-tuning, but the Legislature should join the governor in making the state a leader in energy diversity and development. ©The REPUBLICAN & Herald 2007 ©2007 Pottsville REPUBLICAN, Inc. 111 Mahantongo Street Pottsville, Pa 17901 (570) 622-3456. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of the contents of these services without the expressed written consent of Pottsville REPUBLICAN, Inc. is expressly prohibited. Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 40 Saipan Tribune: Lawmakers push nuke power plant Monday, April 16, 2007 A proposal to consider nuclear energy for the islands gained ground in the Legislature on Friday. A group of lawmakers, mostly members of the minority bloc, introduced a resolution asking the U.S. Department of Energy and nuclear power generation manufacturers to assist the CNMI in exploring the possibility of using safe and compact nuclear power generators in the islands. The resolution came after the lawmakers attended a presentation by Thomas Arkle, consultant for Tinian Mayor Jose P. San Nicolas, on atomic energy. According to Arkle, nuclear energy has always been associated with death and destruction because of the Hiroshima and Nagazaki bombings and more recently the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. But it is time people rethought its perception of nuclear energy. Arkle, who has been researching on nuclear power, said that current technology on nuclear power is safe, economical and environment friendly. For instance, he said, the 4S design by Japan-based Toshiba Corp. has a totally passive safety system, making overheating or meltdown impossible. The 4S has no emissions. It costs less than $10 million to build a 50 MW plant. Because it does not require refueling, it is expected to cost about $50-100 million to run over its 30-year lifetime. The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. currently spends about $60 million a year on fuel alone. “The economics of this thing [nuclear power] can't be denied anymore. Only the political and personal beliefs of the term 'nuclear' need to be overcome,” Arkle said. The Purple Mountain Corp., a nuclear power generator manufacturer based in the United States, also offers a new safe design that can be suited to the specific needs of a community. Arkle said the U.S. Department of Energy so much wants U.S. communities to consider nuclear energy that it provides grants for the installation of such power plants and even rebates to consumers. “Based on my research, the CNMI can qualify for those programs.” He also said the Energy Department is willing to send its experts to explain more about nuclear power generation. All the CNMI needs to do is make an official request. House Joint Resolution 15-18, authored by Rep. Stanley T. Torres, is a step toward that. Five other lawmakers have so far signed the resolution: Reps. Arnold I. Palacios, Edwin Aldan, Candido Taman, Ramon A. Tebuteb, and Ray Yumul. The resolution asks the U.S. Energy Department to grant the CNMI support and financial backing in getting a safe and reliable nuclear power generator set up in the islands. It also invites Purple Mountain, Toshiba, and other manufacturers to visit the islands and present their plans of action. Furthermore, the resolution seeks the support of the Bush administration, as well as the local business community. ©2006 Saipan Tribune. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 41 IAEA: Countries Pursue Nuclear Energy for Water, Hydrogen Production Experts Meet in Japan to Exchange Experience, Examine Options Staff Report 13 April 2007 Countries interested in desalination are looking more closely at nuclear plants to produce freshwater from the sea and provide the electrical energy they need. * Story Resources * Conference Pages * Nuclear Desalination Web Pages * Newsletter on Desalination * IAEA Bulletin * Hydrogen Future Automobiles running on hydrogen fuel cells and water purified from the sea are part of an unfolding future, and experts think nuclear energy can play a bigger role. Specialists are meeting this month in Japan at an international symposium keyed to applications of nuclear energy beyond the production of electricity. Tapping the world´s seas to produce freshwater for cities and towns is nothing new. But it´s expensive, and costs are a prime factor. Plants to desalt water require a lot of energy, and countries with desalination units or interested in them are looking more closely at nuclear plants to provide the electrical energy they need. Argentina, Canada, China, Egypt, France, India, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, and the USA are among countries working cooperatively through the IAEA on research and development projects. The technology of desalination - or desalting seawater - has grown over the past half century, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, where freshwater is scarce. Nearly 40 million cubic metres of desalted water are produced each day worldwide. The facilities are energy intensive, and usually draw the steam or electricity they need from conventional fossil-fueled plants. But as environmental concerns grow over greenhouse gas emissions and water needs rise, other options are sought. About two-thirds of the world's population is projected to face shortages of clean freshwater over the coming decades. The technology of coupling nuclear energy and desalination plants already has taken hold in Japan and Kazakhstan, where commercial facilities have been operating since the 1970s. India is among countries seeking to expand the base of national and international experience through a demonstration plant it is building at Kalpakkam in the southeast of the country. Hydrogen Production Another application drawing high interest is nuclear power to produce hydrogen, increasingly seen as an alternative to oil and gasoline for the transportation sector. Some options being considered include the construction of centralized clusters of advanced nuclear power plants feeding high-temperature steam to hydrogen production units. Other options focus on distributed hydrogen systems. Today most commercial hydrogen is produced from water using a process called electrolysis. Research is heavily focused on other methods, including advanced systems producing very hot heat and steam. Background: The International Conference on Non-Electric Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and other Industrial Applications will be held in Oarai, Japan, from 16-19 April 2007. See Story Resources for more information. Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 42 Guardian Unlimited: More Mideast States Eyeing Nuclear Power From the Associated Press Monday April 16, 2007 12:31 AM By JAMAL HALABY Associated Press Writer AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - The chief U.N. nuclear watchdog on Sunday wrapped up a tour of the Middle East to offer support to nations interested in developing peaceful atomic energy programs despite the international faceoff with Iran over suspicions it is pursuing nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and the smaller Arab states around the Persian Gulf all have said they will study the feasibility of building civilian programs for generating electricity with nuclear reactors. During a meeting Sunday, Jordan's King Abdullah II told Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that his kingdom needs to diversify its sources of energy, especially with oil prices rising. The king promised that Jordan, which imports nearly all of its oil, would be a model in the peaceful development of nuclear energy if it decided to go ahead. The official Petra news agency quoted ElBaradei as saying his ``agency was ready to help Jordan to benefit from nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.'' He said the IAEA would dispatch a team to Jordan next week to look into its plans. Earlier in his trip, ElBaradei offered similar support to the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman - which said in November that they would consider starting a joint nuclear program for peaceful purposes. ElBaradei said Thursday in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that he recognized ``the necessity of the Gulf Cooperation Council to own this (nuclear) energy at the current time despite owning other energy sources like oil and gas.'' While none of the Mideast nations expressing an interest in nuclear power has publicly cited Iran's alleged ambition to acquire atomic weapons - a charge Tehran denies - some analysts think the announcements are intended as a warning to the Iranians about the dangers of a regional arms race. Energy experts say any significant Arab nuclear program would probably take years, and some are skeptical that cash-strapped countries like Egypt and Jordan have the resources for such facilities. The U.S. government opposes the spread of nuclear weapons in the region, but officials in Washington have said any country that strictly follows the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is free to develop a civilian power program. The U.S. offered to help Egypt with nuclear technology after it announced plans in September to revive a mothballed nuclear program. Jordan's king announced his plan to study a nuclear program in January in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It was assumed he chose an Israeli newspaper to make clear the program was not directed at the Jewish state. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons of its own, but has never officially confirmed that it does. ``The rules have changed,'' Abdullah told Haaretz. ``Everybody's going for nuclear programs.'' Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev declined to comment Sunday about the interest expressed by Jordan, Egypt and others in acquiring nuclear programs. But, he added, ``Israel is concerned that Iranian nuclear program is not only a direct threat to regional security, but will also lead to a larger nuclear proliferation in the region, which would be to no one's benefit.'' Key Arab countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt also are concerned by Iran's nuclear ambitions, although Tehran insists its program is peaceful. At an Arab summit in Saudi Arabia last month, leaders warned that Iran's push for nuclear technology could be the start of ``a grave and destructive nuclear arms race in the region.'' As ElBaradei spoke with Abdullah, Iran announced it had put out bids to build two nuclear power plants to generate electricity. ElBaradei, an Egyptian, sought to temper fears over the nature of the nuclear program in Iran, which has been hit with U.S. Security Council sanctions seeking to force Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and provide proof its program isn't aimed at building atomic bombs. ``We still have plenty of time to solve the problem peacefully,'' ElBaradei said, alluding to forecasts that the Iranians would need five to 10 more years of work before being capable of constructing nuclear weapons. --- Associated Press writer Dale Gavlak contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 43 Bangkok Post: Is Thailand serious about atomic energy? By Anchalee Kongrut Assistant Professor Sunchai Nilsuwankosit, a lecturer on nuclear energy at Chulalongkorn University, should be pleased with the government's energy policy. But he fears authorities will fold at the first sign of opposition. This week, the Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO) approved a Power Development Plan 2007 (PDP 2007) which calls for the construction of a 4,000-megawatt nuclear power plant within the next 15 years. "This should be a good indication [of the government's intentions] but then again, it could simply amount to a scribble in the sand. "The government might back down the moment resistance emerges or when coal and gas become cheaper," says Mr Sunchai, 40, who holds a doctoral degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States, and who currently teaches at the only university in Thailand offering this subject. Founded in 1975, the Nuclear Engineering Department offers only a master's degree course. The attendance rate is roughly 10 students annually, and the seven who graduate go on to pursue careers in radiology pertaining to medical treatment or the food processing industry. At present, the only nuclear plant Thailand has is a 30-year-old reactor capable of generating 10 megawatts of power. It is located at the Office of Atomic Energy for Peace, near Kasetsart University. Mr Sunchai says planning for a nuclear energy option is the easy part of the procedure. He also holds the view that nuclear technology today has advanced considerably and is quite safe. He foresees no technical hitch should Thailand want to build a nuclear power plant. The challenge - and a big one at that - is in winning the community's trust and support for the project, he says. What does it take to build a nuclear power plant? It will require 12 years to build a 1,200-megawatt plant. Once past the stage of establishing a clear-cut policy, the country must proceed to secure contracts with companies experienced in building nuclear reactors and with sellers of nuclear fuel, as well as acquiring a permit from the United Nations's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to use uranium-235 or U-235 - the fuel for nuclear power stations. Countries operating uranium mines include South Africa and Canada, but the raw material must be sent for processing at industries located in Europe. Fuel processing alone takes three years to complete. The IAEA requires countries with nuclear reactors to report details of its use and the location of U-235, as it fears the waste generated from uranium processing could fall into the hands of terrorists. Spent U-235 can be reprocessed through enrichment technology into missile warheads. "That is why the IAEA is so worried about the ostensibly peaceful nuclear development programmes in countries like Iran and North Korea. The lack of reporting on waste management can lead to doubts that the spent uranium is being redirected towards military purposes," he says. The shipping of nuclear fuel is quite a task in itself. Although the size of each nuclear fuel rod is only about one inch in diameter and 2-3 metres in length, each rod must be strictly kept in shields made of concrete and radioactive-proof substances such as Boron. Each generator uses a bundle consisting of 80-100 rods of U-235 packed together. Compared with the behemoth cargo of coal, the size of nuclear fuel may be minuscule, but an entire vessel would be needed to ship U-235 from a processing plant in Europe to Thailand. "And if Thailand cannot find a reception location at a deep-sea port, road transport would be possible only on the condition that traffic is closed for hours - or days - as the truck transporting the material must not run above 40 kilometres an hour," the professor says. Alternatively, a separate and cleared railway line would do. The nuclear reactor itself does not require much space. For a 1,200-megawatt reactor, a plot of land which can house the equivalent of a three- or four-storey building with a total space of 3,000 square metres, would be sufficient. However, the plant would need additional space for a steam turbine to generate electricity and a large space to accommodate a spent-fuel pond - plus a coolant tower if the government cannot find an appropriate location by the sea or a river from which the plant could draw large quantities of water to cool the heat. To safeguard radioactive leakage, a huge containment or concrete shield two metres thick is required to cover the whole reactor. This radioactive-proof containment is made of concrete with reinforced steel bars 2-3 inches in diameter. Mr Sunchai claims a containment this thick would be able to withstand a hit by a combat military jet. But the cost of building the containment alone accounts for one-third of the total cost of a nuclear power plant. One of the few nuclear power plants built without a containment was the Chernobyl reactor in Russia. An accident there in April 1986 caused 56 deaths, and the deadly effects of the resultant spread of radioactivity are still being felt today, 21 years later. The real predicament of a nuclear option is not in the technology, but in how to deal with spent fuel. Known to be highly carcinogenic, U-235 must be encased in radioactive-proof containers. Even the tiniest bit of direct exposure can lead to death. Fuel installation must only be done by machine and must be carried out underwater. A bundle of nuclear fuel rods can be used for about three years. Though this is recyclable, only two-thirds of the spent fuel can be reused. Before the waste can be sent to a processing plant, the spent fuel must be stored in the spent-fuel pond for 10 years. Another challenge for countries with nuclear power plants is finding a completely secure site to dump the final radioactive waste which can no longer be reused. This waste cannot simply be left the way it is. It must be mixed with resin and coated with concrete before being disposed of in a highly secured area. Japan buries its radioactive waste in a mountain core. The United States has a plan to bury over 47,000 tonnes of radioactive waste - which is currently kept onsite at the plants - at an underground site in the remote Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It is believed that radioactivity from the waste will take 10,000 years to completely dissipate. "Building a nuclear power plant is not that difficult," says Mr Sunchai. "Operating it is another matter altogether." Also, the safety standard for nuclear technology must be drafted with a mindset of the utmost pessimism. "We [nuclear engineers] are people who believe that accidents will happen, so our duty is to prevent them. The more we fear, the better the safety standard will be," the professor says. He wonders, however, whether the easy-going attitude which characterises the nature of many Thai people, will go well with the super-precise requirements of nuclear technology. The lack of insurance is another point to consider. When it comes to a nuclear power plant, the government would be the sole responsible agency for all liability costs, as no insurance company will offer a policy to cover a private operator of a nuclear power plant, he says. "In a nutshell, running a nuclear power plant is very much about integrity. Operating companies must be ethical and uphold a high standard [of safety regulations] even though that may translate into lower profits." Nuclear power became a mainstream energy source in 1950. Currently there are 442 reactors in 32 countries generating around 15% of the world's electricity. It has grown to become a major source of energy in industrialised countries, comprising 80% of power supply for France and 30% for the rest of the European Union, 20% for the United States and 40% for Japan. Developing countries with spectacular economic growth such as China and South Korea have started to try and tap into this technology to meet their rapidly rising needs for energy. Vietnam is on the way to building its first nuclear power station, to fuel its industrial growth and sell surplus electricity to neighbours. Decharut Sukkamnoed, a lecturer in economics at Kasetsart University, is concerned about Thailand's adoption of nuclear as an energy option. "The government is simply deciding its policy on the basis of electricity cost. But we don't know whether the figures cited can be trusted. We do not know the total cost of the nuclear option, including the construction cost, with its high safety standard and waste treatment requirements," Mr Decharut says. According to EPPO calculations, the electricity produced via nuclear generation would cost 2.08 baht per unit, compared to 2.12 baht from coal and 2.29 baht from gas. "The big question is," asks Mr Decharut, "can anyone put their trust in our safety standards?" © Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2006 ***************************************************************** 44 Guardian Unlimited: France Wrestles With Its Own Decline From the Associated Press Saturday April 14, 2007 6:31 PM By JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press Writer PARIS (AP) - Wars and weather have left few scars on Paris' Arc de