*****************************************************************
12/13/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.296
*****************************************************************
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 [DU-WATCH] War Plans against Iran
2 Guardian Unlimited: EU, Iran Launch Next Phase in Nuke Talks
3 Xinhua: Iran says nuclear future up to EU
4 Kommersant: Russia and Iran will Continue Nuclear Cooperation
5 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Weighs Nuclear Talks Pullout
6 Korea Herald: N.K. says reconsidering nuke talks
7 Xinhua: DPRK condemns US "false propaganda"
8 Korea Times: Bush Snubs Carter's Proposal
9 Korea Times: North Korea's Nuclear Program Grave Concern
10 US: [NukeNet] RELEASE:Gov & Safety Officials Must Take Action on
11 US: MOJO: Giving the Gift of War
12 US: Las Vegas SUN: Group to watch White House
13 US: Boston Globe: Opinion / Op-ed / MIT's role in missile test fraud
14 US: Lexington Herald-Leader: The $25 billion question: Will it work?
15 Bellona: Russian secret services block sociological study
16 Guardian Unlimited: State Dept. Opposes New Term for ElBaradei
17 Hi Pakistan: KRL out of bounds for IAEA -->
18 Daily Press: It Wins Wars -- But at What Cost?
19 Guardian Unlimited: US tapped ElBaradei calls, claim officials
20 AU ABC: Downer maintains his silence on UN job
21 AU ABC: Downer turned down nuke job offer: report.
NUCLEAR REACTORS
22 US: [PUBCIT_PRESS] NRC to hold informal hearings about reactors
23 US: [CMEP] Court Allows NRC to Dilute Reactor Licensing Process
24 US: Platts: Fenoc target of federal jury investigation
25 HindustanTimes.com: ‘Nuclear energy only answer to power shortage’
26 US: Times Argus: Officials to limit crowd at NRC hearing
27 China Daily: Three firms vie to design, build two reactors
28 SIFY: N-desalination plant at Kalpakkam in 2006
29 Japan Times: Widow seeks damages over Monju leak
30 US: Boston Globe: Nuclear plants say they deserve credit for 'green'
31 US: NY Newsday: Nuke plant: Pump replacement will have to wait
32 US: Biden: Delaware Delegation Continues to Push NRC for Answers
33 US: Vermont Guardian: VY inspection details to be aired Thursday
34 Mainichi Interactive: Residents inspect site of Japan's worst nuclea
35 US: NRC: News Release - 2004-158 - NRC Advisory Subcommittee to
36 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
37 Business Day: SA awards nuclear contract to Mitsubishi
NUCLEAR SAFETY
38 [DU-WATCH] 6000 TONS OF DU DUMPED IN IRAQ
39 [DU-WATCH] AFP: "Throw Away Soldiers"
40 Bellona: First nuclear submarine dismantled in the frames of
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
41 [NYTr] Union Flag Flies over Dublin Marking Nuke Info-Sharing
42 Inyo Register: DOE to miss Yucca deadline
43 US: Nebraska State Paper: NU Faces Payment of Millions For Landn Cle
44 UPI: Sen. Reid's new power may shut down Yucca -
45 US: fremontneb.com: University may need $6 million to clean up radio
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
46 Seattle Times: Opinion: Bodman at Energy: some early advice
47 Seattle Times: Fate of Hanford nuclear waste in flux
48 Seattle Times: Hanford initiative spurs legal rematch
49 SPI: New Hanford battle begins, triggered by voter-passed initiative
50 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Shipping plans deserve praise
51 Las Vegas SUN: Test Site may be center for U.S. documents
OTHER NUCLEAR
52 [du-list] DU in the News dec 14th '04
53 IPS-English CANADA: Tiptoeing Around Weapons in Space
54 Lexington Herald-Leader: Strategic-missile threat has yet to emerge
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [DU-WATCH] War Plans against Iran
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:59:53 -0600 (CST)
The Iran Regime Change: No Israel Involvement US Plan
The US National Security Council started preparation of a military
assault against Iran in order to annihilate nuke potential and change
anti-American clerical regime, London-based Arab-language
newspaper !'A-Shark al-Ausat!( has informed.
According to the newspaper, a group of the US experts employs former
top CIA officer David Kay,
former head of an inspection mission to Iraq, retired Gen. Sam
Gardner, an author of occupation strategy in Iraq in the eighties
Kennet Folk, Washington Strategic Center !'Rokings!( leading
specialist, former top Pentagon official Kennet Baykon and others.
The plan concludes three major activities:
h Twenty four hours on bombing and destroying main Iran airbases and
concentrated forces of the !'Islam Revolution Guards!(
h Missiles and bombs while then assault nuclear objects and non-
conventional arms plants-125 objects
h Occupation of Iran by the US ground forces located in the
neighboring Gulf States, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iraq.
As !'A-Shark al-Ausat!( noticed, this is one of Iraq-like scenarios to
convert Iran into a friendly country,
A significant difference is avoiding occupation of Tehran and huge US
military presence in Iranian capital. Just a few commandos corps
would be needed to change a government.
Two weeks have been supposed to execute a regime change plan. !K..
Information on deliberating possibilities of Iranian military
resistance, Iraqi Shiites uprising and deploying Israel to destroy
Iranian nuke objects have most recently been discussed at the group
working meeting. However, Israel!&s involvement is much less
realistic !K because of !'Israelis!& understanding of own ammunition
shortage to completely destroy all Iranian nuclear objects!(.
(Non-official translation)
Source:
http://cursorinfo.co.il/novosti/2004/12/11/iran/
11.12.2004 17:11
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: EU, Iran Launch Next Phase in Nuke Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday December 13, 2004 6:31 PM
AP Photo LON103
By CONSTANT BRAND
Associated Press Writer
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Germany, Britain and France launched
new negotiations with Iran on Monday to seek ways for Tehran to
abandon its alleged nuclear weapons program in return for aid to
build up its civilian energy program.
The agreement for new talks came after 90 minutes of
negotiations between Iran's top nuclear negotiator and the
foreign ministers of Europe's ``big three'' nations.
Iran reached a provisional deal with the Europeans last month to
suspend its enrichment and related activities. The International
Atomic Energy Agency is monitoring the suspension.
``We are now able to move forward to a next phase,'' said
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, adding it should lead to
``a longer-term arrangement to provide objective guarantees that
Iran's nuclear program can only be used for civilian purposes.''
The United States believes Iran has a secret program to build
nuclear weapons and has been lobbying to refer Iran to the U.N.
Security Council, which could impose sanctions. President Bush
has labeled Iran part of an ``axis of evil'' with North Korea
and prewar Iraq.
Iran has denied the allegations, saying its program is meant to
generate electricity.
Iran hopes - through negotiations with the EU - to obtain
European nuclear technology and economic aid. The Europeans have
pushed Iran to declare a permanent halt to uranium enrichment,
but Iran repeatedly has refused to comply.
Under the agreement with the three European nations, Iran is
committed to providing objective guarantees that its nuclear
program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. The European side
is to provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and
economic cooperation.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
3 Xinhua: Iran says nuclear future up to EU
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2004-12-13 15:45:12
BEIJING, Dec. 13 -- Officials in Iran say future nuclear
activities depend on upcoming negotiations with the European
Union. A new round of talks with Britain, France and Germany
start later today in Brussels.
Head of delegation, Hassan Rowhani, says Iran will withdraw
if discussions reach a dead end. He'll meet foreign ministers
from the European trio, as well as EU foreign policy chief
Javier Solana.
Last month, Iran reached an agreement with the three
countries to suspend nuclear enrichment, while negotiating a
long-term settlement with the EU on its nuclear program. The
Europeans have pushed Iran to declare a permanent halt to
enrichment, but Iran has repeatedly refused.
(Source: CCTV.com)
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Kommersant: Russia and Iran will Continue Nuclear Cooperation
New Russia's First Independent Newspaper
[http://www.kommersant.ru]
KOMMERSANT News, DECEMBER 13, 2004
December 13, Nuclear energy is a promising field of Russia and
Iran cooperation, Chairman of the
[http://www.council.gov.ru/index_e.htm] Sergey Mironov,
currently visiting Iran told the journalists in Teheran. He said
Iran was interested in cooperating with Russia in the area of
nuclear energy, [http://www.bbc.co.uk] reports.
--> The United States is concerned with such cooperation, as
well as with Iran’s plans on uranium enrichment. It is afraid
that Teheran may start developing nuclear arms,
[http://www.bbc.co.uk] emphasizes. The
[http://www.europa.eu.int/] is also concerned with Iran’s
nuclear programs.
“Russia cooperates with Iran in the framework of the
international tights, and Moscow is planning to continue the
cooperation,” Mironov emphasized.
In Teheran, according to the results of negotiations of RAO UES
board chairman Anatoly Chubais with Iran's Energy Minister
Habibollah Bitaraf and the head of Tavanir energy company
Muhammad Ahmendi was signed a protocol about organization of
parallel work of the Iran energy system with the United Energy
system of Russia, through Azerbaijan’s energy system.
Let us remind you that the
[http://www.council.gov.ru/index_e.htm] delegation headed by
Mironov began its official visit to Iran on December 11, 2004
and will end it today. In the first day of the visit chairman of
Federation Council met with the chairman of Iran Majlis Ali
Haddad-Adel and the supervisory board chairman Ahmad Jannati.
Today, Mironov will be speaking at the Iran Majlis meeting.
Meanwhile, it became known that the U.S. Security Council is
preparing a mass forces action against Iran in order to
eliminate its nuclear potential and abolish the anti-American
regime. This was reported by the [http://www.echo.msk.ru] radio
station, referring to Saudi As-shark Al-Ausat, published in
London. The edition mentions that the invasion plan was
developed by a group of Pentagon and special services experts.
After the Americans bomb Iran bases their land forces will start
occupying the country. The U.S. military is planning to attack
Iran from the territory of Georgia and Azerbaijan and from Iraq.
Let us remind you that in November, Iran authorities warned the
whole world that if it was attacked it would strike back no
matter what country initiated the attack. Iran government
mentioned that it may direct the strike either at the country’s
territory or at its “interests” abroad.
Let us also emphasize that on November 15, Iran agreed to stop
uranium enrichment completely. After that Iran and the EU signed
the final agreement, and Teheran agreed to stop all activity
which is considered dangerous by the international community.
© 1991-2004 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Weighs Nuclear Talks Pullout
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday December 13, 2004 3:01 PM
TOKYO (AP) - North Korea is re-examining its participation in
six-nation talks over its nuclear programs because of what it
alleged were U.S. efforts to bring down the regime in Pyongyang,
North Korea's official news agency said Monday.
Three rounds of six-nation talks aimed at persuading North
Koreans to halt weapons development have taken place since last
year but without a breakthrough. North Korea boycotted a fourth
round that was scheduled for September and analysts say
Pyongyang was probably holding out, betting on a change in the
White House.
According to the state-run news agency, KCNA, a North Korean
Foreign Ministry spokesman denounced Washington for its ``smear
campaign'' and accused the Bush administration of trying to
topple the North's reclusive regime run by leader Kim Jong Il.
``The U.S. frantic smear campaign against the DPRK reminds us of
an eve of its aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. This
heightens our vigilance,'' the official said, referring to the
country by its official name, the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea.
``Under this situation the DPRK is compelled to seriously
reconsider its participation in the talks with the U.S., a party
extremely disgusting and hateful,'' the ministry spokesman said.
North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in
2003 after Washington accused it of running a clandestine
nuclear program and cut off free oil shipments promised under a
1994 deal in exchange for a freeze of the North's nuclear
activities.
The two Koreas, Japan, China, Russia and the United States have
since tried to resolve the crisis with talks in Beijing - to no
avail.
U.S officials recently met with North Korean officials in New
York to convey Washington's readiness to resume the negotiations
and its commitment to resolve the issue diplomatically. KCNA
said the talks were held on Nov. 30 and Dec. 3.
Monday's KCNA report appeared to indicate Pyongyang's reluctance
to continue with talks - reiterating a decision announced
earlier this month to hold off on nuclear negotiations until the
United States changed its ``hostile'' policy toward the country.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
6 Korea Herald: N.K. says reconsidering nuke talks
The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
2003-11-18 ±è´ë¸® ¼öÁ¤ -->
[http://www.voiceware.co.kr]
From news reports
North Korea is seriously reconsidering its role in talks on its
nuclear plans because of what it sees as a concerted campaign to
topple the North's ruling system, the North Korean Foreign
Ministry said yesterday.
The United States had launched a psychological campaign to
persuade people that there was a crisis in the communist North,
including mass defections by generals to China, the ministry
said in a lengthy English-language statement.
"Under this situation the DPRK is compelled to seriously
reconsider its participation in the talks with the U.S., a party
extremely disgusting and hateful," said the statement, published
by the official KCNA news agency. DPRK stands for the North's
official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Although the North used trademark ambiguity in its wording, the
ministry spokesman's comments appeared to be referring to
stalled six-country nuclear talks that involve the two Koreas,
China, Japan, Russia and the United States. The five regional
powers are seeking to persuade the North to ditch its nuclear
weapons ambitions in return for aid and security guarantees.
The latest remarks represented a hardening of Pyongyang's
position since a ministry statement on Dec. 4 saying that the
North would not return to the six-party talks until re-elected
U.S. President George W. Bush had assembled his new team and
Washington had decided its policy.
"Now that the U.S. is trying to shake the backbone of the DPRK,
not content with hurling mud at it, the DPRK is compelled to say
something to the U.S.," Monday's statement said. "The present
situation makes us deplore the fact that the U.S. administration
has only those politicians who are utterly ignorant of the DPRK
to handle its Korean policy," it said.
But an analyst affiliated with South Korea's Foreign Ministry
said the North was not necessarily rejecting the six-party
process, just raising what is a critical concern of the North
Korean leadership.
"There is a message that the United States should not treat the
North's human rights issue at the talks with the same degree of
emphasis as the nuclear issue," said Kim Sung-han of the
Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in Seoul.
To Pyongyang, the U.S. administration's North Korean Human
Rights Act enacted in October is nothing short of an attempt to
dismantle the regime by inducing senior North Koreans unhappy
with the regime to defect, Kim said.
In a rare expression of impatience, South Korean President Roh
Moo-hyun said that, by hanging on to a logic not tolerated
anywhere else in the world, North Korea was not helping its own
cause. "What's really frustrating is that North Korea is too
isolated in the international community," he told a council of
advisers on North Korea policy. But he said Seoul would continue
to encourage the North to open up, "because we have the greater
strength and resources."
On Sunday, Pyongyang said North Korea will not dismantle its
nuclear programs or improve ties with South Korea until
questions about the South's nuclear experiments are clearly
answered.
The U.N. nuclear agency said in November that South Korean
scientists had enriched uranium in 2000 to a level close to what
would be needed for an atomic bomb and had also extracted a
small amount of weapons-grade plutonium in 1982.
"If the South Korean authorities are truly interested in the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a peaceful
reunification of the country, they should explain the truth
about the criminal nuclear activities and immediately stop
nuclear weapons development activities," said Rodong Shinmun,
the North's official newspaper.
In recent weeks there have been persistent rumors in financial
markets and diplomatic circles about possible political changes
in the North, one of the world's most secretive states.
Stories have ranged from the disappearance of portraits and
lapel badges of leader Kim Jong-il to the defection of more than
130 generals to China. The North Korean Foreign Ministry said
Washington had let "reptile media and riff-raff" spread reports
about the portraits and had then floated the story about the
generals.
North Korea's leadership said yesterday its control of the
Stalinist regime remained as "firm as a rock" despite what it
called an escalation in the U.S. drive to overthrow it.
"The system in the DPRK is politically stable and is as firm as
a rock," said the Foreign Ministry statement.
"The smear campaign on the part of the hostile forces aimed at
the collapse of the system in the DPRK is nothing but a
desperate last-ditch effort to destroy the system under which
the leader, the party and the popular masses form a harmonious
whole."
2004.12.14
*****************************************************************
7 Xinhua: DPRK condemns US "false propaganda"
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2004-12-13 16:30:10
PYONGYANG, Dec. 13 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's
Republicof Korea (DPRK) Monday condemned the US recent "false
propaganda and psychological operation" and warned that the DPRK
would reconsider its participation in the talks with the United
States.
"All of the US false propaganda is intended to give
impression that dramatic crisis has occurred in the DPRK. The
campaign aimed to slander the DPRK and finally realize a regime
change. there have, in actuality, gone beyond the tolerance
limit," said a spokesman for the DPRK's Foreign Ministry.
Recently, foreign media reported that portraits of Kim
Jong-il,the DPRK top leader, are no longer displayed in the
DPRK, terming "there is confusion within its leadership."
Meanwhile, the United States said "at least 130 army general
officers and high-ranking officials deserted their units in the
wake of the defection of ordinary people."
"The United States seems to foolishly think that its mean
psychological operation works on the DPRK and it has done
something in its bid to tarnish the image of the DPRK and bring
down its political system," said the spokesman.
"Finding it impossible to topple the DPRK by force as it has
a powerful nuclear deterrent force, the United States faked up
'the North Korean Human Rights Act' and adopted it as its policy
to realize a regime change in it. It has spread sheer lies
through such operation to destabilize its society as massively
smuggling transistors and increasing the hours of broadcasting
of Voice of Free Asia," said the spokesman.
"It is, however, seriously mistaken," he said. "The DPRK's
system is politically stable and is as firm as a rock." Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Korea Times: Bush Snubs Carter's Proposal
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times
By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has offered to visit North
Korea to help resolve the current nuclear crisis over
Pyongyang¡¯s atomic weapons program, but President George W. Bush
is giving no response in a virtual rejection to the suggestion.
In his recently published book, ``Sharing Good Times,¡¯¡¯ Carter
stressed the need for bilateral negotiation between the United
States and North Korea for a peace treaty, telling an episode
when he visited the communist North in 1994.
``At that time this was a mistake for the United States not to
be engaged in direct conversations with Pyongyang,¡¯¡¯ he wrote
in the book, published late last month. ``I believe, in generic
terms, that it¡¯s a mistake for our country to refuse to have
talks with people who are causing serious problems.¡¯¡¯
He has also criticized that the U.S.¡¯ reckless foreign policy,
which boycotted direct talks with North Korea, caused the
stalemate between the two countries.
But Bush¡¯s U.S. administration, which prefers a multilateral
dialogue format to bilateral negotiation, has so far made no
specific comment on the former president¡¯s indirect proposal.
Carter made a visit to Pyongyang as a special envoy of the
Clinton administration in 1994 to arbitrate between the U.S.
president and then-North Korean leader Kim Il-sung.
South Korea¡¯s former president Kim Young-sam was to hold the
first-ever summit with Kim Il-sung in the summer of 1994 through
the good offices of the former U.S. president, but the historic
event did not occur as the North¡¯s leader died on July 8.
jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 12-13-2004 17:20
*****************************************************************
9 Korea Times: North Korea's Nuclear Program Grave Concern
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
US Reconfirms Security Guarantees for NK
By Oh Young-jin Korea Times Correspondent
The following is the abridged text of an interview The Korea
Times had with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly at
the State Department on Monday. _ ED.
Question: Should Seoul expect any changes in U.S. policy toward
North Korea under President Bush¡¯s second term?
Answer: By now it should be clear the South Korean government is
not expecting big changes, unless there is something surprising
by the North Koreans.
We are executing President Bush¡¯s policy with respect to North
Korea. The six-party talks are something Bush personally and
strongly believes in. He is dedicated to a peaceful solution by
diplomatic means.
Part of that is to be patient in the process and recognize that
North Korea has been going for 40 years toward the current
nuclear situation. It may take us a while to resolve that.
Q: Will President Bush try and resolve the North Korean crisis in
his term?
A: I don¡¯t know. The president certainly expects to try to
resolve it. The President feels the six-party talks are a better
way to achieve it. All six countries have a vital interest
associated with the peaceful resolution of the problem. Everyone
will be affected by the problem and everyone will be affected by
the solution. All those involved have stated their commitment to
denuclearize the Korean peninsula.
Question: Can we see the possibility of direct talks between the
North and the U.S.?
A: There have been numerous direct talks within the six-party
context. Secretary Powell met with his (North Korean) Foreign
Ministry counterpart in both international meetings. Powell went
four times but Paek Nam-soon only came twice. Powell met with him
in Brunei two years ago and in Indonesia last summer. We often
directly communicate in New York and in fact, we spoke just last
week. If people think we are going to say, ``We don¡¯t think
(South) Koreans have any interest in this and we will work it out
ourselves,¡¯¡¯ they are incorrect. We recognize there are other
important interests and they need to be handled. Business between
the U.S. and North Korea without broader concerns led us to an
undesirable outcome in the past and we are not going to do that.
Q: How soon do you expect the next round of six-party talks to
take place?
A: I am disappointed it has not happened already. We had a very
strong consensus in June to resume the six-party talks by
September. At the time, the DPRK (North Korea¡¯s official name)
said some positive things and said it was studying our proposals.
We have never gotten a reply. We made it clear that we had some
things we wanted to discuss and inquire about their proposals. In
any event, starting in August, we started hearing excuses for
delaying the process. At first, it said it was waiting for the
American elections to be over. Now that the elections have ended,
we are getting new excuses. It¡¯s a variety of things and it
looks to me that North Korea is dragging its feet. We hope that
we and our partners will convince them it is not in their
interest.
Q: What can North Korea expect to gain from continued
participation in the six-party talks?
A: Everything is in it for North Korea, everything about being
able to feed its people, develop its economy, be recognized as
part of the international community and end the unfriendly
relationship it has with Japan and South Korea. All kinds of
opportunities are possible once the nuclear issues are resolved.
It is not a case in which North Korea has to do everything before
we do anything, but quite the opposite. The words for words and
actions for actions concept is alive and well.
Q: Is the normalization of relations between the two countries
included?
A: That is certainly at the end of it. That is something I think
is more than just the solution of the nuclear issue. There¡¯s
going to have to be a variety of other issues that come along the
path toward full diplomatic relations.
It has been a year and half since President Bush made clear that
security guarantees were available to NK. It will not be
threatened and we certainly have no plan to attack.
Q: Can North Korea expect a non-aggression pact with the U.S.?
A: We need to get to the six-party talks to discuss what kind of
security there will be. We certainly don¡¯t exclude it, just as
the normalization of relations would be at the end of the overall
process, not just the nuclear process. Ending the armistice and
replacing it with a multi-party peace treaty is possible.
Security guarantees would be something that can come sooner.
North Korea will be able to have a very clear view about what
these would be before it begins dismantling its nuclear program.
Q: How do you see North Korean leader Kim Jong-il?
A: As one of a kind. There is no other country that¡¯s
comparable. I was affected when I went to North Korea and talked
to the people. The attitudes of South and North Koreans are
different. North Koreans¡¯ attitudes are out of the past, in
which Korea was a kind of stone. Waves of foreigners come and go
and the stone would roll up and down the beach at the mercy of
other factors. They are in defense crutch waiting for an attack
that has not and will not come. The Army-first policy is holding
back natural development and capabilities of the Korean people.
It has to be persuaded, in a peaceful way, to recognize that its
own interests and opportunities are simply there.
Q: Can North Korea transform under Kim Jong-il?
A: I think it is possible. Kim is not well known and many of the
accusations that he is some sort of crazy person are not correct.
I am not ready to conclude whether Kim is rational or not. It is
quite possible that he is rational. We already see that changes
are starting to occur. But they are on-again, off-again and very
tentative. More confidence could take North Korea down a very
good path.
The fact is that we, along with the allies, given the great
military strengthen of North Korea, are trying to persuade them
that there is a peaceful solution to this problem. That has been
a very long-standing policy, with deterrence on one hand and
persuasion of a different life on the other. What North Korea
needs to understand is that it needs things from outside. It
needs food, fuel and money. It has been short of these items for
a long time. To get what it needs to make itself into a
full-fledged country, it¡¯s going to have to come to some of
compromise. That means ending nuclear weapons and ending a few
other practices that go against their own interests.
Q: Can North Korea sustain itself?
A: It has sustained itself for a longer period than many analysts
believed. It would be a mistake to somehow suggest this is
inherently unstable. There are obvious elements of instability
but North Korea is one of a kind, it has made its way this far
and it would be foolish to make predictions about it any time
soon. The Army-first policy guarantees a kind of built-in
stability.
Q: Has North Korea¡¯s nuclear capabilities changed in the past
two years?
A: They have been working hard to develop nuclear capability.
Q: Would the U.S. change its policy if the North had eight or 10
nuclear bombs instead of one or two?
A: No. Our policy is very well set, which it is to resolve the
issue. We didn¡¯t know four years ago, two years ago nor now
exactly how many nuclear bombs it has. The policy is the same.
North Koreans cannot eat the bombs. It said different things
about selling them although all of its recent statements have
claimed it will never sell them under any condition.
So be it six or 12 nuclear bombs, nuclear bombs in the abstract
are very unusable. That was why the U.S has fewer nuclear bombs
than it used to 10, 20 or 30 years ago. The nuclear bombs need to
have delivery systems. They are complicated and not stable and
need to be worked on. I am convinced it has some or has the
capability to have more. But that makes us all the more
determined to have a peaceful solution and not to accept NK as a
nuclear power, either acknowledged or unacknowledged.
Q: Is North Korea capable of nuclear testing?
A: It is certainly possible. They have not done so. I think it is
not at all certain that they will do so. At their current
technological level, it is not essential in their nuclear program
to have an atmospheric or underground nuclear weapons test. If
they choose to do so, it would be a matter of additional concern.
Those of us who firmly believe North Korea has nuclear weapons,
certainly more than one, would be perhaps disappointed but not at
all surprised.
Q: Would it lead the U.S. to mount surgical attacks?
A: I am an official and we can¡¯t speculate on a hypothetical
situation. Who would be the most disappointed if North Korea
conducted nuclear tests? A lot of South Koreans would be very
disappointed and a lot of Chinese, 1.3 billion people, would be
very disappointed. I don¡¯t think that we want to see just how
that disappointment will manifest itself.
Q: How do you respond to President Roh¡¯s recent remarks?
A: It is the nature of the democratic president to say a lot of
things. He is a very interesting person. He epitomizes a kind of
change that has occurred in South Korea. He is a democratic
politician and was elected by the people of South Korea but he
was elected by different people with different views and he has a
large agenda of things to do, many of which are controversial in
South Korea. So President Roh aims his remarks at different
audiences. He has major domestic context What we have to do is
listen to what President Roh says to us directly and interpret
that in a variety of ways.''
Q: Would an inter-Korean summit help the resolution of the North
Korean crisis?
A: I don¡¯t know if it will help or hurt. The June 15, 2000
meeting of Kim Dae-jung seized the attention of the world. Since
then, there have been some disclosures about the meeting that
made it less attractive. In the end, the overall problem of the
DPRK has to be resolved by the Koreans. The key role has to be by
Koreans on both sides of the DMZ. When it comes down to it, there
will be a solution. This is part of why I emphasize the six-party
talks. I arrived in Seoul to huge crowd of journalists after my
trip to North Korea in October 2002 and after three-party talks
in Beijing in March of the following year, a huge crowd of
journalists came to meet me to hear about things that are very
important to Koreans about North Koreans. I heeded it doing that.
It is not the task of Americans to bring information that North
Koreans are saying to South Koreans. South Korea is a valued ally
and it has accomplished much. The contacts that have been
developed through the government on a careful basis are extremely
valuable. I don¡¯t think it would necessarily pose a threat. The
South Korean government has not spoken to us about that. If the
South Korean government chooses to do so and comes and speaks to
us about it, we will give them an answer at that time. In the
six-party talks, South Korea hears them (North Koreans)
firsthand. 12-13-2004 17:37
U.S. Secretrary of State Colin Powell, left, and his assistant
James Kelly, center, speak with South Korea¡¯s Foreign Minister
Ban Ki-moon prior to the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting, July 2,
2004, in Jakarta, Indonesia. AP-Yonhap File
*****************************************************************
10 [NukeNet] RELEASE:Gov & Safety Officials Must Take Action on
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:06:54 -0800
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
-----Original Message-----
From: Erin Bowser [mailto:ebowser@ohiopirg.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 2:45 PM
To: pirgenergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [pirgenergy] RELEASE:Gov & Safety Officials Must Take Action on
FIRSTENERGY
For Immediate Release
Contact: Erin Bowser, Director Ohio PIRG (614) 314-1863
Sarah McKinney, Energy Associate Ohio PIRG (614) 354-1102
Gov. Taft and Public Safety Officials Must Demand More Action and
Accountability From the NRC and FirstEnergy
Columbus, OHNow more then ever we need Ohios public safety and other
leaders to step up to the plate and protect the health and safety of
Ohioans from the chronically negligent FirstEnergy.
Given the risk catastropic disaster and the clear incompetence being
displayed on a near daily basis, what is it going to take for Gov. Taft and
his Director of Public Safety, Kenneth Morckel, to finally take a stand and
demand accountability on the part of FirstEnergy and the NRC?stated Erin
Bowser, Director of Ohio Public Interest Research Group.
FirstEnergy indicated in a filing with the Security and Exchange Commission
that they may be indicted for deliberately misleading the federal
government in the years before the football sized hole was discovered in
the reactor head at its Davis-Besse nuclear power plant.
Even though FirstEnergys negligence and potential criminal wrongdoing has
been jeopardizing public safety again and again over the last several
years, state and local leaders have been shockingly quiet about what should
be done to protect the health and safety of Ohioans.
If a few cases of West Nile Virus were reported, our state and local
officials would go to extraordinary lengths to protect the public why is it
then that a company run by folks under criminal investigation for puttin
the public at risk, garners no response, no action, no accountability and
no protection from our leaders? It is clearly time for Gov. Taft and his
Director of Public Safety to take a stand ,stated Bowser
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions oversight track record of FirstEnergy
has been and continues to be abysmal. At the heart of the grand jury
investigation is whether or not FirstEnergy lied about the condition of
their plant when they convinced the NRC to postpone an inspection in
2001. [The NRC called for inspections at several U.S. nuke plants that
they suspected were susceptible to corrosion]. Shockingly, the NRC granted
FirstEnergy an extension even though they had photos and videotapes that
revealed mounds of boric acid corroding the plants reactor head. The NRCs
extension meant that for an additional three months, only a thin layer of
stainless steel just 3/8ths of an inch thick which was under 2,000 pounds
was all that was keeping the reactor head from blowing its top.
It is clear that the NRC is failing to prioritize the safety of Ohioans,
thats why we need Gov. Taft and his public safety officials to come off of
the sidelines and become participants in what could be the most important
public safety issue facing the state of Ohio,stated Bowser.
*****Ohio PIRG is a non profit, non partisan, public interest advocacy
organization. For more information about this and other issues, go to:
www.ohiopirg.org*****
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
15fb2d.jpg
Get unlimited calls to
U.S./Canada
15fb3d.jpg
15fb4d.jpg
----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
*
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pirgenergy/
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
*
pirgenergy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
Attachment Converted: 15fb2d.jpg: 00000001,5af9e0c4,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 15fb3d.jpg: 00000001,5af9e0c5,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 15fb4d.jpg: 00000001,5af9e0c6,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
11 MOJO: Giving the Gift of War
For the Pentagon, with its globally generous spirit, Xmas is an
everyday affair.">
[MotherJones.com] [Mother Jones] [News]
[Daily Mojo]
December 13, 2004
By Nick Turse
It's that time of year again, folks. The moment to begin the mad
scramble to fill those Xmas stockings and so time for the second
annual TomDispatch list of gifts that will make this a jolly
"military-corporate complex" Xmas for you and yours!
Yes, an entire year has passed since TomDispatch first brought
you its list of "Hot as Depleted Uranium Toys
[http://www.tomdispatch.com/indexprint.mhtml?pid=1134] for a New
Imperial Age." This year we've got great new gift ideas from the
Complex. So, if you didn't get that Abrams tank under the tree
last year and the neighbors rubbed their new Hummer in your face
(before using it to crush your puny "girlie-man" car), don't
despair. This Xmas offers a wealth of possibilities, a shot at
getting all the games, gadgets, gear, and guns the Complex has
to offer.
Heroic Action Figures, Patriot Games, and Terror Toys
Last year, a mangled, bloodied son of Saddam, the Talking Uday
doll [http://www.vicalecorporation.com/detail.aspx?ID=33] ,
topped the list of most wanted evil-doer toys, while
"mission-accomplished" Elite Force Aviator George W. Bush led
the way for the US of A. This year, the Herobuilders "Hero
Action Figures" line has out-Udayed itself, unveiling a plethora
of new villains and American icons.
Why not buy that special little someone the weirdly muscled-up
Rudy Giuliani
[http://www.vicalecorporation.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=5]
("America's Mayor") figure, the "Talking British Ally" Tony
Blair doll, or that Green-Zone favorite, the "Talking Bush in
Baghdad" [http://www.vicalecorporation.com/detail.aspx?ID=36]
whose startled expression perfectly matches his ill-fitting
military garb. Any one of these dolls… er, action figures should
be more than a match for the military-fatigues-wearing "Crack
Head Saddam," the T-shirt clad "Captured Saddam,"
[http://www.vicalecorporation.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=6]
or the "Dick, the American Taliban" figurine, let alone those
near-terrorists (already heading for the discard pile) like the
Talking John Kerry whose shirt might as well say "flip-flopper,"
the "Michael 'No' Moore" figure which, according to the company,
"makes a perfect voodoo doll or pin cushion," or, looking
forward to a hateful 2008, the Hillary Clinton doll
[http://www.herobuilders.com/images/HB0020_sm_home.jpg] found
lounging sybaritically (and a bit incomprehensibly) on a couch
with a mint julep!
Okay dads, we hear you! Sure, you want to steep junior in the
military experience, but skip the dolls, right? Then you'll
definitely want to invest in the Military Role Play Set
[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001XTGPG/ref=pd_ecc_rvi
_2/103-0966489-8126224] from "Manley" (I kid you not). With
recent top-brass pronouncements that U.S. forces are likely to
be in Iraq for at least the next 5-10 years, you can't start too
early acclimating junior to the desert-camo-colored play set
that includes a helmet, knife, gas mask, and a few grenades. You
know he'll grin when he pulls the pin!
But how about Sally? Think she's got more in her future than
mere grunthood in our imperial army? Not to worry, this Xmas she
can begin training for a future Pentagon/corporate "revolving
door" job with a game that combines all the fun of cutthroat
capitalism and ruthless militarism -- Army Monopoly
[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/toys/B0001W
YKCQ/qid=1097251061/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_2_3/104-2039082-4768713] .
Gone are those timeless tokens, the little Scottie dog and the
top hat. Instead, try the tank and the attack helicopter! And
what good would a little green plastic house or red hotel be
when that tank comes rumbling down St. James Place? Fortunately,
they too have been replaced by "custom battalions and
divisions." And while you might expect the board to be filled
with Axis-of-Evil nations ripe for a U.S. invasion, you actually
send your legions around the board capturing Army bases, the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and even the Pentagon.
This year it's more important than ever to rally kids ‘round the
flag because it seems a bearded figure other than ol' St. Nick
has been hard at work in his Tora Bora toy shop. You guessed it:
Uncle Osama! First to appear was a toy which seemed to evoke the
image of an airplane crashing
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62530-2004Sep4.ht
ml] into the Twin Towers. Then came the toy cell-phone
[http://www.wftv.com/newsofthestrange/3749246/detail.html]
sporting an image of Osama himself (with the word "king" above
it). With direct-to-video star bin Laden competing for a share
of the holiday toy market (and a half-brother of his hawking
perfume to mom
[http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/05/africa/web.journal.html]
), what good parent wouldn't immediately begin muscling up his
or her kid's toy arsenal?
Video Wishes and Warrior Dreams
Jumping up a bit in age, we find that one of last year's hot
gifts has returned to this year's list by popular acclaim --
Kuma Reality Games' "Kuma War." With cable-news-style
introductions by Kuma anchor Jackie Schechner and commentary
from retired Marine Major General Thomas L. Wilkerson -- a
tandem so fair n' balanced they'd do Fox proud -- this video
game's ripped-from the-headlines missions, updated monthly, will
take your youngsters directly into thrilling fire fights in
Fallujah
[http://www.kumawar.com/FallujahVigilantResolve/overview.php] or
right into the "filthy warrens of Sadr city."
[http://www.kumawar.com/BattleinSadrCity/overview.php] If your
boy or girl somehow made it through 2004 without "Kuma War,"
you're not gonna want to make that mistake twice. After all, it
might be the only chance he or she has to see American troops
and their $150 billion effort, backed by heavy armor,
helicopters, fighter-bombers, spy satellites and all sorts of
high tech weaponry, actually defeat resistance fighters using
small arms and pick-up trucks.
Or why not stuff a few stockings with the recently released
third season of ABC's hit Central Intelligence Agency-themed
television series "Alias" on DVD
[http://abctvstore.shopthescene.com /detail.php?p=563] . Too
cheap to shell out the $65? Then just download the free public
service announcement on the CIA's website where the show's star
Jennifer Garner shills for the agency
[http://www.cia.gov/employment/garner/] , burn it to a CD, and
put it right under the tree.
Are video games and DVDs not quite right(-wing enough) for your
list of giftees? Is that special someone always frothing at the
mouth while watching Fox News? Then have we got the gift for
you! A "Terrorist Hunting Permit"
[http://www.legendaryusa.com/product/THP] sticker that's perfect
for any "car, truck, RV, camper or fleet." After all, what
exemplifies the holiday spirit more than making 2005 (and,
according to the sticker, every other year right up to 2050)
open season on all evil-doers?
Or how about surprising your own special "security mom," who
wants to do something more than just put a sticker on the
minivan, with an upgrade on the stickee? Especially since the
Army and the International Truck and Engine Corporation have
already ridden to the rescue. While it won't have the Kevlar
armor or night-vision equipment of the military model, the new
civilian version of the 8000 lb. SmarTruck III
[http://www.smartruck3.com/] will blow away any terrorist's puny
5000 lb. Hummer H2, not to speak of the pathetically wimpy 4100
lb. Jeep Liberty. Of course, what satisfying solution doesn't
also create new problems? So you're gonna need to get one
industrial-sized tree to park this bad-boy beneath
[http://www.liemac.com/smartruckIII/PressKit/Documents/smart%20tr
uck%2038.jpg] .
And lest we forget about Dad, here's a lovely possibility for
the man who has more socks than any drawer will allow -- an
annual membership to the Kabul Golf Club, located in the
beautiful, artfully unreconstructed suburbs of Afghanistan's
capital. Recently reopened, after being cleared of land mines
(and the remains of a few old Soviet tanks), KGC may lack
certain typical golfing amenities -- many of its "greens" are
just oily sand -- but how many PGA courses boast a bombed-out
army barracks [http://www.kabulguide.net/kbl-golfclub.htm] or
Kalashnikov-carrying caddies
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4046313.stm] ? With
Afghanistan competitively teetering between being the world's
most-failed state and the globe's leading narco-state success,
it's not surprising that the annual membership is within your
reach! For a mere 7,500 Afghanis ($160) it's a bargain as long
as they can keep the Improvised Explosive Devices off the
fairways.
Global Giving -- It Feels So Good!
When it comes to the Pentagon, generosity is an eternal byword
and Christmas giving an all-year-round activity -- as well as
something even those who don't celebrate the holiday can still
cash in on. Take Israel. As it happens, the Sharonistas
evidently jumped the gun and wrote their first letter to Santa
as spring was ending. On June 1, the U.S. Defense Security
Cooperation Agency "notified Congress of a possible Foreign
Military Sale to Israel of Joint Direct Attack Munitions [JDAMs]
as well as associated equipment and services." With a total
value that could reach as high as $319 million, its unclear
exactly who will receive the bigger gift -- Israel or the jolly
elves slated to fulfill the order: the McDonnell Douglas
Corporation (a subsidiary of Boeing); Alliant Techsystems;
Lockheed-Martin; Northrop Grumman; and the Honeywell
Corporation.
In addition to "smart" weapons technologies and fuse components,
the Israeli request included such spirit-of-the-season gifts as:
2,500 MK-84 live bombs -- a general purpose 2000 lb. bomb
1,500 MK-82 live bombs -- a 500 lb. general purpose
blast/fragmentation bomb
500 BLU-109 live bombs -- a 2000 lb. penetrator and
blast/fragmentation bomb
500 MK-83 live bombs -- a general purpose 1000 lb. bomb
In this seasonal spirit Israel has been far from alone. The
American military-corporate complex has gotten a flood of
letters from all the good little nations of the world. While
Johnny may want Kuma War and Sally, Army Monopoly, the
government of Canada asked to be allowed to buy "2,000 Radio
Frequency (RF) TOW-2A and 600 RF TOW-2B Anti-Armor Guided
Missiles, [and] 400 RF Bunker Buster Missiles" from Raytheon.