Triomphe. Commissioned by Napoleon to celebrate his victories, the 15-story tower of bone-white stone stands as an eternal monument to French glory, a time when Europe trembled before this nation's might. The national mood now, as France enters the final week before Sunday's presidential election, is far less exultant. To Roland Perrossier, whose great-great grandfather fought for Napoleon, the arch has become a symbol of decline. ``It's a feeling of lost glory,'' said Perrossier, sheltering under the arch from a spring squall. ``The French have lost the aura they once had, and France - barring a few small exceptions - no longer occupies the place it used to internationally.'' Philippe Souleau, a history teacher shepherding a party of schoolchildren, was gloomier still: ``France no longer has military strength worth speaking of. It is no longer economically competitive, and all this means is that it has become a second-tier nation internationally and diplomatically. Its voice is no longer heard by all.'' It seems a strange verdict on a nation that has just demonstrated the world's fastest train on rails (357.2 mph) and has co-produced the world's biggest airliner (up to 853 passengers). France has a nuclear arsenal and a veto on the U.N. Security Council. Its military still sees action in the African corners of its former empire, and plays a critical role in the war on terrorism in the Horn of Africa. From baguettes to Airbuses, French taste and ingenuity are global commodities. And viewed from the flat top of the Arc de Triomphe, the tree-lined, dead-straight boulevards and elegant buildings of Paris are still an inspiring vista. Yet for the French, no word seems too dark to describe their funk. This malaise has translated into a volatile and unsettled election campaign, with surprises and suspense, and led by candidates promising change but none of the shock therapy that may be necessary to revive French fortunes. Incumbent Jacques Chirac's decision, at 74, not to seek re-election ensures that the two-round vote April 22 and May 6 will usher in a new era, no matter who wins. That prospect has energized the electorate: Voter registration is up by percentages not seen in at least three decades. After 12 years of Chirac, France almost certainly will get its first leader born after World War II. It might, in another first, be a woman: the Socialists' motherly, ever-smiling Segolene Royal. Or it may be the right's Nicolas Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant. Or farmer's son Francois Bayrou, who bills himself as the centrist between the two main candidates. With the vote splitting three or more ways in polls, and many voters making their mind up late, no one can confidently predict the winner. But while the face will be new, the problems he or she inherits are not, and have defied solutions before: -The large national debt, proportionately almost the same as the United States', which will limit the new president's room to spend France back into economic and mental health. -An economy that has stagnated at around 1.5 percent annual average growth since Chirac's 2002 re-election while Germany's is recovering and China's and Britain's have leapfrogged ahead. -Unemployment that remains stubbornly above 8 percent and topping 20 percent among the under-25s. That age group led three weeks of riots in 2005 in depressed housing projects. The riots confronted the French with a reality they had long chosen to overlook: of a vast, angry underclass consisting largely of Africans and Arabs distanced from ancestral family values but shut out of the French cultural and economic mainstream. Yet for all those longing for change, many others fear it. After the riots, the government tried to start solving the problem by making it slightly easier for businesses to hire young people. The effort collapsed in a fresh wave of violent protest because it was seen as an attack on job protections secured by France's powerful unions. Nor is much comfort taken from looking overseas. Even though French multinationals are thriving, 64 percent of the French - the highest percentage in the European Union - see globalization as a threat to businesses and jobs, according to a survey last year by Eurobarometer. They worry about losing ground to China and other emerging powers that are active notably in Africa - a region the French have long seen as their own back yard. Chirac sparked a brief uptick in French confidence by going toe-to-toe with President Bush against the war in Iraq. ``It was a moment when France looked at itself in the mirror and found itself beautiful,'' says Emmanuel Riviere of the TNS-Sofres polling agency. But the war went ahead, anyway, and some believe that the strain in relations with Washington was too great. Within the European Union, the French also sidelined themselves by voting against closer integration in 2005. In TNS-Sofres' monthly poll of 1,000 respondents, generally two-thirds say that France's role in the world is weakening. France is hardly alone in struggling to redefine itself in the globalized, post-Cold War world. Britain, too, has had to digest the end of an empire. But French nostalgia for bygone glory and growth seems to hamstring its ability to face the future with confidence. ``In France, there is a particular strain of melancholy,'' political philosopher Chantal Delsol said in an interview. ``The British tell themselves, 'We are no longer a great power, so we will live as a middling one.' But the French don't say that. They say, 'We are intrinsically a great power, so why isn't it working in reality?' For a while we try to shut our eyes, but that doesn't work for long. When reality truly dawns, then the first phase is extreme sadness, and that is the phase we are in now.'' That means voters are in a rebellious mood. That's nothing new - Gen. Charles de Gaulle, the architect of modern France after World War II, once quipped, ``How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 different kinds of cheese?'' But the desire to protest through the ballot box is strong, and could create shocks come election day. As they did in the last presidential elections in 2002 and the referendum on Europe in 2005, millions will likely use their vote, especially in the first round, to shout a loud ``Non!'' to the elite. For some, that will mean turning again to extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who blames French ills on immigration, the surrender of French sovereignty to the European Union, and the elite in general. He would have France rebuild its borders, block immigration and dump the EU's common currency, the euro. In 2002, Le Pen stunned France by beating Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin to make the run-off against Chirac. Le Pen went down to crushing defeat as voters, appalled at the prospect of a far-right nationalist in power, flocked to Chirac's camp. But although Le Pen is now 78, and his fifth campaign is widely expected to die in the first round, his presence has forced Sarkozy to shift further right and woo Le Pen supporters with promises of a ministry to regulate immigration and safeguard France's ``national identity.'' Royal also has played the patriotic card too, having her supporters at her rallies sing the national anthem, ``La Marseillaise,'' and calling for a French flag in every home. That has unsettled some on the left, as has her call for boot camps for young delinquents. French malaise also partly explains the biggest surprise of the race so far - the rise of Bayrou. The former education minister in conservative governments has repackaged himself as a middle-of-the-road alternative to France's traditional left-right divide. Polls place him third but his endorsement in a Sarkozy-Royal runoff could swing the outcome. Should Bayrou himself confound pollsters and make the runoff, many soundings suggest he would win. Bayrou has said he would form a unity government like that in Germany, whose export-driven economic recovery is the envy of France. Whoever wins will have a short honeymoon, followed by legislative elections in June that will determine whether the new president gets a parliamentary majority to implement change. ``Because we have put them off for so long, all reforms are going to be difficult,'' said Delsol. ``It's a pressure-cooker lid: If you let out even a little steam, the whole thing risks exploding.'' Some say, however, that the French depression is overblown and that tweaks, not radical surgery, can turn the situation around. Outgoing Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who avoided major labor reforms but managed to at least trim unemployment, fulminated against ``declinologists'' whose books on France's demise fill stores' shelves. Sarkozy talks of a ``France that is suffering,'' but also insists - and that record-breaking train may be a case in point - that the country ``is never more ready to startle than when one believes it is in decline.'' Optimists take heart from the fact that, while most French tell pollsters their children will grow up worse off than they did, they also make more babies than most other Europeans. And although the French work fewer hours than many, their productivity is on par with America's. France's health services are so good that the British cross the English Channel for treatment. ``The country has suffered psychologically but it would not take much to get it back on its feet,'' Alain Minc, an author, consultant and friend of Sarkozy, said in an interview. ``Come autumn, the mood will be as pink, perhaps excessively so, as it is now excessively black.