Turkey requested a modest 225 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles (also
from Raytheon); while Brazil asked Uncle Sam to bless its
request to Sikorsky Aircraft and General Electric for 10 UH-60L
BLACK HAWK helicopters, along with 22 7.62mm M134 Mini guns and
other accoutrements, for an estimated $250 million.
The holiday wish list most in the spirit of the season, however,
has got to be Hungary's. Back in October, CUBIC Defense
Applications Inc. of San Diego, California, through the U.S.
Naval Air Systems Command, Training Systems Division, was
awarded a $7.7 million contract for a "Combined Hungarian Range
Instrumentation and Simulation Training Multiple Integrated
Laser Engagement System" -- a laser-tag-like set-up for
Hungarian military training exercises. The jolly acronym for
this project is wholly in the spirit of the season: CHRISTMS
[http://www.dod.mil/contracts/2004/ct20041004.html] !
The Ghost of Christmas Future
Still, make no mistake, no one can beat the U.S. military when
it comes to wish lists! Theirs are routinely written for Xmas
mornings many years ahead. So what are America's Armed Forces
asking Santa to deliver on Xmas morning 2008 and beyond? Let's
take a look at just a few of the literally hundreds of wish-list
projects dancing in the heads of our top military command and
their arms-dealing counterparts who make up the
military-corporate complex.
The Army is hopeful that by Xmas morning 2008, Lockheed Martin
will have delivered its Loitering Attack Missile (LAM) -- "an
expendable loitering, hunter-killer" missile that sprouts wings
after take-off and then flies over an area for up to 45 minutes
waiting for a target to present itself for total destruction.
How nice it will be for them to have a sweet LAM baa-ing under
the tree in just a few short years! And, not wanting to be left
out in the cold, the Air Force plans to take delivery that very
same year of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and the Navy to
deploy the first of its DD-21 Zumwalt-class Land Attack
Destroyers -- a "multi-mission destroyer tailored to maritime
dominance and land attack missions."
The Navy hopes to have electromagnetic rail guns under the Xmas
tree by 2010. As you might guess, a "rail gun" isn't exactly a
Daisy BB rifle. Instead, imagine a gunpowder-less "gun" that
uses electromagnetic propulsion to fire a projectile capable of
reaching a speed of 13,000 miles per hour in 0.2 seconds. The
Navy yearns for this futuristic super-weapon, primarily because
it raises sugar-plum-like dreams of potentially "extremely
lethal effects."
The Marine Corps is hoping Santa Claus will be coming to town
with a full component of Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles
(AAAVs), armed with both Bushmaster II 30 mm cannons and M240
Machine Guns, sometime between 2012 and 2014. And Santa better
mind his appointed flight path because the Air Force could
possibly have a brand new FB-22 Fighter Bomber in the skies as
early as 2013. Only two years later, if the elves cut down on
their coffee breaks, the Marine Corps hopes its very own
electromagnetic wish will come true, allowing them to field a
Marine-Corps-made rail gun mountable on a Marine-Corps-only
tank.
Meanwhile, in the post 2015-era, the Air Force is dreaming of
Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missiles that will blow
low-Earth-orbiting objects out of the skies. And by Xmas 2037,
the Air Force, already worried that their dear old bomber
inventory may fall below desired levels, is briefing Santa on a
proposed B-3 Long Range Strike Platform -- a futuristic
fighter-bomber project projected to cost $35 billion in R alone.
Meanwhile, at yet to be determined times in the future, DARPA
projects like the MAgneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition
(MAHEM), which promises "…the potential for aimable, multiple
warheads with… increased lethality and kill precision," and the
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), a
program to develop a high-energy laser weapon system, are also
likely to found, wrapped in giant bows, under the military Xmas
tree.
Make It a Merry Military-Corporate Xmas
While you obviously can't ante up for 2000 lb. bombs like Israel
or shell out the $35 billion needed for a future customized
weapons system, you can still do your part to make this Xmas a
merry one for the military-corporate complex. And don't think
you necessarily need to buy military-engineered video games
[http://www.fullspectrumwarrior.com/] , women's
black"Standard-Issue Assault Shoes,"
[http://oakley.com/catalog/colors/
womens/footwear/industrial/si_assault_shoe/] designed for the
Special Forces by sunglasses-manufacturer Oakley, or an
officially licensed U.S. Army pocket calculator
[http://www.armyproducts.com/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=1212]
-- although it sure helps! You can simply buy run-of-the-mill
products made by Department of Defense contractors. And don't
worry, no effort will be involved. Chances are such gifts are
already on your list or waiting beneath the tree.
So, on Xmas day, after you've unwrapped some of our recommended
gifts, or more standard fare like that new DVD player from
General Electric (the 8th largest DoD contractor which brought
"good things to life" for the military last year to the tune of
$2.8 billion), a new Xbox videogame system (from DoD contractor
Microsoft); a high-tech Roomba Discovery SE robot vacuum cleaner
[http://www.irobot.com/consumer/] (from iRobot which sells
"pack-bots" to the military and has partnered with DARPA to make
swarming mini-robots), a new cell phone from Motorola (which
raked in more than 283 million Pentagon dollars last year), or
any gift sealed with Scotch tape (made by 3M which has been
working on weapons systems like the Army's OH-58 Kiowa
helicopter), and after you've polished off that Butterball
turkey or Cook's brand Ham (both from DoD contractor ConAgra
Foods) and those Pillsbury Xmas cookies (from DoD contractor
General Mills), you can sit back and relax with the knowledge
that the military-corporate complex is having another happy
holiday -- or you and your friends can gather around a roaring
fire (or the glow of the new plasma TV) and sing this little
ditty to the tune of "Let It Snow":
Oh, the war in Iraq is frightful,
But for Lockheed and pals it's delightful,
Since the Pentagon continues to pay,
Let 'em stay, let 'em stay, let 'em stay.
Insurgents show no signs of stopping,
Americans can't stop AK's from popping,
Since it keeps Boeing's prices high,
occupy, occupy, occupy.
When there's a bombing or firefight,
It means moo-lah galore for GE,
And ev'ry IED laid at night,
means they're buyin' a brand new Humvee
As long as some Black Hawks keep crash'in,
The Complex can really cash in,
More war equals much more dough,
Let's not go, never go, let's not go.
Nick Turse is doctoral candidate at the Center for the History
&Ethics of Public Health in the Mailman School of Public Health
at Columbia University. He writes for the Village Voice and
regularly on the military-corporate complex for Tomdispatch.com
[http://www.tomdispatch.com] , where this piece first appeared.
Copyright C2004 Nick Turse
© 2003 The Foundation for National Progress
*****************************************************************
12 Las Vegas SUN: Group to watch White House
Today: December 13, 2004 at 11:02:00 PST
Democrat watchdogs to attract whistleblowers, according to
senator
By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., today was expected to
announce a new Democratic investigative team to act as a watchdog
of the White House.
Congress has a traditional oversight role in tracking the
actions of the executive branch.
But Republicans control both chambers and have not been
aggressive in challenging the Bush administration, Reid and Sen.
Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., were to say at a press conference today.
Dorgan is chairman of the policy committee of the Senate
Democrats.
"This is not about partisanship, it's not about 'gotcha'
politics," Dorgan said in a Sun interview today. "This is about a
constitutional responsibility of oversight that is not being met.
We have one-party rule."
Reid was unavailable for comment earlier today.
The new team would be the first of its kind, Dorgan said. The
concept developed out of conversations among Democratic leaders,
including Dorgan and Reid.
The first investigation of the new team likely will focus on
government contracts in Iraq. Bush critics have noted that
businesses with close ties to the White House -- including
Halliburton Co., once run by Vice President Dick Cheney and now
the largest contractor in Iraq -- have won lucrative contracts.
Halliburton is a good example of a company that has escaped
significant congressional oversight, Dorgan said. For example,
the contractor has claimed to feed far more soldiers every day
than it actually does, Dorgan said.
The new Democratic oversight team would not be Senate-sanctioned
and would lack the subpoena powers held by official congressional
oversight panels to compel testimony. But it likely will attract
whistleblowers, Dorgan said.
"There are plenty of people who have seen what is going on
inside these agencies and know what has gone on with some of
these contracts," Dorgan said.
The team could have about 12 senators, Dorgan said.
Reid officially will become Senate Democratic leader when the
new Congress convenes next month. Reid has said he is looking for
innovative ways to deliver a Democratic message to voters and to
challenge Bush and congressional Republican leaders.
All contents copyright 2004 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
13 Boston Globe: Opinion / Op-ed / MIT's role in missile test fraud
Boston.com
THEODORE A. POSTOL
By Theodore A. Postol | December 13, 2004
AFTER MORE than 3 1/2 years of foot-dragging, excuses, and
violations of federal regulations, MIT announced last week that
it could not investigate credible evidence of possible scientific
fraud in fundamental National Missile Defense research being done
at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. The reason outgoing president
Charles M. Vest gave is that the Pentagon had classified
everything about the investigation.
If the particular allegations of fraud have merit -- and I
believe they do -- MIT and the Pentagon have been involved in a
fraud that has promoted a weapon system that will have little or
no utility and could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Of
even greater importance, millions of lives could be lost if this
weapon system failed to defend our nation from a nuclear
ballistic missile attack.
The allegations of fraud involve the critically important
Integrated Flight Test 1A, or IFT-1A, in June 1997. Its purpose
was to determine if the currently deployed National Missile
Defense could tell the difference between warheads flying through
space and simple balloons designed to look like warheads. If the
IFT-1A experiment could not demonstrate that the weapon could
perform this task, the weapon could never have a realistic chance
of working in combat.
In May 2000 I sent evidence to the White House that, despite the
claims of unqualified success by the Pentagon, the IFT-1A had in
fact been a total failure.
Initially, the Pentagon claimed that the letter I wrote to the
White House was secret. Then the Pentagon reversed itself and
claimed that the experiment was old and irrelevant, and then it
reinforced this claim by arguing that it now uses a slightly
different sensor that renders the results of the IFT-1A
irrelevant. Finally, after trying for years to dismiss the
relevance of the IFT-1A, the Pentagon has again reversed itself
and claims that the release of any and all information about it
would cause grave, direct, and immediate harm to the national
security.
In subsequent work, I learned that the document that had led me
to warn the White House about fraud in the National Missile
defense program had been produced for the Pentagon by MIT's
Lincoln Laboratory.
The Lincoln Laboratory report was written in 1998 for federal
agents from the departments of Justice and Defense. The agents
had come to MIT for help in evaluating evidence they had
collected that indicated researchers at TRW might have
fraudulently tampered with data to make the IFT-1A test look like
a success when it had in fact failed. Since Lincoln Laboratory
had been deeply involved in early analysis of the IFT-1A, and has
special national status as a federally funded research and
development center, it was in a unique position to evaluate all
the evidence uncovered by the federal agents.
In April 2001, I began a process of alerting MIT's then-president
Charles M. Vest and his provost, Robert Brown, that MIT's Lincoln
Laboratory had failed to cooperate with the federal agents and
had withheld critical information that the sensor in the IFT-1A
had not performed as designed. Since the sensor did not collect
valid data, the experiment was a total failure and fraud had
occurred at TRW. Of even greater concern, it was clear from
documents created shortly after the IFT-1A in 1997 and General
Accountability Office reports published in March 2002 that
Lincoln Laboratory was fully aware of the failure of the sensor.
MIT's response during this period was at first to deny that it
had oversight responsibilities for the report, then, in July
2002, to produce an interim inquiry report, reviewed by MIT's
lawyers, that praised the work done by Lincoln and concluded:
"The good news is that the management and culture of the Lincoln
Laboratory . . . have created processes to insure that the
nation's trust is protected."
Four months later the conclusions of the interim inquiry report
were completely reversed and an investigation recommended. It is
this investigation which MIT now says it cannot pursue because
material is classified. In fact the investigation can be fully
accomplished with material already made public.
The mishandling of this affair by MIT poses threats to the
integrity and credibility of all university-based research in
this country. MIT's continuing excuses for not investigating this
matter and its attempts to evade its responsibilities represent a
serious violation of the public trust and the most basic
principles of academic integrity. But of far more importance than
the future of MIT, it does a disservice to our system of
government and undermines the defense of our country.
z Theodore A. Postol is professor of science, technology, and
national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. [ /]
[ /] © [http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright]
2004 The New York Times Company [ /]
*****************************************************************
14 Lexington Herald-Leader: The $25 billion question: Will it work?
| 12/13/2004 |
LACK OF PROPER TESTING HASN'T DETERRED U.S.
By Michael Cabbage
THE ORLANDO SENTINEL
FORT GREELY, Alaska - Six white domes that open like clamshells
dot a rocky, fenced-off field in the heart of the Alaskan
wilderness.
Beneath them, 80-foot-deep silos hold missiles designed to
destroy enemy warheads in mid-flight. They represent the first
step of a $25.3 billion shield against long-range ballistic
missiles and fulfillment of a 2002 pledge by President Bush to
field such a defense by the end of 2004.
It is a first step, however, that is fraught with controversy.
Although the White House is expected soon to declare these
interceptor missiles ready for use, this type never has been
flight-tested. In fact, the program has attempted to intercept a
missile only eight times since testing began in 1997.
Three tries have failed, including the most recent one on Dec.
11, 2002. Six days later, Bush announced he intended to deploy
the system by 2004.
A test scheduled for last Wednesday was scrubbed because of bad
weather and has not been rescheduled.
Missile-defense proponents openly admit the initial system,
which technically is considered a "testbed," is far from
perfect. But they argue the United States has nothing to lose by
turning it on.
"When you don't have a defense, we should turn that question
around and say, 'Why-shouldn't we field that defense right
now?'" said Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, director of the
Missile Defense Agency, which is developing the system. "We have
a unique system ... in the sense that you have to build it to
really test it."
Other past and present military officers take sharp issue with
the decision. One is the former head of the U.S. Strategic
Command, which is charged with protecting the nation against a
nuclear-missile strike and overseeing operation of the new
shield.
"To deploy a weapons system that has not been adequately tested
and then tell Americans they don't have to worry is
unconscionable," retired Gen. Eugene Habiger said. "We have the
politicians of this country mandating deployment of a weapons
system not based on military capabilities."
All totaled, about $75 billion has been spent during the past 40
years without yielding a single long-range missile defense that
remains operational. The Bush administration wants to spend up
to $100 billion by 2010 on a wide variety of missile defenses.
That includes the $25.3 billion system based in Alaska, new
mobile defenses against short- and medium-range missiles, a
fleet of ships with interceptors, an airborne laser and possible
weapons in space.
Will it work?
But no one, including Bush administration officials, knows for
sure what the final price tag for missile defense will be. Nor
does anyone know whether the systems will work.
The new anti-missile system must take guidance data from distant
radar and orbiting satellites and use it to slam a 55-inch kill
vehicle traveling at 15,000 mph into a small enemy warhead,
essentially hitting a bullet with a bullet.
The kill vehicle's sophisticated sensors must be able to pick
out the warhead amid rocket debris and possible decoys high
above Earth's atmosphere. Everything, including the booster and
the system's 5.5 million lines of computer code, must work
perfectly for the defense to succeed.
The kill vehicle and its new booster never have been mated and
test-launched. Several new components of the kill vehicle,
including the upgraded software it will use to identify targets,
have never been flight-tested. Neither has the latest version of
the system's command-and-control software.
Previous flight tests, which used a different booster and
earlier versions of the kill vehicle, were largely rehearsed and
unrealistic. Testers knew in advance the target's location,
launch time, trajectory and projected impact point, as well as
what the mock warhead and any decoys would look like.
To make matters worse, the defense will be missing several key
pieces when it is deployed. A critical X-band radar, needed to
help the kill vehicle find the target among decoys and debris,
will not be ready until the end of 2005 at the earliest. And new
early-warning satellites, replacements for a system that has
detected enemy launches for more than 30 years, will not be
ready until at least 2007.
Data driven
"This whole strategy is based on the idea that if you get enough
information from enough different places, X-band radar and
satellites and kill vehicles, you will be able to find the real
target," said Philip Coyle, director of the Pentagon's
Operational Test and Evaluation Office from 1994 to 2001. "If
you don't have that information, you have a problem."
There is considerable disagreement about how reliable the
initial Alaska-based defense will be.
Publicly and privately, the Missile Defense Agency has estimated
the system would knock out enemy missiles 80 percent to 90
percent of the time.
However, a classified study earlier this year by Thomas
Christie, Coyle's successor as the Pentagon's chief weapons
tester, estimated the system's effectiveness at less than 30
percent, according to sources familiar with the assessment.
Much of the disparity involves which test data to include.
Attempts to accurately assess the system's progress are
complicated by the fact that missile-defense programs are no
longer subject to normal Pentagon scrutiny. After years of
critical reviews by the weapons testers, the Bush administration
eliminated traditional oversight for virtually all Missile
Defense Agency projects in January 2002.
Growing concerns prompted Congress to include oversight
provisions in a defense-authorization bill passed on Oct. 9. The
bill would require the Missile Defense Agency to provide more
specific information on costs, schedule and performance goals
for all of its programs. It also specifies the new defense
system in Alaska must be realistically tested by Oct.1, 2005,
according to criteria set by Christie's office. However, no
penalty is specified if the agency fails to comply.
Proponents claim there is a simple reason for the rush to deploy
the system: Without it, the United States is totally defenseless
against a long-range-missile attack.
"We have no defense now," said Baker Spring, a conservative
policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "None.
Zero. So the idea that you are worse off by building an
operational capability into the testbed is, I think, difficult
to argue."
Critics such as Coyle have a ready reply.
"The problem with saying something is better then nothing is
that it misleads the person who hears that into thinking that
the marginal capability that is there, whatever it is, would
actually protect us," Coyle said. "Where is the evidence that
shows this has any capability whatsoever?"
*****************************************************************
15 Bellona: Russian secret services block sociological study
Researchers accused of working for the CIA
Komsomolskaya Pravda, a Russian tabloid famous for its shock
headlines and wide circulation, published an article on November
12th accusing renowned Russian sociologist Olga Tsepilova of have
ties to “friends in the CIA.” Academics are demanding the paper
print their answer describing the situation in a different way.
Otherwise, say the academic, they will settle the matter in
court.
The fence around the Mayak Chemical Combine.
Bellona
Rashid Alimov, 2004-12-13 15:18
With the help of a provocation , a sociological study of life in
the closed nuclear city of Ozersk— and how people live in this
town, which has been deemed the most radioactively contaminated
place on earth—was derailed. The sociologists form the Russian
Academy of sciences who were planning on making the journey to
the closed city were summoned to St. Petersburg’s Federal
Security Service, or FSB, and charged with espionage—though
there was no proof of these allegations. The charges have since
been dropped. But in on November 12th , Komsomolskaya Pravda
published an article asserting that the sociologists had
“received money from friends in the CIA” and that the FSB was
conducting an “investigation.”
The article, however, was a blatant fabrication as the
sociologists in question had been cleared of any wrongdoing in
writing by the FSB over the summer. Why an erroneous and
concocted article about this specific incident would surface
more than half a year later and describe the scholars as still
under investigation for ties with the CIA is a matter of
speculation. But it fits a wider pattern of harassment directed
by the Russian government and its security services against NGOs
and independent scholars who are studying Russia’s ailing
nuclear industry.
Atmosphere for research in Russia growing foul
Earlier this year, Russian courts, employing heavy-handed
Soviet techniques like judge replacement and jury tampering,
sentences USA-Canada Institute researcher Igor Sutyagin to 15
years hard labour for alleged collaboration with the CIA.
Valentin Danilov, a Krasnoyask-based weapons researcher, was
first acquitted by a jury of selling military secrets to China,
but was found guilty on appeal from prosecutors and also
sentenced to hard labour for treason.
And Russian president Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his
distaste for research and NGO. In his 2004 State of the Union
address, he essentially declared war on NGOs that received
funding grants from the west, accusing them one and all of
anti-state activities.
“The appearance of this article was not unexpected for me. I
expected some action from our opponents. They just couldn’t take
it when we officially forced them to admit the invalidity of
their complaint,” said Ivan Pavlov, the attorney for Tsepilova
and her and legal advisor to Bellona’s Environmental Rights
Center.
“Because they couldn’t achieve the desired results in the legal
sphere, they took the discussion to the press—but we are prepared
to discuss it on that level too,” said Pavlov in an interview
with Bellona Web. “We demanded the paper run our answer [to their
charges] and if the editors don’t, then we’ll be meeting in
court.”
According to Russian libel legislation, a person who considers
himself for have been slandered in a news article containing
misleading or false information is entitled to seek redress in
court. In cases of commentary and opinion articles, Russian
legislation provides that a person who thinks they have been
defamed by the commentary has the right to publish a retort to
the opinion of the article’s writer.
Olga Tsepilova.
Rashid Alimov / Bellona
Tsepilova’s sociological research
The closed nuclear city of Ozersk—one of 10 such closed cities
in Russia—hosts Mayak, the Russian Federal Agency for Atomic
Energy, or Rosatom’s most radioactively contaminated enterprise.
Some 200,000 people live in the 30 kilometer zone surrounding
Mayak.
“Planet of Hopes” an Ozersk NGO, had planned as to conduct a
sociological to carry out a sociological investigation of local
opinion on ecological and social problems, and examine human
rights violations in the city.
The projects was financed by the National Endowment for
Democracy, or NED, which dispenses funding allocated by US
Congress to various projects worldwide. NED funded the proposed
project in Ozersk in full. Nadezhda Kutepova, director of Planet
of Hopes, was one of the driving forces behind conducting the
research project.
At the same time, Tsepilova was already directing a project on
closed nuclear cities at her institute, and was actively
searching for organizations and foundations to cooperate in her
work.
Sociologist Kutepova has fought for the rights of the residents
of her home city in the form of receiving social benefits due to
them by the federal government given their proximity to Mayak,
organised nuclear education programmes for city residents, among
many other projects geared toward opening the city to the
benefits of the outside world.
“The necessity and unique quality of the research at hand lies
in the fact that no closed nuclear city has ever undergone study
by independent scientists,” said Kutepova.
Tsepilova herself said “it is important to note that Nadya
Kutepova took absolutely no part in out research, did not hinder
the realization of our own academic plans and trusted us as
professionals. For Plant of Hopes, it was simply very important
that serious, professional and variegated research had been
begun in their city.”
Nadezhda's articles
The Closed Cities, article by Nadezhda Kutepova from the
EcoPravo Magazine, published by Bellona-St.Petersburg:
Read the article »
Brief summaries of other Nadezhda’s articles can be found here:
Read the summaries »
To conduct the sociological research portion of Planet of Hopes’
project, entitled “Closed Nuclear Cities: Civic Activity and
Human Rights,” the organisation invited two groups of
professional academic sociologists from the St. Petersburg
Institute of Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, or
SIRAN. The groups were headed up by Tsepilova and Alexander
Duka.
Tsepilova– who holds a PhD in sociological studies—has worked
for 23 years within thee field of social ecology, has more than
50 publications to her credit and is a nationally and
internationally recognized expert in the study of contaminated
territories and regions posing high ecological risks. One of her
research works is dedicated to the city of Kirishi, a region of
ecological desolation at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s.
Other of her works, now in progress, include “The Nuclear Cities
of Russia: Possibilities for Reducing Ecological Risks,”
based on the city of Sosnovy Bor, home to the Leningrad Nuclear
Power Plant, 70 kilometers west of St. Petersburg.
Duka—managing secretary SI RAN’s sociology and civic society
departments—holds a PhD in political science, is, in the
assessment of the Russian academic community, among the research
elite.
“I was very taken with the idea of conducting sociological
research precisely in Ozersk,” said Tsepilova in an interview
with Bellona Web. “This is an especially vivid object for
research for sociologists and ecologists. It has experienced a
number of radiation catastrophes, which continue to attract and
increase ecological risks. The results, both scientific and
practical, could have been unique. And we would have surely
helped the impoverished region.”
The study planned for Ozersk fell within the framework of a two
part official set of guidelines to be conducted by SI SAN from
2003 to 2005. The first was “Nuclear Cities: a Social Analysis”
and “The Transformation of Authority Groups and Authority
Structures During the Post- Soviet Period.”
The Presidium of the Academy of Sciences approved the projects
and issued them registration numbers. In 2002, the city of
Ozersk became an official specimen for study.
Provocation
In April 2004, Duka and Tsepilova visited Ozersk and met with
representatives of the local administration. The representatives
seemed interested in the sociologists’ work—2005 being an
election year in Ozersk, thus making the administration
especially sensitive to its constituents—especially that part of
their work that would seriously analysis the concerns of city
residents. Such analysis had never been conducted there before.
And it still has not.
As such, no pre-election surveys or statistics were compiled,
nor were any scientific studies. Aside from that, it is likely
that within the foreseeable future, Rosatom’s (formerly the
Ministry of Atomic Energy’s) 10 closed cities, including Ozersk,
will be opened, as Rosatom Chief Alexander Rumyantsev has
announced on several occasions. Preparing for such drastic
changes without taking into account the needs and opinions of
the cities’ inhabitants is, however, impossible.
In their agreement with Ozersk city officials, the sociologists
agreed to include a number of topics of interest to the
governing powers, as well as furnish them with the full results
of their study. It was also stipulated as a precondition that
publication of the results be confined to the scientific press.
Rules of Entrance to Ozersk
Rules of Entrance to Ozersk (in Russian)
Read the document »
[http://resist.org.ru/closed_town/ozersk]
When all agreements had been practically reached, the
sociologists handed over the documents necessary to receive
permission to work within the closes territory in April and
returned to St. Petersburg—complete with the signature of the
director of their institute.
All of these documents were formulated on the basis of authentic
information and were correctly filled out and compiled. Then,
early in the morning on May 12th, 24 hours prior to the
sociology team’s departure, Tsepilova received a call from the
vice-mayor of Ozersk and said that the director of the Mayak
Chemical Combine, Vitaly Sadovnikov, had vetoed the
sociologists’ visit to the city.
Ozersk’s vice-mayor advised Tsepilova to urgently send within
the next two hours—before 9 am St. Petersburg time—a letter
signed by the director of the sociology institute to Sadovnikov
that would show possible Russian grant-makers that could
hypothetically finance such a study. The letter was simply meant
to calm Sadovnikov down, she was told, as all the agreements had
been obtained and all the formalities observed.
It most likely was not even worth the sociologists’ time to
write it, and the mere suggestion of writing it was a form of
entrapment or provocation. The provocation lay in the fact that
it was nearly impossible to write such a letter, and if such a
letter was sent, it could be declared invalid as the funding
actually came from the West. Furthermore, in their haste and
during the early morning hours, it was inevitable that defects
in its writing were bound to occur.
Simply imagine a person, who for two years has sought funding
for his research, a year organising methodology and is now
engaged in the usual last-minute pre-departure preparations. As
a result, Tsepilova signed the name of the director of her
institute—who she was unable to locate in the early morning
hours—herself, was given a stamp validating the signature from
the director’s secretary and faxed the letter to the Ozersk
administration.
Obviously, this constitutes an act of low-level forgery on
Tsepilova’s behalf, but, by law, prior agreement with the Ozersk
administration, and other concerned authorities, no such letter
to receive documents for entry into Ozersk was ever really
required.
Photo of the Fissile Materials Storage Facility at Mayak taken
from US Army Corps of Engineers web-site. This site was recently
inspected by US Senator Richard Lugar and a group of
congressmen.
en.wikipedia.org
It seemed, however, that the study was saved by the letter and
Sadovnikov could now, having rubbed shoulders with US
Congressmen coming for visits to the Mayak where the US
government is financing the building of the Fissile Materials
Storage Facility could proudly say we have many contracts with
the west, many ecological programmes that we run on US funding,
but here is a sociological study financed by Russian money.
FSB interrogation
But the sociologists werent going anywhere all of the forgoing
hustle and bustle about the letter to Sadovnikov had been a ruse
to derail their impending study. Almost instantaneously, the
faxed letter from Tsepilova was in the hands of the Ozersk FSB,
and on May 20th, she was summoned to St. Petersburgs FSB
headquarters. It was a clear case of entrapment and provocation.
It must have been assumed by the FSB officers involved that she
would not be able to fax the letter to Sadovnikov on such
break-neck notice without forging the directors signature. Even
if she had obtained his signature, the entire process seemed to
have been centered on accusing her of forgery anyway.
When heading to the FSB, Tsepilova brought with her a full
methodological description of the study she intended to conduct.
But no one planned on discussing that with her. They just called
her scientific activities by a phrase straight from crime
literature a collection of data.
It was as if the question from one of Tsepilovas sociological
questionnaires: what is more important to you, economic
stability or ecological well-being was the same as saying why
dont you tell us about your state secrets here. As if there was
some secret passage from Ozersk to the rest of the world via
which that which is said here echoes there. Meanwhile, as a
result of the 1957 accident at Mayak, 23,500 square kilometers
were contaminated, and lake Karachai is forever considered dead.
This accident was first discovered, in point of fact, in 1957 by
a Danish newspaper for the simple fact that one cannot hide a
catastrophe of such magnitude. At the end of the day, Mayak is
still poisoning the environment with the build-up of radiotoxic
waste without any accidents to blame it on.
To return to Tsepilovas chat with the FSB, she was told that
she would be charged with treason and espionage, carrying with
it a prison sentence of 12 to 20 years. Obviously aiming to
intimidate her, the agents repeatedly invoked the case of
researcher Igor Sutyagin, who in April was sentenced to 15 years
hard labor by a Moscow city court for alleged treason.
She was also accused of forgery. But Russian legal codes
governing forgery concern only official documents such as those
that would have been submitted for her to obtain her Ozersk
entrance permit. They do not concern a letter that was requested
last minute by Sadovnikovs deputy at the last minute and which
in any case was not a required document for her entrance in to
Ozersk. Such misconduct, as viewed by Russian law, is an
internal matter for her institute to settle.
It is noteworthy that Alexander Duka, who did not let even
formalities slip by, was also not allowed to go to Ozersk. He
still has not been given a reason for the refusal. The remained
of the group of sociologists who were to accompany Duka and
Tsepilova were left simply to unpack.
FSB revs up only to back down
It would seem that if the FSB actually suspected that renowned
and respected Russian scholars work for foreign intelligence
agencies, they might perhaps want to see the matter through to
court. To blow the National Endowment for Democracys cover and
end its activities in Russia.
But this was not the FSBs goal. The true purpose, apparently,
was one thing to shield Sadovnikov from a sociological study of
Ozersk. Therefore, let the only voice guiding the future of
Ozersk be that of the director of Mayak, and to heck with the
opinion of the people who have to live there.
Meanwhile, as soon as it was known the sociologists would not be
making their trip, the press service of Ozersk's administration
hurried to separate themselves from the FSB and Sadovnikov,
announcing that the visit and study would not occur 'for reasons
independent of the city administration, local authorities did
not hinder them'.
It is clear that the FSB was aiming to quash precisely this
research project. They have, of course, worked to quash future
projects of this nature as well, shut the door on the issue of
the institute by pressuring Tsepilova's colleagues, but having
failed to achieve the desired results, have waved the matter
off. The passion for a spy hunt is not at issue here.
And all of this came to light rather suddenly. With attorney
Pavlov's help, Tsepilova wrote and sent a letter to the FSB
demanding that if she was accused of something, that she be
officially charged.
Tsepilova exonerated by FSB
On June 21st, she received a note by return post: In filling
out your pass to Ozersk, you presented falsified information
which was the reason why you did not receive a pass. And that is
that. End of discussion. There is no procedural status, and
there is no case. This summary was signed by on Yuri
Ignashchenkov, deputy director of St. Petersburg and Leningrad
Regional FSB.
Nadezhda Kutepova.
Bellona
When Tsepilova was called to the FSB in May, she was told that
they had no doubt about the espionage related character of
Planet of Hope. Maybe the NGO had been charged? For example
Kutepova, who had dreamed about a serious sociological study of
her home town? Kutepova, a sociologist herself by education, who
was sure that such a research study would be a sign of democracy
in the city and raise its status? But no charges were filed
against Kutepova either.
She herself wrote to her local FSB, and received an answer in
August signed by its deputy director, one A. N. Ryabchenko, in
which it was outlined that “ the FSB has no issue with your
activities of the activities of your organization in connection
with the described sociological research project in the city of
Ozersk.”
Kutepova was not surprised by the answer.
“It would have been strange had they answered otherwise,” she
said.
The research has been called off, the contact between scholars
and NGOs that so frightens the FSB and administrations of closed
cities is now severed—but don’t dare blame the scholars and the
NGOs in serious illegal activity.
Komsomolskaya Pravda publishes its 'scoop'
It is unclear what drove the FSB to unload this story in its
interpretation on a Komsomolskaya Pravda correspondent Alexander
Sobolyev, who dutifully transcribed the authorities' version of
events. Maybe the FSB was plagued by subconscious discomfort
that it had accused the scholars of serious crimes, and the
authorities ended up with zilch. Or maybe the FSB just wanted to
remind society how important its work it. Nonetheless, the
November 12th issue of Komsomolskaya Pravda carried the
Sobolyev's article under the headline “To a nuclear centre via
falsification”.
The article carried the same old accusations, blended together
in a stew of omissions, inaccuracies and outright lies. The
article asserted that Tsepilova submitted a false application to
the Ozersk administration. But we know this to be false: all
necessary documents submitted to the city administration by the
sociologists permitting their research team to do its work were
in order.
National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, was called in the
article 'friends of the CIA' and 'an organization, well-known to
our secret services'. It was claimed, Tsepilova recieved a grant
directly from NED, not from the Ozersk-based NGO.
Aside from that, the article stated that the majority of
Russias weapons-grade plutonium is concentrated at Ozerks
Mayak plant. But this, too, is not quite the case. Within the
framework of the Russian-American Cooperative Threat Reduction
(CTR) effort, a storage facility for weapons grade plutonium
declared to be surplus to Russias defence needs has been
builtand it is not even ready to receive that plutonium yet.
Furthermore, the facility was built by the Pentagon-run CTR
programme and the mammoth US construction contractor Bechtel.
The Pentagon earmarked $305 million for the completion of this
facility and is still covering cost overruns. Another $378
million was spent by the US on containers for the plutonium. All
of this information is openly available on US government web
sites, but is almost entirely absent from information sources
within Russia. At the very least, opponents of the projectsuch
as Lev Maximov, who considers the facility an ecological and
security hazardhave been unable to secure this information so
easily available on US government web sites from Minatom,
Rosatoms predecessor.
Komsomolskaya Pravdas article concludes with the assertion that
Tsepilovas activities are currently under investigation a
patent falsehood when taking the FSBs responses to Tsepilova
and Kutepovas inquiries into account.
Furthermore, in its one-sided rush to print its sensation,
Komsomolskaya Pravda never paused to get comment from Tsepilova
herself. She has since sent a letter to the papers editors for
publication. Now she and her colleagues are waiting for it to
come out. If it doesnt, they will be suing the paper for libel
in court. Then, no one will be able to accuse the scholars in
collecting data. One must answer for ones words.
Tsepilova continues her workalone
As for the progress of her own work at the moment, Tsepilova
says she is continuing to pursue opportunities to reduce
ecological risks in closed nuclear cities. But the work is not
easy.
I am experiencing significant opposition and pressure from
various quarters, she said in a recent interview.
Today, excluding the director of my project, there is not one
person in academic sociological circles attempting to openly
study nuclear-sociological issues of state importance. But it
doesnt seem to make such a big differencebut all the same&
Read on
2004-06-10 Access to enviroinformation
Environmentalist’s detention shows the anatomy of an FSB
interrogation
2003-02-06 Access to enviroinformation
Siberian envirogroup to bring suit against security police
Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no]
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no]
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
16 Guardian Unlimited: State Dept. Opposes New Term for ElBaradei
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday December 13, 2004 10:46 PM
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration wants to oust the head
of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency after his second term ends
next summer.
No public criticism is being directed at Mohamed ElBaradei, an
Egyptian diplomat who has run the International Atomic Energy
Agency since 1997.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher cited as the sole
U.S. reason for trying to remove him an informal agreement among
some 14 countries that heads of U.N. and other international
bodies should serve no more than two terms.
``There is nothing exciting, there is nothing dramatic about
it,'' Boucher said Monday.
That characterization of the administration position was echoed
by the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan.
The Washington Post said Sunday that the administration has
dozens of intercepts of ElBaradei's telephone calls with Iranian
diplomats and is scrutinizing them for information to support
his ouster. McClellan refused to comment on the report. ``I
don't get into discussing intelligence matters,'' he said.
ElBaradei reported progress in U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq
last year while the administration was trying to rally U.N.
support for the war that overthrew President Saddam Hussein.
Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed the report of progress
at the time as ``all process, not substance.''
Currently, ElBaradei is pursuing a measured approach to Iran's
suspected nuclear weapons program.
Boucher's account avoided suggesting any U.S. dissatisfaction
with the 62-year-old former international lawyer.
``Our view has always been two terms is enough,'' he said. Other
countries in the so-called Geneva group share in that general
policy, he said.
Daryl Kimball, president of the private Arms Control
Association, said the two-term stance was not ``written in
stone'' and that the administration was irritated with
ElBaradei, whose main job is monitoring the 1970 nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
More than 180 countries have signed the treaty, which serves as
a cornerstone in efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons
and weapons technology.
``Key states do not agree with the U.S. that it is time for
ElBaradei, who has been fair but tough, to depart the scene,''
Kimball said in an interview.
``He has done a good job, and the agency has been aggressive''
in promoting compliance with the treaty, Kimball said.
Also, he said, two past directors of the U.N. agency, Hans Blix
and Sigvard Eklund, each served four terms.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
17 Hi Pakistan: KRL out of bounds for IAEA -->
December 13 2004
ISLAMABAD: The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA)
jurisdiction is only over ‘safeguarded nuclear facilities’ in
Pakistan such as Kanupp, Chashnupp and Pinstech. IAEA inspectors,
however, do not have access to any other nuclear related facility
or plant such as Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL), Kahuta etc.
Informed sources told The News that it was important for people
to differentiate between jurisdiction of IAEA and Organization of
Prohibited Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Many agree that the fault
does not lie with the common Pakistani because in the past
information about nuclear technology has not been shared or
debated here. It is a scientific and technical field but many
dimensions, which affect people like media reports in the West
after Pakistan’s proliferation case, became public and news that
‘inspectors’ are coming to Pakistan have seen stock markets
buckling down.
OPCW has a mandate to oversee the implementation of CWC and does
not have any thing to do with nuclear weapons related facilities.
Access to sensitive sites can be denied by Pakistan. "OPCW
carries out two kinds of inspections i.e. challenge inspections
and routine inspections. Challenge inspections take place when
one of the member states complains of an alleged violation of CWC
provisions by another member state and provides credible evidence
to that effect to the OPCW’s technical secretariat. So far not a
single challenge inspection has taken place any where in the
world," maintain the sources.
Routine inspections of private and public sector chemical
industries especially fertiliser plants declared by member states
are carried out routinely by OPCW inspectors all around the
world.
"So far 1674 such inspections have taken place, including a large
number of inspections of the chemical industries in US, UK,
Russia, Iran as well as more than 100 inspections in India," say
the sources.
They point out to the misperception, which was created in our
media when such a routine inspection was conducted at Fauji
Jordan Fertilizer at Karachi. Coming in the aftermath of the US
led attack on Iraq on false allegations these sources agree that
such negative repercussions can be avoided through greater public
education. However, they do not give details how they hope to
involve the public in this field.
OPCW inspections do not come as a surprise, they do provide
enough warning and indicate the industrial unit they intend
inspecting. They are properly received and are escorted by
officials of national authority for implementation of CWC, which
is based in the Foreign Office, Islamabad.
"They cannot ask for inspection of any unrelated facility. It can
only happen in case of a challenge inspection but that is only
triggered once credible evidence of suspected activity is
available and even in that eventuality the host state has the
right to negotiate the inspection perimeter and is entitled to
use managed access techniques to protect sensitive information.
Access to sensitive areas can be denied. Such inspections are
lest likely to happen since there are serious penalties for
parties asking for frivolous inspections," say these sources.
Turning to the issue of Mock Inspection, which was discussed last
week, these sources say that as the name suggests these
inspections are carried out creating hypothetical scenarios.
"Mock inspection of KRL does not mean that KRL is being subjected
to mock or actual inspection, it only denotes that KRL personnel
are being educated in various aspects of CWC. An important aspect
of this training is explanation of rights of the inspected state
party to safeguard and protect its national security interests
and related information," explained these sources.
There is no relationship between OPCW and CTBT. Every treaty has
different obligations, which is separately negotiated and has its
own implementation and verification mechanisms. As far as India
is concerned since it had declared a Chemical Weapons Stockpile
at the time of ratification of CWC, its stockpiles have been
documented and are being destroyed as per the schedule given by
OPCW under regular inspections by OPCW inspectors and as
mentioned above India has also been subjected to more than 100
routine industrial inspections so far.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
18 Daily Press: It Wins Wars -- But at What Cost?
[http://dailypress.com/]
HAMPTON ROADS, VA.