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 45 Chicago Tribune: Cheney: Nuclear terrorist attack inside the U.S. "a very real threat'' posted: April 15, 2007 Posted by Mark Silva at 10:25 am CDT Vice President Dick Cheney, calling Democratic leaders "irresponsible'' for balking at funding for American combat troops in Iraq while they press the Bush administration for timelines for the withdrawal of forces, insists that there is "a fundamental debate'' going on here. It is, Cheney said in an interview aired today, "whether or not our objective in Iraq is to withdraw, or whether our objective in Iraq is to complete the mission.'' He said most Americans "would prefer the latter.'' Cheney, who had claimed the insurgency in Iraq was in "its last throes'' two years ago, was asked repeatedly about the administration's credibility in an interview that CBS News' Bob Schieffer conducted with the vice president on Saturday and broadcast today on Face the Nation. Schieffer pointed to the perjury conviction of Cheney's ex-chief of staff and close friend, Scooter Libby – whom Cheney said he has not spoken with in the month since the federal jury's verdict – and the newsman pointed to the changing stories of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the firing of federal prosecutors. Is there a credibility problem? "I don’t think so, Bob,'' Cheney said. "Obviously, we've got issues we've got to work through.'' Asked about the observation of some that Cheney himself is a "changed'' man, the vice president said only one thing has changed since he and President Bush assumed office: "9/11.'' And the stakes of terrorist threats that the United States faces today have only increased since then, Cheney said, calling fear of the detonation of a nuclear weapon inside an American city "a very real threat.... It's something that we have to worry about and defeat every single day. '' With the White House inviting Democratic congressional leaders in to talk this week about the $120-billion war spending bill that Bush vows to veto, yet vowing not to negotiate over timelines that Democrats are seeking, Cheney was asked what the purpose of any meeting is. "It's important to have that heart to heart,'' Cheney said. "We're trying to work out procedures to get the bill passed… The process has already moved on far too long…. We need a decision from the Congress.'' He repeated the warning that if Congress sends Bush a bill with timelines, "he'll veto it.'' "I think it's important they know where we stand… I do believe that the positions the Democratic leaders have taken… are irresponsible…. '' Cheney said, accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of flip-flopping -- Reid "has done a complete 180 from where he was, in five months… I think that is irresponsible.'' For his part, Reid has accused the president of being more isolated in his stance on the war than any president since Richard Nixon. "It's a ridiculous notion,'' Cheney said. And he has no doubt that it is the Democrats who will budge on war spending when all is said and done. "I'm willing to bet,'' Cheney said. What happens after a veto? "I think the Congress will pass clean legislation,'' Cheney said. "I think there are enough Democrats on the other side of the aisle… If they don’t have the votes to override the president's veto, they will not leave the troops in the field without the resources they need.'' Asking about the suicide bombing within the Baghdad parliamentary building this week and further deadly bombings over the weekend, Schieffer suggested that things don't appear to be improving. "I think we are making progress,'' Cheney said. " I don’t want to underestimate the difficulty of the task… Just because it's hard doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it… Just because it's difficult or complicated, doesn’t mean that America should withdraw or give up the task…. "It is a global conflict,'' said Cheney, pointing to terrorist attacks around the world and allies such as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf who are counting on the United States to take the lead in the war against terrorism. "If we bail out, what happens to all those folks out there? … Will they have any confidence at all that America will lead the mission?'' Reminded of his "last throes'' assessment, and reminded that so many of the administration's statements about the war have been "incorrect,'' Cheney was asked why anyone should believe the administration now. "We do the best we can with what we know at the time,'' Cheney said. "My statement at the time was that we had just had an election in Iraq… We had three elections in 2005 in Iraq.. I still think, in the broad sweep of history, those will have been the major turning points in the war in Iraq… I think the Untied States of America, at the beginning of the 21st Century, is perfectly capable of winning the fight against these people. "There might have been a time in our history when we could retreat behind the oceans,'' Cheney said. "What happens over there is absolutely vital for U.S. security…Wwe no longer have the luxury of turning our back on that part of the world.'' Asked about Atty. Gen'l Gonzales' planned appearance before Congress in the investigation of the U.S. attorney firings this week, Cheney said: "Al is going to have the opportunity… to go before the Congress. He is a good man…. I have confidence in him. The president has every confidence in him.'' Asked about Scooter Libby, his former chief of staff who was convicted of lying to investigators and a grand jury in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, Cheney made a remarkable admission about someone whom he also considers his "close friend.'' "I have not'' talked to Libby since the trial, he said. "There hasn't been no occasion to do so… I haven't had occasion to do that. "I believe deeply in Scooter Libby… I think this is a great tragedy,'' Cheney said, but with Libby pursuing an appeal of his conviction, "I also am constrained not to discuss it.'' Asked if he feels in any way responsible for what happened to Libby or, as some have suggested, if Libby has become the fall guy for the administration, Cheney said: "Bob, I'm simply not going to get into the case… Bob, the answer is the same… You can ask, but you'll get the same answer.'' Finally, Cheney was asked about the perceptions that he himself has changed in recent years – becoming, as the late President Gerald Ford, Cheney's onetime boss, described as more becoming pugnatious. "I don’t know that I've changed,'' Cheney said. "I'm certainly older than I was when we worked together in the White House… I think the thing that some people mistake for, or categorize as 'Cheney has changed,' is 9/11… and 9/11 did have a remarkable impact on the United States. I deal with it every day. I look at the intelligence reports every day. Just before I came down here this morning, I looked at an intelligence report.'' Today, Cheney says, the threat that the U.S. faces is not box-cutters aboard airliners but the terrorist detonation of a nuclear bomb in the middle of one of its cities. "The fact is that the threat to the United States now of a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities is the greatest threat we face,'' he said. "It's a very real threat. It's something that we have to worry about and defeat every single day. "And we've worked hard now, for going on six years, to do exactly that,'' he said. "We've been successful at defending against further attacks. But it's not easy. It's not dumb luck. It doesn't just happen. It's because we've got a lot of good people who spend a lot of time, devote their entire professional lives, if you will, to this mission. "Now, when you deal with that every day, you can't help but be very serious about the enterprise that we're involved in,'' he said. "And right now, it's my job to be one of those people who worries about that.'' in Global War on Terror | Permalink "the vice president said only one thing has changed since he and President Bush assumed office: "9/11.'' And the stakes of terrorist threats that the United States faces today have only increased since then, Cheney said" I couldn't have said it any better. HEELLLLLOOOO. Posted by: DD | Apr 15, 2007 10:34:25 AM ***************************************************************** 46 Daily Times: Nuclear terrorism chance in Pakistan low: expert Saturday, April 14, 2007 By Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON: Although an act of nuclear terrorism is of very remote probability in Pakistan, controls around various nuclear installations and radiation facilities are enough to deter and delay a terrorist attack. Any modified diversion would be detected early, while a terrorist group will not favour the fabrication of a radiological dispersion, according to a Pakistani expert. Abdul Mannan, director of Transport and Waste Safety, Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority, who spent a period of attachment at the Stimson Centre from November 2006 to February 2007, writes in a report released by the Centre that given the access terrorists now have to science and technology, the threat of nuclear terrorism is no longer fiction but real. Terrorists have the intention to inflict catastrophic damage on human beings, property and the environment. While Pakistan is not considering reprocessing of nuclear materials and hence there may be no need for transportation, the study, based on several low probabilities of sabotage events of spent fuel and high activity sources, shows that an explosion and subsequent fire would cause hundred of deaths and severe damage to surrounding buildings. Whereas in an explosion alone only a few casualties could be expected due to radiation sickness in the area of 200 metres, extensive environmental contamination is to be expected accompanied by potential exposure of thousands of individuals in the downwind zone. The number of people expected to get exposure to unsafe levels of radiation causing late effects leading to cancerous deaths would not only depend on the strength of the radioactive materials but also on the timing and location of the attack. Mannan writes that a personnel reliability programme has to be made an integral part of any nuclear security infrastructure. He records that in Pakistan, a background check is conducted to verify identity, credit history, criminal history, reputation and character of the personnel employed in nuclear facilities. Additionally, a detailed interview to verify background information and elucidate other potential concerns is conducted at the time of employment or when a sensitive task is being assigned. Not listed by the Pakistani expert is the individual’s inclination towards religious extremism of fundamentalism. Mannan maintains that any evacuation/sheltering of communities based on a 360° potential-hazard zone may be adopted instead of a cone shaped zone predicted by the code to eliminate the many associated uncertainties and changing wind directions in real situations. Difficulties are likely to arise in informing members of the public in an urban area where it may not be practicable to evacuate such large numbers, or in a rural situation where individuals may be unaware of the incident and who, scattered about the countryside, may be difficult to locate and advise in time. To dilute the consequences of any successful sabotage event, preplanning is very important through well developed and coordinated efforts of various agencies. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 47 starbulletin.com: Concern rising over uranium at Schofield Vol. 12, Issue 104 - Saturday, April 14, 2007 Funding is the main obstacle to a bill that requires testing the soil for toxins By B.J. Reyes bjreyes@starbulletin.com Revelations in the past few years that depleted uranium was used at Schofield Barracks as far back as the 1960s has state lawmakers pushing a proposal to find out how prevalent the chemical agent remains today. House Bill 1452 would require the Department of Health to conduct quarterly tests of soil samples within 500 miles of Schofield to assess for depleted uranium. The proposal is headed to conference committee, where House and Senate lawmakers would work out the differences in their respective versions of the bill and determine how much money to allocate for the project. Original estimates were thought to be about $5 million, but that was for testing air, soil and water at all military sites around the state. The latest version of the bill is focused solely on soil surrounding Schofield, with cost estimates of about $100,000. "It's a fundamental question of public safety and public health," said House Health Chairman Josh Green (D, Keauhou-Honokohau), who introduced the bill in the House. "If there's depleted uranium that our people are being exposed to, we ought to know. "At this point, I trust the military that there's not, but let's just be safe." Depleted uranium, a byproduct of radioactive enriched uranium, has been used by the U.S. military in armor-piercing munitions. Some researchers suspect exposure to depleted uranium, or DU, might have caused chronic fatigue and other symptoms in veterans of the first Gulf War, but there is no conclusive evidence it has. Other studies have linked radiation exposure from depleted uranium to health problems such as scarring and genetic mutations that can lead to cancer, infertility and birth defects, according to the bill. "The health effects of depleted uranium weaponry are complex and at best unknown," said Dr. Lorrin Pang, state health administrator on Maui and a retired Army doctor, in testimony on the bill. He said that when a weapon is exploded, heavier metal particles tend to settle around the site, but other chemical compounds can become airborne. "There is no doubt that much of the weaponized DU will be aerosolized, converted to insoluble forms, travel great distances and possibly inhaled," he said. "This bill should be passed so that we can begin screening for DU weaponry in Hawaii." In August 2005, a contractor performing work in preparation of Schofield's conversion to a Stryker brigade force discovered 15 tail assemblies from spotting rounds made with depleted uranium. Army officials had said the recovered depleted uranium had low-level radioactivity and did not pose a public health threat. They were believed to be remnants from training rounds used in a now-obsolete weapon system used in the 1960s. Environmental, preservationist and anti-military groups have led the call for testing to determine what lingering effects might exist from depleted uranium. "The state has a duty to find out about the presence of DU in our environment and to take action to protect its citizens," said Jim Albertini of the Malu Aina Center for Non-violent Education and Action. "We must not tolerate having any depleted uranium in our environment, nor allow our Hawaii soldiers or citizens to be exposed to DU." As the bill has advanced, the only opposition has come from the Department of Health, but only because of the fiscal implications. The department says it does not have the staffing, instrumentation or money to conduct the soil sampling. State Health Director Chiyome Fukino also testified that the under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sole authority over depleted uranium and its licensees. She added that state monitoring of the issue has been coordinated with the federal agency and the Army. House Bill 1452 has sailed through both chambers with virtually no opposition. As lawmakers determine a funding amount, Green, the House Health chairman and an emergency room physician, said that even the original estimate of $5 million may be worthwhile. "I've seen people run up bills on the order of magnitude of $5 million because they've had cancers and chemotherapy and lost wages," he said. "We're talking about not just our generation if there's depleted uranium, but our children, our grandchildren and 50 generations later. "It might be the best investment we ever made." © Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com ***************************************************************** 48 reviewjournal.com: Nuke dump is dead? Opinion - Nuke dump is dead? Apr. 15, 2007 Don't believe it until we put a stake through project's heart By OSCAR GOODMAN SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL Yucca Mountain is not dead. As much as I would like to see this project buried in its own waste of ineptitude, incompetence and insanity, I disagree with some anti-Yucca Mountain people who've publicly asserted in recent weeks that "Yucca Mountain is dead." Far from it. Yucca Mountain is alive and active. (Or should that be radioactive?) Yucca Mountain, the Department of Energy's proposed site for the geologic disposal of 77,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, located approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has a decades-long history of project delays -- it is nearly two decades behind schedule -- mismanagement and questionable science. As the scientific and political nails keep piling up, ready to slam shut Yucca Mountain in its own permanent casket, it's vital to look at the project's status from a legal perspective. To wit: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (also known as the "Screw Nevada Bill"), sets forth a specific and legally binding process for the development of the nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain. There are only three ways to stop the Yucca Mountain project: First, an act of Congress would terminate Yucca Mountain. Congress would have to vote either to repeal or amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Pro-Yucca forces, including lobbyists and the formidable Nuclear Energy Institute, would most certainly intensify their already extensive pro-Yucca efforts. Second, a presidential order could put a halt to Yucca Mountain. Existing and previous Republican administrations have made it clear how they stand on Yucca Mountain...the faster the project is approved, the better. And while several '08 Democratic presidential candidates have called for alternatives to Yucca Mountain, past Democratic administrations have lacked the political will and wherewithal to recognize the only thing apparently safe to bury at Yucca Mountain is wasted federal funds and public safety. Third, and perhaps of more immediate concern to Nevada's future, is the Department of Energy's June 2008 self-imposed deadline to submit its long-overdue license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the NRC reject the DOE's license application, Yucca Mountain would be dead. As much as I would love to stand along with my fellow Las Vegans at Yucca Mountain's funeral as the mournful skirls of bagpipe music waft across our city, the battle must wage on for a while longer. What then must we do? One, we must put an end to the phrase, "Yucca Mountain is dead." Much like a wounded animal that wages a ferocious fight before finally gasping its last breath, the forces behind Yucca Mountain are flailing their political arms as they reach for the magical June 2008 license application deadline ... as though meeting this date would be indicative of project success. Two, Nevada's public officials must intensify, not relax, their public awareness activities with respect to Yucca Mountain. With thousands of new residents coming to Las Vegas every month, it's important to make sure they are informed about the many issues affecting them now and in the future. Three, as part of Nevada's reaffirmed position against Yucca Mountain, it's imperative we support our state's delegation in its collective efforts to: (a) block potential legislation that would expedite the license application process and construction approval; (b) block efforts to establish interim storage at Yucca Mountain; and (c) block all efforts to increase project funding. Public safety has no half-life. We have a moral obligation to protect future generations from a radioactive Pandora's Box. On-site storage of spent nuclear fuel is the only sensible solution for now, at least until other safe alternatives emerge for the safe, long-term disposal of nuclear waste. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - Stephens Media Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 49 Akron Beacon Journal: NRC license granted to planned uranium enrichment plant 04/13/2007 | Associated Press PIKETON, Ohio - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday issued a construction and operating license for USEC Inc.'s American Centrifuge Plant, which will enrich uranium in southern Ohio. Enrichment is the process by which uranium is made into fuel for nuclear power plants. The license is good for 30 years. USEC, based in Bethesda, Md., is developing the American Centrifuge enrichment project at a former atomic weapons plant in Piketon, about 65 miles south of Columbus. The company estimated the project would cost $2.3 billion, and the plant would employ more than 400 people. "With plans under way for more than 30 new reactors around the country, a stable, domestic source of enriched uranium is vital," said John K. Welch, USEC president and chief executive officer. American Centrifuge is only the second major nuclear facility to be licensed in the past three decades under the NRC's licensing process for uranium enrichment facilities. USEC plans to begin operations at the plant in late 2009, concentrating uranium isotopes into forms that can be used as fuel. The project would also generate tons of radioactive waste - enough over 30 years to fill 41,000 cylinders weighing about 14 tons apiece, according to the NRC. ON THE NET http://www.usec.com/ ***************************************************************** 50 newsobserver.com: Nuclear foes see danger in waste My N&O ZONE Sunday, April 15, 2007 Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill Harris plant starts relicensing process Photo Courtesy of Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Overview of Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Getting involved Read more stories about the efforts of Progress Energy to extend the license for the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant into the middle of the century. What do you think about extending the license for the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant? John Murawski, Staff Writer The Shearon Harris nuclear plant has long drawn scrutiny over the safety of atomic power. But safety concerns are shifting to an emerging issue: the buildup of radioactive waste at the site in volumes never anticipated when the plant began operating 20 years ago. Longtime nuclear critics plan to highlight the nuclear waste quandary during a two-year safety review as Progress Energy seeks to extend the Shearon Harris operating license into the middle of the century. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold the first public meeting on the Shearon Harris relicensing on Wednesday in Apex. The nuclear waste issue is gaining momentum nationwide amid growing concerns that nuclear plants are potential targets for terrorism and sabotage. With no long-term solution in sight for disposing of nuclear waste, many nuclear plants are storing three times as much waste as the temporary pools were originally expected to hold. Unlike the nuclear reactors themselves, the storage sites usually are not heavily fortified against attack. "There's a growing recognition from the point of view of terrorism that the pools are much more vulnerable," said Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington who has studied nuclear waste security. "These pools have some of the highest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet." Progress Energy spokesman Rick Kimble said the Shearon Harris waste pools have multiple safety backup systems and access to the water supply of Harris Lake next to the plant. "These pools are as safe as any storage facility known to man," he said. "We have at least a dozen different methods of putting water back into that pool should you lose the primary [coolant]." By law, relicensing hearings focus narrowly on a nuclear plant's safety components and environmental impacts as the plant ages. But critics are trying to force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to also consider the growing risks of stockpiling radioactive waste near the country's major population centers. Critics say Shearon Harris, about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh, has become Progress Energy's de facto regional nuclear waste depot. The site stores overflow waste from two other nuclear plants in addition to its own. The problem is compounded by the prospect of building a new reactor that would generate more radioactive waste. The site is licensed to store several dozen times as much radioactive material as the reactor core, leading to worries that a major accident involving nuclear waste could be more catastrophic than a nuclear meltdown in the reactor. "They're going to be storing that waste for decades, and they're storing it in the most dangerous way possible," said Jim Warren, director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network in Durham. "The potential consequences are unmatched by any other terrorist target in the United States." Licensing opponents around the country are not seeking to block the 20-year license extension itself but instead to force nuclear plants to thin out the waste pools and store the spent nuclear fuel in reinforced dry casks above ground, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and other experts. The security issue The academy issued a report last year confirming concerns about nuclear waste buildup. State governments have also taken up the issue, fighting relicensing attempts in Vermont, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Nine state attorneys general have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider security risks during relicensing reviews. Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at (919) 829-8932 or john.murawski@newsobserver.com. © Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 51 Chillicothe Gazette: Piketon plant gets license www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Saturday, April 14, 2007 Local man unsuccessfully opposed permit By ASHLEY LYKINS Gazette Staff Writer PIKETON -USEC Inc. received a license Friday to commercially enrich uranium, and with it, a hope that the Piketon plant will be able to provide more jobs. The enrichment plant that used to operate on the Department of Energy reservation was closed years ago, said Elizabeth Stuckle, spokeswoman for USEC. Since then, the company has been doing Energy Department contract work. "We have been preparing the last couple years for this plant," she said. In fact, for the past 21Ľ2 years, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which issued the 30-year license, did environmental and safety reviews. "It studied our technology," said Stuckle. "It studied the impact it would have on the environment. It studied our safety procedures and processes that ensured we would operate safely. The NRC has restrictive regulatory framework." According to a news release from USEC, the American Centrifuge Plant is only the second to be licensed by the NRC to do uranium enrichment in the past 30 years. Stuckle said the plant will enrich the uranium packaged into fuel for commercial plant reactors, which provide electricity to communities. "We make the fuel that nuclear power plants use to power homes all over the country," she said. Existing technology USEC uses - gaseous diffusion in a Paducah, Ky., facility - is old and expensive, she added. "(It) uses a tremendous amount of electricity," she said. "It's very expensive. This new centrifuge plant will use 90 percent less electricity than the existing enrichment plant. This will ensure long-term, reliable and stable enrichment supply for growing nuclear power." The facility got a license to run a demonstration facility more than a year ago, which allows the plant to run an operation in which the company uses centrifuges, but it doesn't withdraw a product to actually sell. The commercial plant will begin its operations in late 2009, stated the press release, and will have about 11,500 machines working in 2012. "This is a great technology because it's modular, which means as markets need growth, we can add on to the plant to meet the market," said Stuckle. Additionally, USEC has been adding jobs for a few years, she said. Right now there are more than 130 people working on the centrifuge program in Piketon, and another 1,100 are employed under the Energy Department's contract work. However, another approximate 270 jobs are expected. "Under the peak of construction, more will be added," she said. Geoffrey Sea, a Pike County individual, filed a petition in opposition to the facility's licensing. He brought up four main issues: a vial of radium went missing from the Piketon site in March, which he said reduces the company's "integrity"; USEC intends to store commercial spent fuel rather than build an enrichment plant, using the license "to lobby for congressional subsidies and a conversion of the project into a storage facility"; it is in a financially detrimental state, which is evident in "articles published in the nuclear trade press" last month; and a prehistoric Indian mound, as well as headwaters of Forked Tongue Creek nearby, was "intentionally destroyed" by the Energy Department in 1979 in "preparation of the centrifuge site." Sea's petition had support from the Ohio Environmental Council, The Ohio Sierra Club, as well as the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group. However, Stuckle said the NRC dismissed the petition. Besides the radium bar concern, she said the other issues had been brought up by Sea previously. "The NRC found that petition to be without merit," she said, adding the missing radium bar isn't related to USEC. "Of course, that has nothing to do with USEC. That was DOE's problem." (Lykins can be reached at 772-9376 or via e-mail at anlykins@nncogannett.com) Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 52 washingtonpost.com: Proposed Nuclear Waste Site Could Be Toxic Issue for Some Candidates By Chris Cillizza And Shailagh Murray Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page A02 Joining ethanol in the pantheon of complex energy issues that 2008 presidential candidates must address is Yucca Mountain, the proposed burial site for nuclear waste in the Nevada desert. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has vowed to thwart plans to deposit waste at Yucca Mountain as long as he's in office, but the issue remains a big one with Nevada voters. And now that the state has moved its 2008 caucuses near the front of the nominating calendar, Yucca is an issue that would-be presidents can't ignore -- and a few of the candidates are squirming. At the top of the list: former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), who opposed Yucca in 2000, supported it in 2002 and now opposes it again. Candidates who weren't around for the Senate's 2002 debate have more wiggle room on the issue, a tricky one because the waste is now stored around the country -- including in another early-primary state, South Carolina, home to an estimated 37 million gallons of liquid waste at the Savannah River Site. What follows is a survey of the 2008 field, from those like Edwards, who have -- shall we say -- a "mixed" record on the issue, to the stalwart opponents and one proponent of making Yucca a nuclear waste destination point. Presidential Funding Cheat Sheet By the end of today, everyone running for president in 2008 will have filed a complete record with the Federal Election Commission of the money they raised and spent over the first three months of the year. Amid the numbing flood of numbers, some matter more than others. Here's the Fix's cheat sheet on what to watch for: · Burn rate. Remember the old adage, "It takes money to make money"? Well, it's particularly true in politics, where candidates scream about the tens of millions they raised in the first quarter but whisper when it comes to how much they spent to raise it. Political pros call it the "burn rate"; subtract the total amount raised from the total amount spent to raise it. High burn rate = bad. · Primary vs. general election donations. With nearly every top-tier candidate forgoing public financing, their reports will include not only money collected for the primary but also cash they've gathered for the general election. Under campaign finance rules, an individual can donate $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 more for the general election. The catch? A candidate can't spend general election contributions unless and until he or she becomes the nominee. · Staff and consultant costs. During the 2000 presidential election, it seemed as though Al Gore had every consultant in the Democratic Party on retainer. George W. Bush, by contrast, sought to keep costs low by depending on a relatively small group of professional advisers. Keep an eye on which campaigns are the most top-heavy in terms of staff salaries and consultant costs; it's a good indicator of where there may be too many cooks in the kitchen. R&B Primary Celebrity endorsements are all the rage in politics these days. Take soulful songstress Macy Gray, who in the liner notes for her new album, "Big," writes, "Elect Barak Obama in 2008." Spelling aside (it's "B-A-R-A-C-K"), the decision by the pop star to weigh in on the presidential race speaks volumes about how politics somehow became cool again. Need more evidence? Rapper/producer Timbaland opened up his Florida home last month for a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). 15 days: Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) has said he will decide sometime next month whether to challenge Sen. Gordon Smith (R) in 2008. After initially ruling out a bid, DeFazio is reluctantly reconsidering a run. Wonder if it had anything to do with a poll commissioned by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that showed DeFazio ahead of Smith 42 percent to 38 percent? 116 days: The butter cow, fried Oreos and presidential candidates as far as the eye can see. Yup, it's the Iowa State Fair! The festivities run for 11 days starting Aug. 9. © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 53 UPI: Analysis: Uranium price surge to continue United Press International - Energy - Analysis Published: April 13, 2007 at 2:54 PM By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent WASHINGTON, April 13, 2007 (UPI) -- The price of uranium has jumped nearly 19 percent since April 2 in a rush led by supply instability, constant and planned increase in demand, and investors looking to gobble up supply before the price spikes again. The nuclear industry isn't worried its fuel stock will price them out of competition with other electricity generators, however, and the mining industry is reaping the new incentive to dig for more, which would loosen the belt in the current tight market. But a significant amount of expected supply is being delayed from entering the market after flooding in the world's largest mines, and experts say the price will continue to rise. Water poured into Cameco Corp.'s Cigar Lake mine in Saskatchewan last April and October. Because of the flooding, the uranium mine will be closed for some time, and it's going to keep an estimated 18 million tons of uranium from getting to the market for another three years, according to Nuclear Engineering International. Worldwide production of uranium is about 100 million pounds annually. "You could see that the trend in prices has been up for several years or more now, but it really accelerated after that flood," said Jeff Combs, president of The Ux Consulting Co., a Roswell, Ga., uranium analyst. "At that time price was $56 (a pound), so it's doubled in a six month period." Uranium was $113 a pound April 9, up from $95 a pound April 2, Combs said. (Ux publishes prices every Monday.) Uranium prices hovered at or below $10 a pound during the 1980s and 1990s, following a market that relied on crutches. Nuclear energy was born from the search for nuclear weapons, and governments controlled the trade because of proliferation concerns. Prices were high in the 1970s, artificially bolstered by government contracts. Inventories started to build as supply exceeded demand, especially when weapons-grade uranium was blended down. This depressed prices and reduced incentives to explore and produce more. Nuclear energy is on a rebound. Thirty new reactors are expected to come online worldwide in the next 15 years, including in the United States. Currently, 435 nuclear reactors in 30 countries feed 16 percent of the world's electricity. Those reactors -- including 103 in the United States -- consume about 180 million pounds of uranium a year. Most uranium is sold on the spot market instead of in long-term contracts. Combs said spot sales are on pace for 25 million pounds this year, "which isn't as much as the previous couple years but still a decent amount of material." Suppliers "really didn't want to peg a price for delivery," he said, "because the market was moving so fast and they thought it was going to continue to move a lot." "In this type of environment, which you can call an extreme bull market or extreme sellers market, sellers are loath to peg a price out there; they're afraid of leaving some money on the table as the market's moving pretty quickly," Combs said. With that in mind, speculators are trying to scoop up deals before the next increase. "You look at the situation where you have supplies already under pressure because of inadequate expansion of production, and on top of that you have the hedge funds and investment funds jumping in buying it, and then you have these mishaps, the floods and stuff, so ... an already fragile market is getting hit on both supply and demand side, and that's just really sending prices through the roof," Combs said. One would think mining companies are rushing to find more uranium to sell at these hot prices -- both at today's and last year's take. And they are, with some trepidation. "Certainly these kinds of pricing make those very attractive propositions to produce more uranium," said Preston Chiaro, chief executive of energy at global uranium mining and exploration firm Rio Tinto. It has many prospects for increasing current mining production and new exploration, though its Ranger mine in Australia recently flooded from massive storms. Chiaro said he doesn't see any new large supply sources delivering to the market for the next five to 10 years. "My thoughts are on the one hand I'm smiling because I sell onto these markets," though most of Rio's contracts are long term, he said, "so we won't see the benefits for the pricing for some time." "This sort of volatility in the market makes me a bit nervous," Chiaro said, "because like anything else that rises this quickly there's the risk, of course, that it could drop very quickly. And that's in no one's best interest." Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. nuclear field's trade arm, said the industry isn't worried. "We believe that there will be adequate supplies of uranium for the next five or 10 years and well into the future," Singer said. "I don't see a shortfall of uranium impacting the direction toward new nuclear power plants." Ux's Combs said market conditions are ripe for the cost of uranium to increase more. "I think it's going to continue to climb, (but) I think the market may take a breather because it shot up so much," Combs said. "I don't think it's necessarily the high point in price." -- (e-mail: energy@upi.com) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Tonawanda News: LANDFILL: CURE to meet this week Published: April 15, 2007 01:05 am Meeting to focus on Army Corps of Engineers proposed plan for the Town of Tonawanda landfill By Dan Miner/minerd@gnnewspaper.com The Tonawanda News The grassroots City of Tonawanda group CURE — Clean Up Riverview’s Environment — has set its next meeting about Town of Tonawanda landfill. The meeting will focus on the proposed plan issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the landfill, which recommends no action for radioactive materials that fall within Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, said City of Tonawanda Councilman and CURE co-chair Rick Davis. It will be hosted by CURE co-chairs, though other city officials have been invited. “We’re hoping to draw up some support in order to get the landfill fully remediated of all nuclear waste,” Davis said. “And anything else will be unacceptable.” The meeting will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday at the Tonawanda High School Auditorium. Residents who attend can expect to be informed of issues CURE co-chairs have with the plan so they know what questions to ask at the April 25 meeting hosted by the Army Corps to hear comments on the proposed plan, Davis said. Meanwhile, Mayor Ron Pilozzi also has been busy formulating comments on the proposed plan with City Engineer Jason LaMonaco, and will likely send those to the Army