December 13, 2004 9:55 PM
Danger Dismissed: How the Pentagon downplays the risks of
depleted uranium weapons
Chapter 3: The Silver Bullet.
The fight over depleted uranium weapons isn't about how well they
work. It's about how safe they are when the fighting is finished.
The weapons systems.
Chapter 3 in brief
M1 Abrams tank benefits two ways
The main U.S. battle tank, it uses depleted uranium sandwiched
between steel slabs for defense, creating an armor never
penetrated in war. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, its depleted
uranium weapons allowed it to destroy Iraqi tanks before the
enemy got in range to fire effectively. A-10 "Warthog" is a
rapid-fire tank killer
Though slow, it's deadly and accurate. It's fired the most
rounds of depleted uranium in actual warfare. Navy's Phalanx is
last-ditch defense
The weapon is designed to shoot down missiles or airplanes that
get close to a ship after eluding other defense weapons. The
Navy is switching from depleted uranium to tungsten for the
Phalanx but denies that the switch is for safety reasons.
Gatling gun for A-10, Phalanx
Both weapons use similar technology to fire 4,200 rounds a
minute. Most miss, but only one shot is needed to do the job.
Small but effective 30 mm cartridge
The depleted uranium rounds fired by the "Warthog" and the
Phalanx aren't much bigger than a finger, once you take away the
protective housing that helps launch the weapons. Yet they can
still take down a tank or missile. Area veteran was in weapons'
dust
Matt Rohman, a veteran of the Gulf War from York County, spent
months working in the dust created from depleted uranium
weapons. He began losing his teeth and his strength within weeks
and was totally disabled in a few years. Government doctors have
been unable to explain his illnesses. Duke professor says dust
is a danger
Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, professor of pharmacology and cancer
biology at Duke University, has spent years studying the effects
of depleted uranium on the body to try to find the cause of Gulf
War veterans' illnesses. He says that exposure to the mildly
radioactive toxic dust resulting from use of depleted uranium
weapons is one reason Rohman and others are so sick. Munitions
expert defends weapons
James Naughton, former head of the Army's munitions program,
says the weapons are safe and give the U.S. military a decisive
advantage in combat. Pentagon says study shows no major risk
Lt. Col. Mark Melanson, director of the Army's health physics
program, says the recently completed Capstone Study documents
the low level of risk to soldiers and civilians from inhaling
depleted uranium dust on the battlefield. Army procedures call
for wearing safety masks and clothing when going into vehicles
hit with the weapons, but Melanson says you'd have to go into
and onto thousands of them before endangering your health. Some
Web sites on depleted uranium
www1.va.gov/RAC-GWVI [http://www1.va.gov/RAC-GWVI]
This is the site for the Veterans Administration Advisory
Committee on Gulf War Illnesses, a panel of scientists,
researchers and veterans advocates appointed in 2001 to help the
government's research efforts. Its recent report is here, along
with links to much of the research available.
www.gulflink.osd.mil [http://www.gulflink.osd.mil]
This is the Pentagon's official web site for health issues
related to Gulf War service, mostly concentrated on the 1991
war. www.ngwrc.org [http://www.ngwrc.org]
This is the web site of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a
veterans' advocacy group that focuses on troops from 1991 to
present. Once you've accessed the home page here, you can link
to specific topics related to Gulf War issues and research,
including issues facing current troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ABOUT DU
What is it?
It's a byproduct of making "enriched uranium" for nuclear
weapons and fuel. "Enriched uranium" is somewhat misleading
because processors take uranium with natural levels of
radioactive isotopes, primarily Uranium 238 and Uranium 235, and
remove as much of the U-235 as possible. Weapons makers and
nuclear plant owners want almost-pure, highly radioactive U-235.
What's left behind is primarily U-238 (other isotopes remain, in
very small quantities). That substance has about 40 percent less
radioactivity than natural uranium and is "depleted uranium."
What makes it so important?
It's proven to be the most effective tank-killing weapon ever.
A round of depleted uranium no bigger than your little finger
can stop a top-of-the line tank without depleted uranium armor.
The weapons get sharper as they hit and plow through thick
steel. They also create fireballs of thousands of degrees, a
potent combination. What is the controversy?
As they strike, the weapons get sharper by peeling off millions
of shards of burning depleted uranium. Those burning pieces
become microscopic dust that can be inhaled. Depleted uranium is
a mildly radioactive, toxic substance that can cause damage to
live tissue and cells once inside the body.
THE SERIES
Part One: 'Silver Bullet,' Black Dust Part Two: Of Rodents and
Radiation Part Three: It Wins Wars -- But at What Cost?
BY BOB EVANS [bevans@dailypress.com]
247-4758
December 13, 2004
The United States began developing depleted uranium weapons
in the 1950s. But the first one wasn't fired in combat until the
1991 Persian Gulf War.
It didn't take long for the weapons to show that the wait was
worth it.
Soldiers on the battlefield were so impressed, they quickly
began calling depleted uranium "The Silver Bullet," in
recognition of its seemingly magical capabilities and exterior
metallic color. They also began calling it "DU."
Although the U.S. tank gunners firing the weapons had never used
them before - even in training - they were immediately able to
hit and destroy heavy Soviet-made Iraqi tanks and armored
vehicles from two miles away, military officials crowed in
congressional hearings afterward.
The weapon that it replaced, made from tungsten, wasn't
effective from more than a mile and a half, they said. That's
the equivalent of two boxers squaring off, one with 4-foot-long
arms, the other with 3-foot-long arms.
"What we want to be able to do is strike the target from farther
away than we can be hit back, and we want the target to be
destroyed when we shoot at it," Col. Jim Naughton, then-head of
munitions for the Army Materiel Command, said just days before
Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. "And we don't want to
fight even. Nobody goes into a war and wants to be even with the
enemy. We want to be ahead, and DU gives us that advantage."
This battlefield benefit might be in danger, though. A growing
number of medical researchers are finding evidence that the
residue of depleted uranium weapons might be deadly to our own
troops.
Every time that a depleted uranium weapon hits its target, it
leaves behind millions of tiny pieces of black dust that are
mildly radioactive. The vast majority of those pieces are small
enough to be inhaled. Researchers have found evidence that even
a single piece of the dust in direct contact with a human cell
begins the kind of genetic transformations thought to be the
first steps toward cancer. They've also found evidence that
inhaled uranium can be transferred to the brain.
A number of researchers think that proof of the dust's migration
to the brain might explain some of the widespread neurological
illness among veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.
The Pentagon has dismissed this possibility, saying it's an
unproven theory. As for the other risks, they say even the
highest dose of depleted uranium dust likely to be experienced
in battle isn't enough to hurt someone. The Army says a recently
completed $6 million study of the effects of inhaled depleted
uranium demonstrates that it isn't a significant health risk,
especially when the other risks on a battlefield are part of the
calculations.
Theories and data abound to support both sides. No one disputes
that the stakes are high.
On one side is the huge advantage that the weapons provided in
the Gulf War and last year's Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pentagon
officials say many soldiers are alive today because of depleted
uranium's effectiveness.
On the other hand, there's the possibility that depleted uranium
played a part in the illnesses suffered by many of the 697,000
men and women who fought in the 1991 war. More than 26 percent
of that war's veterans are on disability, a rate nearly three
times higher than experienced in any U.S. war in the past 60
years. Gulf War-related experiences don't account for all those
disabilities, but the reason why so many are so sick remains a
mystery. Some scientists suspect that it could be a combination
of factors, including the black dust.
WHY THE WEAPON IS SO POWERFUL
The dust is an unavoidable result of depleted uranium weapons,
which are especially effective arms for a number of reasons.
Depleted uranium is extremely dense, which means it is very
heavy relative to the space that it takes up.
In the Gulf War, U.S. forces fired thousands of projectiles with
depleted uranium - about 320 tons worth. That sounds like a lot,
Naughton said, but if you squished it all together, it would
make a cube only 8 feet long on each edge.
This high density - 1.7 times that of lead - offers important
offensive and defensive capabilities in warfare.
On defense, it makes for nearly impenetrable armor. Slabs of
depleted uranium sandwiched between sheets of tough steel are
used in the main U.S. battle tank, the Abrams. Depleted uranium
armor has never been penetrated in combat, only in testing under
controlled conditions, the Pentagon says.
The armor is so good that after the Gulf War, Pentagon officials
were fond of telling members of Congress the story of a U.S.
Abrams tank crew that suddenly found itself in point-blank
proximity to three Russian-made Iraqi tanks in the fog of war.
The Iraqis fired first, but their shots bounced off the Abrams'
armor, causing at most a crease in the metal.
The Abrams' crew then fired 1-2-3 and destroyed all three Iraqi
tanks. The last shot went through a sand berm that completely
concealed the enemy tank from view after it tried to run and
hide, the story went.
Lest the military value of depleted uranium be lost in the
health controversy, the story is recounted on a Department of
Defense Web site established in reaction to allegations that
depleted uranium weapons are responsible for some Gulf War
veterans' illnesses. Depleted uranium's high density also gives
the weapons awesome power. Other than what's necessary to launch
a depleted uranium weapon in flight toward a target, it carries
no other explosive and isn't a "shell." It is simply a pointed
rod of almost pure depleted uranium metal hurling through the
air, with fins on the back to give it the stability necessary to
ensure that it reaches the target. The deadly darts fired from
Abrams tanks are about 2 feet long and less than an inch in
diameter. They weigh from 8.5 to 10.6 pounds.
Smaller guns equipped to use the weapon shoot even smaller
sticks of depleted uranium. But they can be just as effective.
The Air Force's A-10 "Warthog" tank-killer aircraft can spit out
4,200 rounds a minute, each about the size of a finger and
weighing only two-thirds of a pound, Pentagon officials say.
Each one of those fingers can destroy a tank.
Launching depleted uranium weapons involves mounting them in
cuplike fittings called sabots and then loading them into the
weapon. The sabots give the depleted uranium rods a sort of
vehicle to ride through the barrel of the gun and out of the
muzzle, so the projectile can begin the journey to the target.
Once the sabot and depleted uranium rod and its fins clear the
muzzle, the sabot falls to the ground.
About that point, the depleted uranium weapon is traveling at
Mach 3, or three times the speed of sound, says Don Noble, a
retired military munitions expert from Williamsburg who helped
test the weapons in the 1970s.
WHY THE WEAPON IS SO DEADLY
Once a depleted uranium weapon reaches its target, the high
density, small diameter of the projectile and all that speed
means there's a lot of energy packed into a narrow space.
Packing lots of energy into a small space is what power is all
about.
Noble notes that depleted uranium has some very special
properties that enhance that power.
Unlike most metals, a narrow, sharp-tipped depleted uranium rod
doesn't get blunt when it strikes a hard object. It just gets
sharper, shedding little bits of depleted uranium - like
shavings in a pencil sharpener - as it plows through a hard
object such as armor.
Those little bits are also on fire - about 3,200 degrees
Fahrenheit, a study by the Canadian armed forces found.
Researchers call the tiny pieces "fireflies," and they're
abundant and visible when a weapon hits the target. For a time,
some of these flaming bits become liquid before cooling into
tiny irregular-shaped pieces of dust.
The depleted uranium rod itself, known as a penetrator, is also
on fire at 3,200 degrees as it slides through the hard target,
the study says.
That's because depleted uranium is pyrophoric, which means that
it's capable of igniting spontaneously in the air. If left alone
and exposed to air, it will turn black over time. When it
strikes something, its exterior bursts into flames but it
retains its mass and relative shape, not getting blunt.
By the time the weapon has penetrated its target, it's become a
fireball that ignites any combustible material nearby - such as
fuel, clothing or oxygen - leaving behind the black dust of
incinerated particles of depleted uranium as it goes.
"As the penetrator enters the crew compartment of the target
vehicle, it brings with it a spray of molten metal, as well as
shards of both penetrator and vehicle armor, any of which can
cause secondary explosions in stored ammunition," a primer on
the weapons for U.S. Marine and Navy medics reads.
'THE DUST AND THE ASHES COVERED EVERYTHING'
That primer was written years after the Persian Gulf War, when a
young soldier named Matt Rohman from York County - along with
hundreds of other combat engineers - were handed the job of
emasculating Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's military in the 1991
war.
After the fighting stopped, U.S. military commanders knew that
they'd have only a short time before they'd be ordered back to
their barracks. They wanted to make sure that none of the
munitions, tanks or vehicles they'd encountered could be used
again by Saddam, whether those objects be intact or partly
destroyed.
So combat engineers like Rohman spent months speeding across the
desert, rounding up things to blow up. They quickly came to
recognize those struck by depleted uranium (as opposed to other
weapons) by the small holes in the pierced armor.
That and the dust were usually the only visible evidence of why
the vehicles had exploded in fire, Rohman says.
No one ever mentioned that the dust might be dangerous.
Now Rohman, 40, is one of the thousands of Gulf War vets who are
disabled by various maladies, including muscle and neurological
problems, stomach disorders, and extreme pains in his head and
joints. His medical problems began within weeks of his return
from the war in 1991, and government and civilian medical
doctors can't explain what caused them. He's been unable to work
since 1997.
Like many of the sick veterans from that war, there were many
possible hazards to choose from.
Life in the desert was hard, hot and dirty, Rohman says. A
mixture of sand, depleted uranium dust and soot from continuing
oil well fires in the area coated everything, including his
skin, uniform and often his food.
"For over 30 days, we did not wash and clean," Rohman wrote in a
sworn affidavit in 1998, in an attempt to get veterans benefits
after he'd been deemed physically unable to work at any job. "I
stayed in the same uniform through our march, and usually, I was
so dirty from the air, ashes and dust that I could not be
identified. The dust and ashes covered everything on me and
around us. We could not escape it."
The dust and dirt was on their food, too, he says, and it was
impossible to get it all out of your mouth.
Rohman spent nearly four months that way, his military records
show.
FIRST, ROHMAN LOST HIS TEETH, AND THEN HE LOST HIS HEALTH
Shortly after the war, Rohman's teeth started coming out.
Military dentists yanked nine teeth in Germany before they sent
him home. His records show the Army gave him an early honorable
discharge and a 20 percent disability because of a knee injury
that he'd suffered in the early days of the war, scrambling into
an armored car during a missile attack on his outfit.
By 1993, nearly all the other teeth were gone, he says. By then,
he was going to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth for treatment.
"The doctor over at Portsmouth told me that the only way they
could all go that quick was if they'd come in contact with
radiation," Rohman says. Losing teeth like that didn't run in
his family, he adds. Before the war, "I didn't have a cavity."
Rohman says the doctor at Portsmouth asked him whether he'd been
exposed to radioactive materials. Rohman says he didn't know
about depleted uranium back then, so he told the dentist that he
didn't know.
By the time Rohman learned that the black dust was mildly
radioactive, all his teeth were gone, he had severe nerve damage
in his hands and feet, almost daily migraine headaches and
breathing problems, among other ailments.
His lawyer filed in 1998 to get the dental and other records
from the Naval Medical Center to help Rohman's claims for
benefits. But the hospital sent a form letter, saying it had no
records at all of Rohman being seen there for anything.
Rohman has a stack of copies of medical records from Portsmouth,
verifying visits and treatments there. But he has only some of
his records, and none of the ones that he got and kept were for
the dental work.
He says the dentist who treated him wanted to put something
about possible service-related exposure to radioactivity on one
record but was overruled by a supervisor. He also says he saw
some of his records shredded during one of his visits, but
doesn't know what those papers contained.
Now, Rohman says, he realizes that he might have been eating
small bits of depleted uranium, and with the poor sanitation
available, those bits of dust were stuck on and between his
teeth for days and weeks.
What he swallowed wasn't a big problem. Scientists know that
nearly all the uranium that's swallowed passes through the
intestines quickly, is excreted and causes no danger.
What stayed in his mouth for a while is another matter.
Rapid loss of teeth is a common result of direct radiation to
the mouth and jaw from medical treatments or other sources, if
preventive measures aren't taken, according to medical journals.
Radiation affects the saliva glands, which in turn can't perform
the natural cleansing that helps keep teeth and gums healthy and
free of germs.
There's also the danger of tissue damage to the gums from direct
contact with radiation sources. When gums get weak, teeth fall
out.
While in the desert with the 3rd Armored Division, constantly on
the move to collect and destroy all that hardware, there were
days at a time when there was limited drinking water. Rohman
recalls that everyone's mouth was dry and that brushing your
teeth was out of the question.
According to data compiled by the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
loose teeth and gum problems are common among veterans of the
Persian Gulf War. The American Legion also did a survey of
members who'd been to the gulf during the war and found the same
thing. But that survey was never handled as a scientific survey,
says Steve Smithson, director of the legion's veterans affairs
and rehabilitation division.
Dental problems aren't on the list of typical Gulf War illnesses
compiled by researchers and the Veterans Affairs Department,
however.
Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, a professor of pharmacology and cancer
biology at Duke University, led a review of medical and
scientific data on depleted uranium that was published this
year. He says that he found no evidence of references to dental
problems but that it might simply be one of many gaps in our
knowledge about the veterans' health problems.
THE PROBLEM GOES PUBLIC WITH A 1998 STATEMENT
One of the big obstacles to figuring out the cause of these
illnesses is the government's failure to accurately survey all
those who served and to compare their experiences, Abou-Donia
and other researchers say. If that data is ever collected, they
say, they might gain many insights into the veterans' health
problems and the causes.
Given the circumstances that veterans like Rohman were working
in during and after the war, "the teeth part could be related
very directly to the depleted uranium," Abou-Donia says. He says
it's also possible that few veterans got as high a dose as
Rohman.
At the time that Rohman says he got dental exams at Portsmouth,
allegations of hazards from depleted uranium's use on the
battlefield hadn't become known yet outside the group of people
who develop weaponry for the military.
Not until 1998 did the U.S. government publicly acknowledge that
it shouldn't have let Rohman and hundreds of others work closely
with the vehicles and other objects struck by those weapons
without wearing masks or suits to protect them. The first
government official appointed to oversee research on the cause
of the veterans' health problems issued this statement:
"Combat troops or those working in support generally did not
know that DU-contaminated equipment, such as enemy vehicles
struck by DU rounds, required special handling. The failure to
properly disseminate such information to troops at all levels
may have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures."
The statement occurred after veterans' groups, members of
Congress and others successfully pushed the Pentagon to admit
that the illnesses suffered by the men and women who'd fought
the war weren't simply the result of too much stress. It also
occurred as government officials began to acknowledge that there
was a significant problem that had to be addressed.
CONCERNS WERE DOCUMENTED DURING THE 1980s
The government and military were backpedaling in many areas.
Within months, Pentagon and CIA officials acknowledged that
earlier statements dismissing the presence of nerve gas and
other toxins on the battlefield were erroneous and that there
were widespread incidents that could have affected troops during
the war and its aftermath.
By the time that a presidential assistant acknowledged the
failure to warn troops about the dangers of depleted uranium,
the Army had issued a technical bulletin calling for troops in
such situations to wear protective clothing, boots, and masks
with filters to prevent breathing the dust. It called for them
to be able to shower immediately afterward and remove any
"contaminated clothing," not just after the day's work but "if
feasible, at the site." The need to take those precautions
wasn't a secret among the people who'd been working to develop
the weapons more than a decade earlier.
When Noble was part of a team evaluating depleted uranium
weapons' ballistics in the 1970s, members examined the area with
Geiger counters before entering areas where the projectiles hit
targets, he says.
Even after the Geiger counters showed low levels of radiation,
his team wore protective suits and breather masks where the
weapons hit, he says. They also took regular doses of aspirin
because the drug was supposed to help cleanse their bodies of
the toxins from the uranium and other chemicals that they worked
with.
Other military officials who helped develop depleted uranium
weapons knew about the possible risk to soldiers' lungs and
began trying to get a grasp on the problem a decade before the
war.
A study to figure out how much dust might be inhaled after a
typical explosion - and what it would do once it got in the
lungs and body - was conducted from 1981 to 1983 by the Air
Force. Much of the work took place at the same New Mexico
laboratory where rats now breathe uranium bits to test whether
the uranium goes to their brains. The 1981-83 study by the Air
Force was titled, "Preliminary Study of Uranium Oxide
Dissolution in Simulated Lung Fluid." It tried to estimate how
much radiation the lungs might be getting before the particles
dissolved in the fluid and then into the bloodstream, where they
would pose a possible toxicological danger to the kidneys and
other parts of the body but also would be flushed out of the
body in urine.
The study pointed out lots of pitfalls that future researchers
would run into while trying to settle the problem for good. It
came to no firm conclusions about risks - in part because the
uranium bits don't break down into predictable sizes and shapes.
Much of the study resulted in educated guesses based on
mathematical models. More work was needed, it said.
Pentagon officials say the final reams of data on that topic
were collected and published this year. Their five-year $6
million study involved shooting real depleted uranium weapons
into a real tank, real tank hulls and turrets, and a real
Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The depleted uranium dust that
resulted was caught in filters, weighed, analyzed and soaked in
simulated lung fluid to see how long it would take to dissolve
halfway.
For most of the particles, it took more than 100 days, which
means there would be some mildly radioactive dust in the lungs
or lymph nodes for years. The study said the smallest particles
took the longest time to dissolve halfway. But it calculated
that because they were so small, there shouldn't be a
significant health risk from inhaling those particles, based on
industrial standards for nuclear workers and government-approved
standards for uranium intake.
Soldiers like Rohman, who weren't in a tank hit with one of the
weapons, would be able to enter hundreds to thousands of
vehicles covered with the dust before reaching the threshold of
risk, according to the study.
The military not only dismisses the risk, it dismisses the
statements of thousands of troops who say they were exposed.
HOW MANY INHALED? NO ONE REALLY KNOWS
Officially, the Pentagon says only a few hundred troops were
involved in potentially dangerous duty involving depleted
uranium in the 1991 war.
Veterans and many researchers disagree. There might have been
relatively few soldiers like Rohman officially assigned to work
in and on the damaged tanks and other vehicles struck with
depleted uranium, they say, but tens of thousands of others were
likely exposed.
Once the fighting stopped, just about anyone who came near a
tank or other vehicle hit by depleted uranium scrambled over and
into what was left to take a look. According to congressional
testimony in 1997, a survey of more than 10,000 Gulf War vets
showed that 85 percent of them had entered captured Iraqi
vehicles. The reasons were many, ranging from official duties to
getting their pictures taken or simply to satisfy curiosity.
Some vehicles hit by depleted uranium were hauled back to areas
far behind the combat zone for possible return to the United
States. The depleted uranium dust came with them.
According to a report to Congress by the Army Environmental
Policy Institute, 19 U.S. tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles
contaminated with depleted uranium dust were hauled back to King
Khalid Military City in Saudi Arabia, far from the combat zone.
The city was a central collection point for service personnel,
media and others going to and from various parts of the war.
The unit responsible for disposing those vehicles didn't know
about the hazards of the contamination and stored them "in a
recovery yard without controlled access," according to the
institute's report. The contaminated vehicles were there for
three weeks before proper precautions were taken, the report
says.
Tradition also might have played a part in spreading the black
dust. Souvenirs - including parts from Iraqi tanks that had been
hit by depleted uranium - were taken home in the bags and
baggage of soldiers and units, the institute's report says.
There were even attempts to bring back entire pieces of
equipment as battle trophies.
When officials caught on to what was happening, some of the
larger items were screened, and at least three Iraqi vehicles
that units hoped to take home with them were found to be
contaminated with depleted uranium and rejected for shipment,
the institute's report says.
Items brought home without previous screening through official
channels "may contain hazardous materials," the Army report
says. There's no official count of how often pieces of metal,
clothing or other items with black depleted uranium dust came
home to soldiers' barracks, homes and families.
Military officials say it's extremely unlikely that anyone who
came in contact with depleted uranium dust under such
circumstances would become sick from it. Soldiers in those
situations just didn't get a big enough dose, they say. The same
is true about soldiers who might have inhaled some depleted
uranium dust well after the end of a tank battle, they add.
That's because the documented cases of uranium poisoning in
uranium millers and miners studied over the years show that
exposures thousands of times greater than what could reasonably
be inhaled in those scenarios must occur to cause the body harm,
says Michael J. Kilpatrick, the Pentagon's doctor responsible
for looking after the health of troops sent overseas.
WHAT'S A SAFE DISTANCE FROM DEPLETED URANIUM?
Anyone who stays at least 50 meters (165 feet) away from where
depleted uranium struck an object has no risk of ill health from
exposure, says one of the Pentagon's leading experts on the
health effects of the weapons - Lt. Col. Mark Melanson, health
physics program manager for the Army Center for Health Promotion
and Preventive Medicine.
"Most of it settles out within 50 meters of the vehicle" that's
been hit, he says. "Is it possible for a single atom of depleted
uranium to carry beyond 50 meters? Yes. Is it a significant
health risk? No."
Studies have found big differences regarding how much breathable
dust depleted uranium weapons produce after they hit a target -
and how far they might spread. The Army Environmental Policy
Institute told Congress that the available research showed that
anywhere from 18 percent to 70 percent of a depleted uranium
projectile turns into breathable dust as it hits a target. It
said 90 percent of the airborne depleted uranium would land
within 50 meters of the explosion, in part because the dust is
so heavy.
But it also said that the dust particles that went beyond the
50-meter mark were generally all small enough to breathe in.
Scientists say those are potentially the most dangerous.
The environmental institute's report didn't go into how far the
dust could go and what it would do in the heavy,
sandstorm-driven winds of the Persian Gulf region. Much less how
easily it could be kicked up by a moving truck or tank, then
carried by one of those sandstorms. Melanson said later studies
by the Army established the 50-meter standard.
The United States fired the most depleted uranium in the Gulf
War, but the British and other allies used it too. And breathed
the air. Since then, veterans in those countries have demanded
to know why they're so sick.
The Royal Military College of Canada conducted its own testing
after complaints by veterans. The publicly released version of
its report didn't give a fixed distance from the site of an
explosion, but it agreed that "at any distance from contaminated
vehicles," the concentration of depleted uranium dust in the air
"would be diluted to safe levels."
It also found that 91 percent to 96 percent of the bits of dust
left after an explosion "are easily respirable," and that "these
particles can remain in the air for a significant period of time
(hours to days), most of which will remain inside the target
vehicles, but with some likely to escape into the atmosphere
through open hatches or remain outside the target."
Studies by the U.S., Canadian and Australian militaries found
that though relatively heavy, depleted uranium dust particles
are again suspended into the air when disturbed by vehicles,
foot traffic or winds.
DETECTING ITS PRESENCE WITH A MASS SPECTROMETER
For much of the past 25 years, Leonard Dietz has been
contemplating how far inhalable bits of depleted uranium can fly
and how to detect it in the air and in soldiers' bodies. Dietz -
a retired physicist in Schenectady, N.Y. - worked at the Knolls
Atomic Power Laboratory, where General Electric did nuclear work
for the Navy and the U.S. government years before the 1991 war.
Dietz's primary expertise involves a device called a mass
spectrometer. A mass spectrometer is used to analyze samples of
unknown substances to figure out what they're made of.
Dietz patented a device built into mass spectrometers that's
used to identify radioactive objects such as uranium and
plutonium. He designed and built three mass spectrometers used
to analyze uranium, plutonium and other elements.
General Electric had to monitor the air at the plant where Dietz
worked. It also had to monitor the air around the perimeter of
the plant's grounds to make sure that none of the substances it
was using were escaping, Dietz says. One of his jobs was to
figure out what was in the air filters to prove that his
employer wasn't polluting.
The plant where he worked didn't use depleted uranium. But in
1979, all 16 filters caught tiny bits of depleted uranium -
small enough that a human could inhale them, Dietz says.
"Every single filter contained depleted uranium." Dietz said, so
they knew it wasn't a fluke.
Dietz and his co-workers finally figured out that the particles
were coming from a plant in Albany, N.Y., making depleted
uranium weapons for the Air Force.
The plant's smokestack was 26 miles from some of the filters, he
says.
State and federal regulators caught on to the problem about the
same time. They closed the plant, and since 1984, the U.S.
government has been spending millions of dollars a year to
remove the dangerous remnants of uranium.
The cleanup includes removing the top layer of soil from
properties in a radius of about two-thirds of a mile from the
plant, says James T. Moore of the Army Corps of Engineers, who's
supervising the project. The soil was removed because it
contained unacceptable quantities of small pieces of depleted
uranium, small enough to be inhaled.
Two-thirds of a mile is more than 1,000 meters, or a kilometer.
In all, 53 nearby properties required soil removal. They
included property in nearby Colonie, N.Y., and some railroad
property, all of which "contain residual radioactive and
chemical constituents above federal and state guidelines,"
according to a status report on the work by the Corps of
Engineers.
Dietz says the 26-mile mark just happened to be where three of
his filters were. They were the farthest from the plant where
the depleted uranium weapons were made. He says his calculations
show that while the contamination from the plant near Colonie
came from a high smokestack, similar heights could easily be
reached by depleted uranium dust particles rising from the heat
and smoke of an exploding tank.
He says he has no doubt that depleted uranium particles from the
weapons plant went much farther than 26 miles. Well-established
laws of physics show that despite their heavy weight,
inhalable-sized particles can carry for miles, can be kicked up
and resuspended in the air, and can travel farther, depending on
their shape, wind speed and other factors, he says.
Naturally occurring electrostatic charges would also cause them
to cling to other dust particles that are even more aerodynamic,
he says.
That would enable them to carry even further.
"They have an unlimited range," he says. "They can go anywhere
dust goes."
Dietz wrote a technical paper for General Electric to document
his findings on the airborne depleted uranium from the weapons
plant. He retired a short time later but keeps following the
trail of depleted uranium dust.
In 1995, a Kuwaiti scientist, Firyal Bou-Rabee, published a
paper on possible contamination of Kuwait's soil, air and water
in the international journal Applied Radiation Isotopes. The
Pentagon's Web site on depleted uranium cites the scientist's
research to demonstrate that the weapons' use there during the
1991 war didn't create undue radiological hazards in that nation.
Bou-Rabee's samples did show that the uranium in the air was
about twice what you'd expect to find, given the level of
uranium in the soils. He attributed this to "the relatively
small contribution of depleted uranium dispersed after the Gulf
War."
His research was financed by the Kuwaiti government - which, at
the time, depended on the United States for its defense against
Iraq.
Like most scientific papers, the data was included so other
scientists could evaluate his findings and conclusions. Dietz
says he used that data to compute how much depleted uranium was
in a 2,500-square-kilometer (1,000-square-mile) area where
battles were fought during the war.
The result, he says, was 10 metric tons of depleted uranium that
had been added to the environment.
THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION IS WEAPONS
There's no other source of the depleted uranium but the residue
of the weapons, he says, because the characteristics of depleted
uranium aren't replicated in nature and there are no other
sources of the materials.
Bou-Rabee and the Pentagon pointed to the same data to show that
because the total uranium in the air and soil was below
government-established safety limits, there's no problem.
The U.S. government sent its own people with Geiger counters and
other devices to measure the radioactivity of soils in Kuwait.
The same thing was done in Bosnia and parts of the former
Yugoslavia, where depleted uranium weapons were used by U.S. and
British forces in peacekeeping operations after the Persian Gulf
War.
The U.S. government and the U.N. World Health Organization say
their studies of the soils in those former battlefields show
levels of radioactivity and uranium below what should cause
alarm.
That's because they're within what's called the "natural
background" levels that you'd find ordinarily.
Melanson says he's participated in some of that research,
including the work to gather samples.
He and other government officials say there's no health risk
there, even though thousands of small and large depleted uranium
projectiles that missed their targets remain buried in the soil,
mostly from the Air Force's A-10 aircraft.
Children often find the projectiles, play with them and carry
them around.
A World Health Organization evaluation of the problem said that
wasn't a good idea but wasn't an immediate health threat unless
someone carried a projectile around for days or weeks.
CALCULATED RISKS DEPEND ON THE CALCULATIONS USED
Dietz says that he reviewed the data and methodology Melanson's
lab used to produce these soil surveys and that the mass
spectrometer it employed wasn't up to the job. He says it's
incapable of accurately detecting depleted uranium in quantities
of less than one part per million. That might sound like too
small an amount to be concerned about, Dietz says, but when
you're talking about particles measured in microns -
one-millionth of a meter - it could mean a lot of uncounted
depleted uranium.
Measuring total radioactivity isn't the point anyway, Dietz and
others say. That's because the natural background doesn't
involve a high quantity of radioactive dust on the surface,
blowing around in the air. Much of the uranium in nature is in
the ground, buried, and not so susceptible to inhalation.
There's plenty of natural uranium in Kuwait, but it wouldn't
have the same health-threatening characteristics as the depleted
uranium dust, Dietz and other scientists say. Naturally
occurring uranium is dilute, locked up in sand and minerals. As
a result, it would be relatively innocuous if inhaled.
The depleted uranium dust, on the other hand, is concentrated
and does not quickly dissolve. Once it gets into the lungs, even
the smaller pieces last for years - which means the alpha
radiation that they exude will be banging on nearby lung and
lymph-node tissue, causing possible damage.
Melanson says even if that's true, the total dose of uranium
from these little pieces isn't enough to get close to the
government's accepted standards for safe peacetime dosages.
Scientists who think more research is needed say the standards
that the Pentagon used for even its most recent calculations
don't take into account the latest research. The standards used
in the most recent government study, published this fall, were
adopted in the 1970s. The Capstone Study made no attempt to
explore what might be the additional risk if the "bystander
effect" of depleted uranium on nearby human cells is taken into
account.
Dietz and other critics of the weapons say that even if the
ultimate level of radioactivity isn't alarmingly high, it
doesn't mean that the war and use of the weapons didn't increase
the health risks.
The natural-background uranium level set by government agencies
is merely a range of measurements taken in various places.
Colorado and Florida, for instance, have higher natural
background levels than Virginia, overall.
So it's a measurement of what exists, critics of depleted
uranium weapons say - not necessarily what's safe.
Risk and safety in warfare are difficult to measure, Melanson
says. Compared with the other risks on a battlefield and the
alternative of not using depleted uranium weapons, inhaling the
amount of dust that's likely simply isn't a significant factor,
he says.
The normal risk of fatal lung cancer for all males in the United
States is 23.6 percent.
Smoking raises that to nearly 31 percent, he says.
But according to the measurements and calculations in the
Capstone Study, even the maximum dose of inhaled depleted
uranium increases the risk less than 1 percent.
Copyright ©2004 Daily Press
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: US tapped ElBaradei calls, claim officials
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Ian Traynor in Zagreb
Monday December 13, 2004
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]
The Bush administration has been listening in on telephone
conversations between the director of the international nuclear
agency and Iranian diplomats with the aim of gathering evidence
to remove the UN bureaucrat from his post, it was reported
yesterday.
With Washington's campaign against the IAEA chief, Dr Mohammad
ElBaradei, now in its second year, the administration has
acquired dozens of telephone intercepts of such conversations in
the hopes of finding evidence of wrongdoing, the Washington Post
said. The newspaper quoted three anonymous US government
officials as saying that the administration embarked on its
eavesdropping mission to collect material that would discredit Dr
ElBaradei in his dealings with Tehran in the crisis over its
clandestine nuclear programme.
At the IAEA headquarters in Vienna it is taken for granted that
Dr ElBaradei's phone calls are tapped. Officials shrug that such
activities go with the territory. The CIA had no comment when
contacted yesterday.
For the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, Dr
ElBaradei has been an enemy since he exposed the hollowness of
Washington's claims about Saddam Hussein's nuclear arsenal during
the run-up to the war on Iraq. In recent months, as global
efforts to halt Iran's clandestine nuclear programme gathered
pace, some US officials who were sceptical of a diplomatic
resolution accused Dr ElBaradei of hiding evidence of Tehran's
weapons programme from the nuclear watchdog.
Under a deal brokered by Britain, Germany and France, Tehran
agreed last month to suspend uranium enrichment. However,
Washington has been pressing for Iran to be taken to the UN
security council.
State Department hardliners, such as the under secretary for arms
control, John Bolton, have openly complained about Dr ElBaradei's
differing approach. However, the wire taps produced no clear
evidence of inappropriate contact between Dr ElBaradei and
officials in Tehran. "Some people think he sounds way too soft on
the Iranians, but that's about it," one official told the Post.
The IAEA director has said he intends to seek a third term when
his current mandate at the agency expires next summer. Dr
ElBaradei, a 20-year veteran of the IAEA, enjoys broad support
among the agency's 35-strong executive.
Some experts argued yesterday that Washington would do better to
expend its diplomatic capital on urging the IAEA to get tougher
on Iran, rather than conducting a covert campaign against its
chief. "I think we should be more wholeheartedly supporting the
Europeans," Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security
adviser for the first President Bush, told CNN yesterday. "I
think we have little to lose by reaching out, and trying to draw
them [Iran] at least into freezing their programme."
During the run-up to the Iraq war, the nuclear chief was viewed
as an obstacle to America's campaign to convince the
international community that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of
mass destruction. The feud between Dr ElBaradei and the hawks in
the Bush administration flared again during last autumn's US
presidential campaign when the nuclear chief pointed out that
hundreds of tons of explosives had gone missing from Iraq's
nuclear complexes following the US takeover.
Earlier this year the former international development secretary,
Clare Short, alleged in a BBC interview that the office of the UN
secretary general, Kofi Annan, had been bugged. The UN's former
chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, also told the Guardian he
suspected both his UN office and his home were bugged before the
Iraq war.
Special report United States of America
World news guide North American media
Media
New York Times [http://nytimes.com]
Washington Post [http://washingtonpost.com]
CNN [http://cnn.com]
Government
US government portal [http://www.firstgov.gov/]
White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/]
Senate [http://www.senate.gov/]
House of Representatives [http://www.house.gov]
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
20 AU ABC: Downer maintains his silence on UN job
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">
[http://www.abc.net.au/]
The World Today - Monday, 13 December , 2004 12:10:00
Reporter: Greg Jennett
ELEANOR HALL: Australia's Foreign Minster, Alexander Downer is
maintaining a firm silence over whether he's been approached by
the Bush administration to become the new chief of the United
Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Washington Post is today reporting that the White House has
been bugging the phones of the IAEA Director General, Mohamed El
Baradei, as part of a campaign to oust him and that United
States officials approached Mr Downer several months ago to ask
him to run for the job instead.
Mr Downer reportedly refused the offer, but according to
anonymous US sources, his reluctance hasn't deterred the Bush
administration.
From Canberra, Greg Jennett reports.
GREG JENNETT: When it comes to allegations of intrigue at the
United Nations and its agencies, the hand of the Bush
administration never seems far away.
In the lead up to the war in Iraq, there were claims that
America and its allies had been involved in tapping the phones
of Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, and even monitoring the office
of Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Now the Washington Post reports that it's happening again, this
time against Mohamed El Baradei, the Director-General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Quoting anonymous officials, The Washington Post says it's all
part of a plan to keep the spotlight on El Baradei and raise the
heat.
That is to force him out of the job he's held since 1997, when
his current term expires.
And that's where Australia's Foreign Minister fits in.
An anonymous source quoted in The Washington Post says America
approached Alexander Downer to stand for the job several months
ago, but couldn't convince him to.
The newspaper says, despite Alexander Downer's unwillingness to
challenge Mr El Baradei, he remains the Bush administration's
top choice.
Mr Downer's office is giving a firm no comment on the story.
Arriving at a Cabinet meeting in Sydney the Defence Minister
Robert Hill was coy about the issue too.
ROBERT HILL: Well, he's doing an excellent job as Foreign
Minister so I'd like him to stay as Foreign Minister.
JOURNALIST: Rule it out completely?
(Robert Hill laughs)
Have you given him any pressure to stay?
(Robert Hill laughs)
ROBERT HILL: He's my mate.
GREG JENNETT: The Shadow Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd is
demanding the Australian Government state its support or
otherwise for Mohammed El Baradei.
KEVIN RUDD: If the Howard Government has a view that the current
head of the IAEA is not up to the job, then they have a
responsibility to tell the Australian people and the
international community why that is the case, what has he done
wrong and what Mr Downer would offer better.
GREG JENNETT: Kevin Rudd points out that like Hans Blix, Mohamed
El Baradei has proved to be closer to the truth on the existence
of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction than the version put about
by the Coalition of the Willing.
Pointing to the underhand campaign of destabilisation against
the IAEA director, Mr Rudd says any debate about Mr El Baradei's
performance should be held openly, in the lead up to the close
of nominations for the job at the end of the month.