Corps this week. “My feeling is that a lot of concerns of the individuals along Hackett Drive could be ameliorated if they had testing done along that fence line,” Pilozzi said. “If I lived along that fence line, what’s going to give me that warm fuzzy feeling inside? The only thing I know of is testing on my property.” Pilozzi’s comments will likely echo that concern, he said. The 90-day public comment period, which began March 26, will end in late June, and is being held for the purpose of input on the proposed plan to be reflected in the Corps’ final record of decision. Contact reporter Dan Miner at 693-1000, ext. 115. © 2007, Tonawanda News 435 River Road; North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Phone: (716) 693-1000 Fax: (716) 693-0124 Email news tips and Greater Niagara Newspapers: Amherst, NY | Lockport, NY | Medina, NY | N. Tonawanda, NY | Niagara Falls, NY | Grand Island, NY ***************************************************************** 55 Telegraph: US groups pull out of Sellafield bid By Sylvia Pfeifer, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 11:45pm BST 14/04/2007 Two of the leading candidates vying to take over the Ł15bn-plus contract to manage and clean up Sellafield, the UK's biggest nuclear site, have pulled out less than two weeks after making it onto the shortlist. Energy Solutions and Jacobs Engineering pulled out last week. The two American companies said they wished to focus instead on the upcoming sale of the Magnox reactor units of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and other contract competitions, including the bid to manage the Drigg low-level nuclear dump. The withdrawals increase the chances of a British company ultimately being among the winning team. Four teams are now left in the race, two with a British interest: a consortium made up of Serco, the British support services group, with Bechtel, the US contractor, and BWXT Nuclear Services UK; Britain's Amec, in partnership with Washington Group International and Areva, the French decommissioning specialist; a consortium of Fluor and Toshiba; and CH2M Hill of the US. Sellafield in Cumbria is home to most of the UK's radioactive waste, as well as the now defunct Windscale and Calder Hall reactors. The lucrative contract will focus on decommissioning these reactors and cleaning up the waste, but the winner will also run the site's remaining commercial operation, the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will issue invitations to tender later this year with a view to announcing the winner by the middle of next year, although a deal could be reached significantly sooner. The Sellafield contract represents the biggest element in a Ł70bn bill for closing down and cleaning up the first generation of nuclear installations. Separately, a large group of both trade buyers and private equity groups are understood to have expressed an interest in the Project Services division of BNFL. Project services looks after the equipment monitoring radiation safety and security for Sellafield and the old Magnox nuclear reactors. NM Rothschild, the investment bank advising on the sale, is expected to issue an information memorandum shortly. Among the trade buyers expected to take a look are British support services groups Serco and Babcock International, as well as Jacobs Engineering Group. Private equity groups, including Barclays Capital, are also interested. However, any bid by a private equity group is expected to face opposition from unions. Amicus has already raised concern at the prospect of job losses in the event that a private equity buyer is successful. The union is also concerned that the business, which employs some 700 people, bundles together several businesses, some of which should not be sold off. Industry analysts said they thought it unlikely the Government would agree to sell such a politically sensitive asset to private equity. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms ***************************************************************** 56 CBC News: Chesterfield Inlet residents want a say in uranium mine plans Last Updated: Friday, April 13, 2007 | 6:26 PM CT Residents in Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut, want to be kept informed about a proposed uranium camp west of Baker Lake, many said at a public information session this week. A week-long tour of public meetings in communities around the Kivalliq region ended Friday with sessions in Repulse Bay and Coral Harbour. The meetings, organized by the Kivalliq Inuit Association, provided residents with information about uranium mining, including potential health risks to people and animals. Chesterfield Inlet residents raised a number of concerns Wednesday at an information session on uranium mining issues. (Marija Dumancic/CBC) Turnout was high for Wednesday's session in Chesterfield Inlet, a community of about 400 people on the west shore of Hudson Bay. Resident Andre Tautu said he wants community members involved from the very beginning in any mining project. "I think I would want them — for Chesterfield Inlet — to get involved in their decision-making … namely on the traditional knowledge studies," he said. Tautu said he has environmental concerns about transporting supplies by boat and barge in and out of the proposed Areva Resources uranium camp west of Baker Lake. "If there should be an accident, either coming down from Baker or coming up from south with toxic material, whatever, our concern is that we may lose fish, seal, beluga …" he said. Barry McCallum, Areva's manager of Nunavut affairs, said community members will certainly be consulted if the project goes ahead, since the company would be transporting 70 million litres of fuel through Chesterfield Inlet. The details of how that fuel will be transported have not yet been worked out, McCallum said. "But no matter how it's done, the material will be coming past Chesterfield Inlet … and this community will have to have input well in advance of our final decision so that they're part of that decision," he said. Areva has promised community consultations before any barges go through Chesterfield Inlet, McCallum said. Residents at the meeting also raised concerns about jobs. Charles Issaluk said while some people in town are opposed to uranium mining, he feels the work created would help local youth and keep them out of trouble. Copyright © CBC 2007 ***************************************************************** 57 Hindustan Times: India receives 60 metric tonnes of Russian enriched uranium Indo-Russia partnership meets long-term interests: Putin April 14, 2007 India has received first part of the promised supply of 60 metric tonne of Russian enriched uranium fuel for the two units of Tarapur Atomic Power plants, according to top sources at the Department of Atomic Energy. The first consignment of 20-25 metric tonnes of uranium, which has arrived from Russia at the Nuclear Fuel Complex of DAE, will be delivered to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) at an appropriate time, DAE official said. The current fuel supply to the units I and II of the US built reactors (in 1960s) would last for eight months in one unit and for 18 months at the other. "With Russian supply of 60 metric tonnes of uranium, the plants will have fuel for next five years and run smoothly," Executive Director, Corporate Planning, NPCIL, S Thakur said. NPCIL had recently renovated and modernised 35-year-old TAPS Unit I and II which could run for next five years "smoothly", he said. TAPS I and II, which were shut down in October last year, were reconnected to the Western Grid on February 16 after undergoing renovation, modernisation and safety upgradation. Both the renovated units got the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board's licence to operate for five years from February 16, 2006 and therefore, the supply by Russia is timely. TAPS I and II are boiling water reactors and need low enriched uranium as fuel. Last month the Russian Prime Minister during his visit to New Delhi accounced his country's decision to supply 60 metric tonnes to TAPS to enable it to function with "safety". ***************************************************************** 58 KVII Online: Pantex lawsuit update More employees have been listed in a lawsuit against BWXT Pantex that regards unpaid overtime By Natasha Long Posted: Saturday, April 14, 2007 at 10:39 PM AMARILLO -- More employees have been listed in a lawsuit against BWXT Pantex that regards unpaid overtime. Attorney Michael Warner, who represents the Pantex employees, said around 27 employees are now listed on the lawsuit, but he said Pantex has another issue to deal with because Monday at midnight the contract that Pantex has with its security guards ends, which means they could strike. Warner said if the negotiation between Pantex and the guards ends poorly his clients, some of which are supervisors, will be the ones that fill in those positions, and he is interested in how Pantex will be pay his clients if that happens because he said the guards make more than their supervisors. “It’s just a title so BWXT can beat these guys out of what they’re owed, and they know it,” he said. “They know exactly what it is and the more research we do the more we’re finding this out.” Some fire fighters have opted-in the lawsuit. Stacy Grant, a Pantex Employee, said she was a Fire Lieutenant for Pantex, but said her title as Lieutenant held little authority. “It’s very hard to administer the rules when you really don’t have the authority that you need to be able to administer the rules,” she said. “You’re in a precarious situation everyday at your job, and it’s very hard to function that way. Jowell Bullard, a Pantex Employee, said if the guards decide to walk he and other Lieutenants and Officers would have to fill in. “Being that we are going to do the jobs that the guards are doing, which we’ve done prior to getting promoted anyway,” he said. “It just goes to show and reinforces our issue all the better.” A BWXT Pantex spokesman was contacted and said Pantex has no public comment at this time. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************