KEVIN RUDD: I think the big challenge is to work out what is
wrong with the current head of the IAEA. I haven't heard anyone
so far say that Mohamed El Baradei has performed badly in that
function. If that is the Howard Government's view that the
current head of the IAEA is not doing its job, his job, then I
think they should tell Australia and tell the world why and give
evidence for that.
GREG JENNETT: With Labor's Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan in tow,
Kevin Rudd today engages in a diplomatic mission of his own.
The pair has left for a trip to China, where they'll get
briefings on Taiwan and North Korea.
ELEANOR HALL: Greg Jennett reporting from Canberra.
[http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm]
*****************************************************************
21 AU ABC: Downer turned down nuke job offer: report.
13/12/2004. ABC News Online
First Posted: Monday, December 13, 2004 . 7:46am --> Last
Alexander Downer was reportedly sounded out for a job with the
UN nuclear watchdog. (File photo) (ABC TV) [ border=]
By North America correspondent Lisa Millar
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been approached to become
the next head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, according
to the the Washington Post.
The newspaper says the Bush administration wants the head of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed El
Baradei, to step down.
The article says the US asked Mr Downer several months ago if
he would consider the job but he apparently refused to challenge
Dr El Baradei.
The Post reports that the US has bugged Dr El Baradei's phone
calls with Iranian officials in its bid to push him out of the
job.
Hardliners within the Bush administration think Dr El Baradei
is too soft on Iran but Democrat Senator Joe Biden is concerned.
"It's a very slippery, dangerous slope as we're trying to
re-establish ourselves as a player in the international
community," he said. "I'd be very careful if I were them."
"I agree with the administration, [Dr El Baradei] is going a
little too slow with Iran but this is really a dangerous and
slippery slope."
© 2004 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
*****************************************************************
22 [PUBCIT_PRESS] NRC to hold informal hearings about reactors
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:20:37 -0600 (CST)
Public Citizen Press Releases
Providing the latest information about Public Citizen activities
-------------------------------------------
Dec. 13, 2004
Court Allows NRC to Hold Informal Public Hearings in Reactor Licensing
Proceedings
But Court Makes Clear That Challenges Can Be Made
WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can
hold informal public hearings during reactor licensing proceedings, but
parties can file case-by-case challenges where such procedures fall
short of ensuring a fair hearing, the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
in Boston has ruled in a case filed by Public Citizen and the Nuclear
Information and Resource Service (NIRS).
Until the NRC modified its 10 C.F.R. Part 2 regulations last Feb. 13,
the public had the right to full, on-the-record hearings in all reactor
licensing proceedings. These hearings were similar to federal court
trials, and included discovery and cross-examination of witnesses. On
Feb. 20, Public Citizen and NIRS challenged these new Part 2
regulations, charging that they violate the Atomic Energy Act by
eliminating the right to these formal hearings in most agency
adjudicatory proceedings.
According to the courts decision, Should the agencys
administration of the new rules contradict its present representations
or otherwise flout this principle [of full and true disclosure of the
facts], nothing in this opinion will inoculate the rules against future
challenges.
The court does not say that the NRC can scuttle the process required
by federal law, said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizens
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. In fact, the decision
makes it clear that NRC must permit the necessary procedures, including
cross-examination, for a fair hearing decision.
The court upheld the NRCs ability to limit discovery and
cross-examination, but rejected the idea that those can be eliminated,
saying that the Commissions new rules may approach the outer
bounds of what is permissible under the Administrative Procedures
Act.
It is extremely unfortunate that the court agrees that the new rules
could result in less information available to the public and that the
NRCs explanation for limiting discovery is thin, yet chose to
give such a high degree of deference to the NRC, said Michael
Mariotte, executive director of NIRS. At the same time, the decision
draws a line in the sand and prevents the NRC from distorting the public
hearing process any further.
The court stated that the NRC came perilously close to violating
[the Administrative Procedures Act] here, with [] unfortunate
consequences for efficient administrative process and effective
appellate review. The court concluded, There is a victory here for
the NRC, but it should be a cause for self-examination rather than
jubilation.
Other petitioners in this case include Citizens Awareness Network and
the National Whistleblower Center. Attorneys general from
Massachusetts, New York, California, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and
Connecticut filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.
###
-------------------------------------------
To be removed from this list send an email to pcpress@citizen.org with "unsubscribe pubcit_press" in the message.
Please visit our website at www.citizen.org
*****************************************************************
23 [CMEP] Court Allows NRC to Dilute Reactor Licensing Process
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:10:58 -0600 (CST)
*** P R E S S R E L E A S E ***
PUBLIC CITIZEN * NUCLEAR INFORMATION and RESOURCE SERVICE
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Dec. 13, 2004
Contact: Michael Kirkpatrick (202) 588-7728; Michael Mariotte (202)
328-0002
Court Allows NRC to Hold Informal Public Hearings in Reactor Licensing
Proceedings
But Court Makes Clear That Challenges Can Be Made
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can
hold informal public hearings during reactor licensing proceedings, but
parties can file case-by-case challenges where such procedures fall
short of ensuring a fair hearing, the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
in Boston has ruled in a case filed by Public Citizen and the Nuclear
Information and Resource Service (NIRS).
Until the NRC modified its 10 C.F.R. Part 2 regulations last Feb. 13,
the public had the right to full, on-the-record hearings in all reactor
licensing proceedings. These hearings were similar to federal court
trials, and included discovery and cross-examination of witnesses. On
Feb. 20, Public Citizen and NIRS challenged these new "Part 2"
regulations, charging that they violate the Atomic Energy Act by
eliminating the right to these formal hearings in most agency
adjudicatory proceedings.
According to the court's decision,"Should the agency's administration
of the new rules contradict its present representations or otherwise
flout this principle [of full and true disclosure of the facts], nothing
in this opinion will inoculate the rules against future challenges."
"The court does not say that the NRC can scuttle the process required
by federal law," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "In fact, the decision
makes it clear that NRC must permit the necessary procedures, including
cross-examination, for a fair hearing decision."
The court upheld the NRC's ability to limit discovery and
cross-examination, but rejected the idea that those can be eliminated,
saying that "the Commission's new rules may approach the outer bounds of
what is permissible" under the Administrative Procedures Act.
"It is extremely unfortunate that the court agrees that the new rules
could result in less information available to the public and that the
NRC's explanation for limiting discovery is 'thin,' yet chose to give
such a high degree of deference to the NRC," said Michael Mariotte,
executive director of NIRS. "At the same time, the decision draws a line
in the sand and prevents the NRC from distorting the public hearing
process any further."
The court stated that "the NRC came perilously close to violating [the
Administrative Procedures Act] here, with [...] unfortunate consequences
for efficient administrative process and effective appellate review."
The court concluded, "There is a victory here for the NRC, but it should
be a cause for self-examination rather than jubilation."
Other petitioners in this case include Citizens Awareness Network and
the National Whistleblower Center. Attorneys general from
Massachusetts, New York, California, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and
Connecticut filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.
###
**********
If you would like to be removed from the CMEP ListServ, send an email to listserv@listserver.citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe CMEP" in the message.
Questions about the CMEP ListServ can be directed to CMEP-request@LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG.
To learn more about this and other Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program campaigns, visit our website at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/
-Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
*****************************************************************
24 Platts: Fenoc target of federal jury investigation
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
+ FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Fenoc) was informed by the
U.S. Attorney's Office that it is the "target of a federal jury
investigation into alleged false statements made" to the NRC in
2001 related to the extended outage of Davis-Besse, parent
FirstEnergy Corp. said today. The letter notifying the company
that it was the target of the grand jury probe also said that
prosecutors believe "federal charges will be returned" against
the company by the grand jury. In late 2003, Fenoc said it
received a grand jury subpoena requesting the production of
certain documents and records relating to the inspection and
maintenance of the reactor vessel head at its Davis-Besse Plant.
The documents and materials were provided to the grand jury
sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division. NRC gave Davis-Besse permission to
restart in March, after the reactor had been out of service for
two years following the discovery of severe boric acid corrosion
on the reactor vessel head.
Washington (Platts)--13Dec2004
Copyright © 2004 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
25 HindustanTimes.com: ‘Nuclear energy only answer to power shortage’
Monday, December 13, 2004 | Updated: 10:42 IST
HT Correspondent
Jabalpur, December 12
DIRECTOR OF Radiochemistry and Isotope Group, Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai, Dr Venugopal here today said
that only nuclear energy could help overcome the huge shortage
of power existing nationwide. He advocated setting up of more
nuclear power reactors in the country.
Talking to newspersons, Dr Venugopal, who has come here to
participate in the nine-day long national workshop on
radiochemistry and application of radioisotope being organised
jointly by BARC and Physics and Chemistry departments of
Government Model Science College from tomorrow, said that nine
more nuclear reactors were coming up in the country besides 14
already existing ones.
He said that the country would be in a position to produce
nuclear power 20,000-mega watt power by 2020. At the moment he
said that the countrys nuclear rectors were generating 2200 mw
power.
As of now, he said that the country was having 660 unit of
electricity per capita (one person) per annum. Asked whether the
nuclear energys cost of production was feasible, he said that
it was being sold around Rs 3.50 per unit.
About the cost of the commissioning of nuclear energy power
plants, he said that these werent very expensive, adding their
costs are similar to that in installation of thermal power
stations.
About the people who are opposing the nuclear technology, he
said that the France meets 80 per cent of the power demand by
nuclear energy. The countries whose belies were full are
opposing nuclear energy generation, he remarked.
[http://www.hindustantimes.com]
*****************************************************************
26 Times Argus: Officials to limit crowd at NRC hearing
December 13, 2004
Associated Press
BRATTLEBORO — State and local officials say they're hoping to
avoid a repeat of the last meeting between the public and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
That's why they're limiting the number of people who will be let
into the hall for another session set for 6 p.m. Thursday, and
limiting audience members' speeches to three minutes.
The time limit may seem tight to some speakers, given the
complexity of the items on the agenda.
NRC officials will be reporting on how the Vermont Yankee
nuclear plant lost track of highly radioactive spent fuel that
was said to be missing in April, only to be found several weeks
later in the plant's spent fuel storage pool.
They'll also report on an engineering assessment of the plant
done in connection with the 20 percent increase in power output
its owner, Entergy Nuclear, wants to get from the 32-year-old
reactor.
David O'Brien, commissioner of the Department of Public Service
and chairman of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, which
is hosting the session at Brattleboro Union High School, says he
wants to avoid the rancor of the March 31 meeting.
"I want something quite different than that. It was raucous and
confrontational," said O'Brien. "We should be able to do this
without problems."
Signs on sticks will be prohibited. Tickets will be issued at
the door to keep track of people entering the auditorium and the
gymnasium, where an overflow crowd will be seated. A significant
police presence is expected.
The concnern voiced by some officials about the upcoming meeting
drew a bit of satire from Raymond Shadis, a staff member with
the anti-nuclear group New England Coalition, which has been
Vermont Yankee's most consistent critic over the years.
Shadis provided a description of the March meeting different
from O'Brien's in an e-mail to members of his group and the
media.
"While no disruptions occurred, emotions ran high as residents
accused NRC of lying, failure to regulate, and covering for the
nuclear industry," Shadis wrote.
He added that, "Local officials concerned about security in the
community would do well to search (Vermont Yankee) premises for
the presence of a large nuclear 'dirty bomb.' ... We are
uncertain about the best way to deactivate it. We have been
trying for years."
© 2004 [http://www.timesargus.com/]
*****************************************************************
27 China Daily: Three firms vie to design, build two reactors
By Fu Jin& He Na (China Daily)
Updated: 2004-12-13 22:37
Three companies are in the running to design and build two
nuclear reactors, including four units, in China.
US-based Westinghouse, France's Areva and Russia's
AtomStroyExport (ASE) are competing for a contract to design and
build the four 1,000-megawatt pressurized-water nuclear power
facilities.
The winner will be announced at the end of February.
Two of the four units will be located in Sanmen, East China's
Zhejiang Province and the other two in Yangjiang, South China's
Guangdong Province.
Liu Xingang, chief representative of Westinghouse China said a
recent US move to transfer nuclear technology to China may help
US-based Westinghouse win the bid.
"Our confidence is based on the cutting-edge technology of our
equipment and the government's deregulation of technology
exports," said Liu.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will soon approve
exports of the AP-1000 reactor to China, he said.
According to earlier reports, NRC Chairman Nils Diaz also
suggested the US impose no restrictions on exports of these
reactors while expressing optimism about the prospect of nuclear
technology co-operation between the US and China.
French company Areva and Russia's ASE are competitive rivals.
Areva has a long-standing relationship with China and is
peddling its next-generation reactor built by its Framatome
subsidiary.
De Bourayne, president of AREVA China said his company has
proposed China use the PWR-EPR, which was developed in the last
10 years through close co-operation of French and German nuclear
industries.
He said the EPR has been chosen in Finland, where contracts were
signed this month.
"Based on the facts, we believe that China will be very
interested in the technology," said the president, adding that
France has built up a solid co-operation base with the Chinese
nuclear industry through technology transfers since 1991,
nuclear island design technology transfers since 1992 and
equipment localization since 1996.
ASE's confidence was based on the close relationship between
Russia and China.
The company has been involved in the construction of China's two
nuclear power units, which are expected to start operating next
year.
"Also our technologies have been already proven to be safe and
cutting-edge," said Liu Shidiao, consultant of ASE's Beijing
Office.
He also said Russia, as a world nuclear power giant, has already
built 20 large-scale nuclear power stations at home and abroad.
Insiders said the bidding will mark a milestone for
Westinghouse, which has had a presence in China for two decades
but not won much of a share in the nuclear power market. The US
restrictions on technology exports were said to be partly
responsible for the company's lacklustre performance in China.
Although China and the United States signed an agreement on
nuclear technology transfers in 1998, the United States has been
holding back on exports of high-tech products to China.
[http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/
*****************************************************************
28 SIFY: N-desalination plant at Kalpakkam in 2006
[http://www.sify.com/]
PTI
Monday, 13 December , 2004, 15:39
Chennai: India will commission the second nuclear desalination
plant at Kalpakkam having 4,500 cubic metres per day (m3/d)
capacity by March 2006, an official of Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre (BARC), said on Monday.
The BARC is implementing the nuclear desalination plant, which
involves production of potable water from seawater in a facility
where a nuclear reactor is used as the source of energy for
desalination process.
BARC has already commissioned a 1,800 m3/d nuclear desalination
demonstration project (NDDP) at Kalpakkam on reverse osmosis
(RO) technology. The remaining 4,500 m3/d plant, which is under
construction at Kalpakkam on multi-stage flash (MSF) water
purification technology, will be commissioned by March 2006,
Pradip K Tiwari, head (desalination division), BARC, told
delegates at a three-day technical meeting of International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Chennai.
The plant can meet the fresh water needs of around 45,000
persons at 140 litres per day, he said, adding that the plant
was also capable of augmenting its capacity to serve the need
for a larger population.
He said India, which had enough drinking water for its people in
1951 at 5177 cubic metres per person per year, is increasingly
becoming a water deficient country. During 2003, the country had
shown a deficit of 25 per cent in 2003 at 1,500 cubic metres per
person per year. The deficit is projected to rise by 33 per cent
by 2025.
"Nuclear desalination can meet a large part of water requirement
if demonstrated to be feasible and economically competitive
without any deficiency in quality of product water," Tiwari
said.
[http://www.sify.com/]
© Copyright Sify Ltd, 1998-2004. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
29 Japan Times: Widow seeks damages over Monju leak
HUSBAND'S SUICIDE ALLEGEDLY FORCED
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
By MASAMI ITO Staff writer
The widow of an official who committed suicide after lying
during a probe into a 1995 accident at the Monju fast-breeder
reactor demanded on Monday 148 million yen in damages from the
reactor's operator.
During the opening session of the suit brought before the Tokyo
District Court, Toshiko Nishimura said her husband, Shigeo, was
not the kind of person to commit suicide. She said she wanted to
know why he took his own life.
"Nine years have passed since my husband's death and I still
have a hard time believing he committed suicide," Nishimura said.
She said her husband killed himself because his superiors forced
him to lie.
"To this day, I have not buried his remains, and I believe that
until I find out the truth behind his death and who was
responsible for it, his soul will not find peace," she said.
Located in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, the Monju reactor has been
shut down since it caught fire following a sodium coolant leak on
Dec. 8, 1995.
Nishimura is seeking damages from the Japan Nuclear Cycle
Development Institute -- whose predecessor, Power Reactor and
Nuclear Fuel Development Corp., was operating the Monju reactor
at the time of the accident -- for failing to ensure the safety
of its workers.
As a deputy administration department chief at Power Reactor and
Nuclear Fuel Development, Shigeo Nishimura was a key figure in an
internal probe into an alleged attempt by the corporation to
conceal a videotape that had recorded the scene immediately after
the accident occurred.
At a news conference Jan. 12, 1996, senior executives of the
corporation presented false information on when the corporation
first learned of the videotape, in an apparent attempt to deny
that it was trying to cover up the existence of the video
recording.
Nishimura, who had known of the correct date through his probe,
had to lie during another news conference later that day, his
widow told the court. She speculated that this caused him to
commit suicide the following day.
During the hearing, presiding Judge Tsutomu Yamazaki asked the
plaintiff and the Monju operator about the missing fax messages
that Nishimura had reportedly received from his employer just a
few hours before his death.
Through the testimony of a hotel employee and a police
investigation, it was found that Nishimura received five sheets
of fax messages from the corporation via the hotel's fax machine.
The fax sheets mysteriously disappeared.
Neither the plaintiff nor the nuclear corporation said they knew
what happened to the fax sheets.
At a news conference held after the court session, Takahiro Sato
of Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute said the institute
would look into the matter but added that it might be difficult
to find the original documents, given that nine years have passed
since the incident.
The Japan Times: Dec. 14, 2004 (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
30 Boston Globe: Nuclear plants say they deserve credit for 'green' energy
[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/]
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | December 13, 2004
As the nuclear power industry stages a nationwide comeback, New
England is emerging as a major battleground in the industry's
campaign to be recognized as a ''green" energy source.
Last year, the Seabrook reactor in New Hampshire became the
first nuclear plant in the country to win credits for not
polluting the air. Emboldened by that success, nuclear plant
owners are now pressing to receive similar credits under a
nine-state plan to reduce greenhouse gases.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative may include clean-air
credits for low-polluting power plants, and nuclear lobbyists
have been pushing to be included.
Many environmentalists oppose the idea, saying it would give a
seal of approval for an industry that presents serious threats
to the environment, including radioactive waste.
''There is tremendous interest in what's happening here because
[the regional plan] would stand as a model for other parts of
the country," said Daniel Sosland, executive director of
Environment Northeast, an advocacy group that opposes giving
nuclear power any clean air credits.
For years, states and the federal government have relied on
market-based systems for reducing the pollutants that cause smog
and acid rain. The systems place limits on power plants' total
emissions, then allow dirtier plants to exceed the limits only
if they buy ''pollution credits" from cleaner plants. The idea
is to encourage companies to build less-polluting plants.
Now, as regulators begin to develop similar systems for carbon
dioxide, the main culprit in global warming, the nuclear
industry wants to be rewarded for not producing any.
Nuclear plants now provide about 20 percent of US electrical
power and generate no acid rain or greenhouse gases -- unlike
coal or gas plants, which can spew millions of tons of carbon
dioxide and other gases into the air each year.
''Overall, the environmental impact of nuclear is relatively
small," said Mary M. Quillian, senior manager for environmental
policy and programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an
industry group. Quillian said that as regulators evaluate which
energy sources are ''clean" and which aren't, the industry only
wants the same consideration as other nonemitting pollution
sources.
Critics counter that nuclear plants may produce no greenhouse
gases, but they can cause huge environmental disasters if they
fail. The Chernobyl leak in 1986 sent a radioactive plume over
Europe, and thousands of deaths have been blamed on the accident.
Today, others worry that nuclear plants are a terrorist target.
In part because of these worries, nuclear energy was
specifically prohibited from being considered a green power
source under the Kyoto Protocol, a pact among industrialized
nations that limits carbon dioxide emissions. (The United States
has refused to sign the pact.)
Environmentalists also say that the nuclear industry does
produce greenhouse gases -- not at the plant but during mining
and uranium enrichment processes required to get usable fuel.
''You have to look at the entire life cycle of the electricity
-- mining, building the plant," said Frank Gorke, energy
advocate for MassPIRG, an environmental group.
Despite those concerns, New Hampshire regulators decided to give
the Seabrook plant credit for not spewing nitrogen oxides last
year when the company amended its program for controlling smog
pollutants.
The Seabrook plant has asked the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for permission to produce more power; if that boost
is approved, it may be able to sell as many as 200 one-ton
emission credits for about $3,000 each.
Seabrook is one of five nuclear plants in New England -- two in
Connecticut and one each in New Hampshire, Vermont, and
Massachusetts. There are 103 reactors in the country at 64 sites.
Nuclear advocates say that if carbon dioxide emissions are to be
slowed, nuclear energy needs to be part of the equation. To
bring that point home to the public, the Nuclear Energy
Institute has been running TV and print ads for several years
touting nuclear as the ''clean air energy," featuring children
blowing bubbles and running through fields. (In 2000, the
Federal Trade Commission ruled that a different set of ads made
deceptively broad claims about the environmental benefits of
nuclear power, and ordered them pulled off the air.)
Behind the scenes, the industry has been aggressively pushing to
win clean air credits under new air pollution rules.
In New Hampshire, Seabrook owners lobbied hard to be included as
part of the long-running nitrogen oxides trading program. And
now, as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative gets underway,
Quillian, the Nuclear Energy Institute official, appears at
virtually every meeting, patiently and eloquently making the
case for nuclear energy as ''clean," those in the meetings say.
The regional deal would include New England, New York, Delaware,
and New Jersey. State regulators are hoping to have a design of
the program by April and start it as early as 2007 or 2008.
Regulators from many of the nine states say it is too early to
discuss which energy sources will be given credit for being
clean.
''Some are interested in exploring giving credits to those who
create nuclear power, but the discussion is premature," said Joe
O'Keefe, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, who spoke on behalf of state air
regulators involved in the initiative.
Meanwhile, in Connecticut, the owner of that state's two
Millstone reactors is waiting to see whether state regulators
will grant a request for clean air credits like New Hampshire
allowed. But the industry's lobbying hasn't always been
successful: Massachusetts rejected a similar attempt last spring.
Seth Kaplan, senior attorney with the Conservation Law
Foundation, a regional advocacy group, said that granting
pollution credits to nuclear plants would undermine the purpose
of the program.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, he said, is designed to
urge fossil fuel plants to reduce their pollution -- not allow
an already profitable industry to make more money simply because
they don't happen to produce any.
''The nuclear industry's problem is they have a technology that
has other issues that society at best has given a yellow light
to, if not a red one," Kaplan said.
Nuclear already has a financial advantage under the regional
program because it will never have to buy the clean-air credits
that fossil fuel plants will, Kaplan said.
He and some regulators are pushing for clean-air credits to be
reserved for cleaner technologies that need some sort of
financial incentive to build, such as wind.
Some government groups involved in the initiative have privately
indicated they will walk away from the process if nuclear is
given any financial credit. But nuclear advocates are standing
firm.
''We have all this generation and it produces zero emissions,"
said Brent Dorsey, director of corporate environmental programs
for Entergy, which owns Vermont Yankee and the Pilgrim plant.
''We are the unsung hero for clean air."
Beth Daley can be reached at bdaley@globe.com. [ /]
[ /] © [http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright]
2004 The New York Times Company
[ /]
*****************************************************************
31 NY Newsday: Nuke plant: Pump replacement will have to wait
Newsday.com
Monday, Dec 13, 2004, 9:55 PM EST NEW YORK NOW:
LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK, N.J. -- The operators of the
Hope Creek nuclear reactor want to put off replacing a troubled
recirculation pump for 1{ years despite concerns about its
safety.
The 18-year-old recirculation pump, one of two that pushes water
through the core of the reactor, has a damaged shaft, a history
of premature seal failures and it vibrates so severely it sounds
like a freight train, according to a report prepared last month
for plant owner PSEG Nuclear.
New Jersey regulators have urged its replacement, but do not
have jurisdiction over the plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which does, is reviewing the report and plans to
meet with PSEG officials before agreeing to the delay.
"We're looking to see whether we agree that it can wait until
the next refueling outage," said Diane Screnci, an NRC
spokeswoman based in King of Prussia, Pa.
Jill Lipoti, assistant director for radiation protection for the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, said state
officials have urged Hope Creek to replace the pump now but that
they can't force the issue.
"The shaft is bowed, based on their own independent assessment,"
Lipoti said Monday. "It seems prudent to replace it, but we'll
rely on the NRC's decision on the matter.'
PSEG officials say the pump _ which dates to the 1986 opening of
the plant _ is stable enough to continue operating and won't be
replaced during Hope Creek's current shutdown.
Skip Sindoni, a PSEG Nuclear spokesman, said Monday that the
62-page report, by consulting engineers Sargent & Lundy,
acknowledged the need to replace the faulty recirculation pump.
But he said its continued operation was not a safety risk.
Sargent & Lundy "came back and said there's vibration issues but
that the vibrations are stable, the conditions in the pump are
not degrading and the vibrations are below the vendor limit.
This is safe to go for another operating cycle," Sindoni said.
Replacement can wait until the reactor's next outage in 18
months, he said.
The plant, located in rural southwestern New Jersey, about 10
miles south of Wilmington, Del., is currently not producing
electricity.
It was scheduled for an outage but was shut down prematurely
Oct. 10 after a pipe ruptured, releasing radioactive steam into
an area to which workers do not normally have access.
No date has been set for Hope Creek to go back online, but
Screnci said it won't happen until after federal regulators have
weighed in on whether the recirculation pump's replacement can
wait.
In the meantime, plant operators are installing new sensors to
aid in monitoring of the vibrations, Sindoni said.
Critics want quicker action.
In a letter to PSEG Nuclear CEO A. Christopher Bakken, the Union
of Concerned Scientists urged immediate replacement, saying
anything else would be "a gamble far larger than anything
wagered in Atlantic City."
The Washington, D.C.-based group is a nuclear energy watchdog
organization that has been critical of Salem in the past.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union, told
Bakken in the letter that the vibrations stemming from the
pump's bent shaft have damaged safety equipment at the plant.
A New Jersey group also wants the problem fixed immediately.
"It doesn't make any sense to take these kinds of risks for 18
months," said Norm Cohen, coordinator of Unplug Salem, a nuclear
watchdog group. "It seems the prudent thing to do is just fix
the damn pump."
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
*****************************************************************
32 Biden: Delaware Delegation Continues to Push NRC for Answers
about Hope Creek Nuclear Facility
Senator Biden of Delaware
Friday, December 10, 2004
Wilmington, DE -- Delaware’s Congressional Delegation today
issued a letter to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission calling for continued and careful monitoring of the
Hope Creek Nuclear Facility and requesting additional
information be made available before plant operations resume.
Concerns about the adequacy of PSEG’s maintenance and
operation of the plant and the NRC’s oversight heightened
after an October 2004 steam leak shut down one of the reactors
along the Delaware River. In this latest letter to NRC Chairman
Nils Diaz, the Delegation called on the NRC to specifically
explain their procedures when an operational failure arises and
describe what constitutes a “safety system failure.â€
Senators Biden and Carper and Congressman Castle also argued for
additional time for public review before the restart of plant
operations.
The text of the letter follows:
“Thank you for arranging the briefing that took place recently
between our staffs and Nuclear Regulatory Commission personnel.
We appreciate your responsiveness in keeping us informed of your
ongoing investigation into operations at the Hope Creek nuclear
power plant. During that meeting, as well as subsequent
discussions with both the NRC and PSEG, the operator of Hope
Creek, issues were raised that continue to be of concern to us
and we believe need to be addressed before operations resume at
Hope Creek.
“Commission staff has informed us that a primary focus of its
special investigation into the October 10, 2004 steam pipe
rupture is the condition of a valve associated with the failed
pipe. NRC's preliminary findings indicate that the reactor
operators at Hope Creek were aware that the valve was
malfunctioning several days prior to the pipe failure. The
operators requested an opinion from company engineers on whether
or not the malfunctioning valve could unduly stress the
associated pipe. The engineering team did not foresee the
conditions which ultimately led to the pipe failure, and thus
did not advise the operators to take preventative action. We
feel this raises very serious concerns regarding analytical
procedures being used to guide the operators when abnormal
conditions arise. It also raises questions about the NRC's
oversight role as it relates to ensuring that corrective actions
are completed at the plant.
“The NRC has also confirmed that it is investigating the
status of the Hope Creek "B" recirculation pump, which has
exhibited a higher than average degree of vibration. PSEG has
announced its intention to replace this pump at the next
refueling outage, which is likely to occur 18 months after this
current outage. NRC informed our staffs that the operation of
this pump is not considered part of the safety system at Hope
Creek. Specifically, the safety system would not be compromised
if the pump was shut down and no longer moved cooling water
through the pipes. However, we understand that if the pump's
housing were to fail and allow cooling water to be released,
that would be considered a safety system failure. The difference
between what is and is not a safety system is difficult to
understand. The safety consequences of a pump failure need to be
clearly and concisely explained to afford not only us, but the
public the opportunity to understand the ramifications of
delaying the replacement of the recirculation pump.
“In addition, we understand that the NRC will conduct a public
exit meeting with PSEG at the conclusion of the special
investigation and prior to the restart of the Hope Creek
reactor. At this meeting, both PSEG and the NRC will present
findings of their investigations into the steam leak and the "B"
recirculation pump. PSEG will also report on initiatives it has
undertaken to resolve outstanding issues related to these
investigations. After the NRC and PSEG discussions conclude, the
public will be invited to ask questions and make comments. Much
of the information released at the exit meeting will be
presented or available for the first time. Given the likely
importance and complexity of this information, we believe it is
important for interested parties, including the public, to have
sufficient time to review the information before the restart of
the Hope Creek plant, to review the findings of the
investigation, and to raise additional questions and concerns
should they arise. We urge you to make such a review possible.
“Finally, it is our understanding that PSEG has not been asked
by the NRC to cease operations of the Salem or Hope Creek
reactors, and does not require formal permission from the NRC to
resume operation of a reactor after a refueling outage like the
one currently occurring at Hope Creek. However, it is also our
understanding that the NRC retains the authority to order a
reactor's operator to cease reactor operations if the NRC
determines that the reactor is not meeting certain standards and
expectations. We fully expect that the NRC will continue to
closely monitor the repairs, refueling, and restart activities
at Hope Creek and insure the safety of the plant, its workers
and its neighbors.
“The safe operations of our nuclear power plants is and should
be of utmost importance to all of us. We appreciate the
importance you have placed on the investigations at Hope Creek
and look forward to continuing our discussions as new
information becomes available.â€
*****************************************************************
33 Vermont Guardian: VY inspection details to be aired Thursday
By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian
BRATTLEBORO The public will have a chance to weigh in Thursday
on a federal inspection that concludes that Vermonts 30-year-old
nuclear power plant can sustain a 20 percent upgrade to boost
power output.
The final report was issued Dec. 3, about three months after
inspectors for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completed a
narrow engineering inspection of the Vermont Yankee nuclear
reactor in Vernon.
Anti-nuclear watchdogs dismiss the inspection as too limited in
scope, and tick off a list of what they see as potential
problems related to a power increase.
They found eight problems that the company needs to repair, but
they havent looked at the other 99 percent of the plant, said
Ray Shadis, technical advisor for the nuclear watchdog New
England Coalition.
Overall, the team found that the components and systems reviewed
would be capable of performing their intended safety functions
and that sufficient design controls for engineering work have
been implemented, the NRC declared in its report. However, the
team identified eight findings of very low safety significance.
Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the report reinforces
our confidence that our plant is well-suited to continue moving
forward with our uprate initiative.
Vermont Yankees owner Entergy, the nations third-largest power
generator, has asked both the NRC and the state Public Service
Board for approval to increase power output at the plant to 120
percent of its existing 535-megawatt capacity. The state board
agreed to a issue a required certificate of public good pending
an inspection of the reactor. Vermonts Senate also called for an
inspection.
The NRC has not yet issued a decision on the uprate. Earlier
this year, it postponed an anticipated January 2005 decision on
the proposal, citing concerns about cracks in the plants steam
dryer.
The agency has not denied any of the more than 100 uprate
requests at nuclear power plants around the country, most of
which are in the single-digit range. At 20 percent, Vermont
Yankees would be the largest allowable.
Among the problems found during the inspection, the NRC said it
could take Vermont Yankee too long to activate an alternate
power source in case of an outage, which is necessary to ensure
the plants reactor is cooled.
Entergy also has failed long-term to fix a control valve that
supplies cooling water to a reactor core cooling system, the
inspectors said, and plant officials have failed to ensure a
constant temperature inside a condensate storage tank so that a
backup water supply for cooling maintains the proper
temperature.
Williams said all of the problems have been entered into our
corrective action program for follow-up on each one.
The inspection report was released in its entirety last week. It
is available online at
[http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/vermont-yankee-
issues/engineering-inspection.html] .
Both the engineering inspection and a separate NRC probe into
misplaced spent fuel rods will be the subject of a public
meeting on Thursday, starting at 6 p.m., at Brattleboro Union
High School.
NRC representatives will include Wayne Lanning, director of the
NRCs Region I Division of Reactor Safety; Jeff Jacobson, team
leader for the engineering inspection; Todd Jackson, team leader
for a separate inspection about a pair of fuel rods which
Vermont Yankee misplaced last spring; and Cornelius Holden of
the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
The Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (V-SNAP) will host the
gathering, which replaces an NRC exit meeting originally
scheduled for last month, where the agency planned to release to
Vermont Yankee officials both the engineering inspection and the
report on the misplaced fuel rods.
We think that this will be a good forum to hold a constructive
meeting to get information out, said NRC Region I spokeswoman
Diane Screnci.
She noted, however, that the purpose of Thursdays meeting is to
talk about the engineering inspection and the spent fuel
inspection and to take questions. Its not to take public comment
on the uprate.
The meeting is not a public hearing, Screnci said, and public
comments will not be recorded as part of record on Vermont
Yankees uprate application. However, she added, Certainly if
someone brought something up that we need to look at, we will.
An NRC meeting in March drew more than 600 people to the Vernon
school, many of them angry and vocal about Vermont Yankees
uprate plans. V-SNAP Chairman David OBrien, who also heads the
Vermont Department of Public Service, said he hopes to avoid
that kind of emotional atmosphere on Thursday.
I want this to be as calm an event as possible to focus on the
content of the information, OBrien said. I will do everything in
my power to make sure people get a chance to be heard and get
the information from the NRC.
According to Shadis, two weeks the time between when the report
was released and Thursdays meeting doesnt give the public
enough time to review the document and develop informed
questions. Two weeks is not adequate time for the public to get
a hold of the report, read it, consult with experts, and become
informed enough on the contents to be able to ask informed
questions. Even those of us that are advocates are going to have
to scramble to sort out this report.
He said the full report should have been made public within a
month of the inspections Sept. 5 completion, and the public
should have been given 30 days to submit written comments and
questions before a public meeting was scheduled. The people of
Vermont and the whole Connecticut River Valley need to
understand that this is not a spectator sport. It is their
health, their future, their property, their economy, their
environment that is at stake, and it is their right to have this
information open, clear, public, and provable.
Nuclear watchdogs complain that the Vermont Yankee inspection
was far less thorough than inspections at other New England
nuclear reactors, which revealed flaws that eventually led to
the shutdown of those plants.
VY has managed to duck the bullet. They managed to avoid
getting a thorough examination, Shadis charged.
NRC officials said the process involved three weeks of onsite
inspection and more than 700 hours of inspection time.
Both the NEC and the state say Entergys uprate, as it is now
proposed, would narrow the number and depth of the plants backup
systems in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.
NEC is challenging Entergys bid for an exemption from testing
how systems react to significant changes in conditions, such as
pressure, water flow, and temperature.
NEC also says Vermont Yankees cooling towers have not been
sufficiently analyzed for their ability to withstand an
earthquake.
What inspectors found at Vermont Yankee
During an engineering inspection at Vermont Yankee last summer,
the NRC team identified the following problems:
VY failed to determine how long an alternative power source,
the Vernon Hydro-Electric Station, would be unavailable during a
blackout, and did not demonstrate how long it would take to make
power from the hydro station available during a grid collapse.
VY failed to establish adequate procedures to determine the
operability of a 115-kilovolt line designated as an alternate
power source if the 345/115-kilovolt auto transformer is lost.
VY used incorrect and nonconservative voltage values in
calculations designed to assure that electrical equipment would
remain operable under low-voltage conditions.
A pressure control valve in the lube oil cooler water supply
line was not independent of air systems, and the piping between
the pressure control valve and lube oil cooler did not contain a
restricting orifice.
VY failed to fix a pressure control valve which affects the
ability to properly supply cooling flow to a lube oil cooler.
VY had neither established the correct condensate storage tank
temperature limit for transient analyses nor translated the
temperature limit into plant procedures.
From June 2001 to September 2004, VY did not adequately
coordinate operations and engineering departments procedure
revisions that increased the length of time required to place
the reactor core isolation cooling system in service from the
alternate shutdown panels.
VY conducted motor-operated valve tests using procedures that
did not include acceptance limits, which were correlated to and
based on applicable design documents. Additionally, the testing
was conducted solely from the motor control centers using test
instrumentation that had not been validated.
Posted December 13, 2004
Send us your news tips, a letter to the editor or general
comments.
Monday, Dec. 13, 2004
[http://www.vermontguardian.com/paper-locator.shtml] Last
Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139
Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact:
802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free)
©2004 Vermont Guardian |
*****************************************************************
34 Mainichi Interactive: Residents inspect site of Japan's worst nuclear accident
TOKAI, Ibaraki -- JCO Co. on Saturday allowed members of the
public to look inside its former nuclear processing plant where
Japan's worst nuclear accident occurred in 1999.
Mainichi Shimbun
Local residents clad in protective clothing visit the JCO
plant.
Workers at the Tokai plant triggered a critical nuclear reaction
when pouring an overconcentrated uranium solution into a tank
using metal buckets.
JCO plans to remove equipment from the former uranium processing
plant where the accident occurred and local residents applied to
look inside the plant before the removal.
More than 160 applicants are expected to enter the plant before
Dec. 16, JCO officials said.
A JCO official explained how employees had bypassed regulations
and used buckets to transport uranium.
"The building is small. I was surprised to learn that they were
engaged in jobs that could cause a critical reaction," said
68-year-old Sumiko Saito, who came to look at the plant on
Saturday. (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Dec. 11, 2004)
© 2004 The Mainichi Newspapers Co.
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: News Release - 2004-158 - NRC Advisory Subcommittee to
Discuss Proposed MOX Facility Report Dec. 15-16 in Rockville,
Maryland
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail:
opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov
No. 04-158 December 13, 2004
DEC. 15-16 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards will hold a public meeting Dec.
15-16, in Rockville, Md., to discuss the draft final safety
evaluation report for the construction of a proposed Mixed Oxide
(MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility.
Duke Cogema Stone & Webster, a contractor of the Department of
Energy (DOE), is proposing to build the MOX facility at the
Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. If the NRC approves
construction and operating licenses, the facility would convert
surplus weapons-grade plutonium, supplied by the DOE, into fuel
for use in a limited number of commercial nuclear power
reactors. Commercial nuclear power plants in the United States
currently use only uranium in fresh fuel; the mixed oxide fresh
fuel would use a combination of uranium and plutonium.
Converting weapons-grade plutonium into MOX fuel is intended to
advance nonproliferation by converting the material into a form
unsuitable for use in weapons.
The meeting of the Subcommittee on Reactor Fuels will be held in
Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White Flint North building, at
11545 Rockville Pike. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on
both days and will run through the conclusion of business on
Wednesday and 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. Individuals with questions
or those wanting to make public statements or submit written
comments should call Maggalean W. Weston at 301-415-3151.
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2004.
Last revised Monday, December 13, 2004
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc 04-27244
[Federal Register: December 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 72223-72224]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13de04-87]
of
No Significant Impact for License Amendment for APPTEC
Laboratory
Services, Inc.'s Facility in Camden, NJ
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna M. Janda, Materials
Security and
Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region
I, 475
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone
(610)
337-5371, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: dmj@nrc.gov
[dmj@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license
amendment to AppTec Laboratory Services, Inc. (AppTec) for
Materials
License No. 29-28152-01, to terminate the license and authorize
release
of its facility in Camden, New Jersey, for unrestricted use. NRC
has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this
action in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the
EA,
the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI)
is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the
publication
of this Notice.
II. EA Summary
The purpose of the action is to authorize the release of the
licensee's Camden, New Jersey, facility for unrestricted use.
AppTec
was authorized by NRC from April 7, 1988, to use radioactive
materials
for research and development purposes at the site. On July 28,
2004,
AppTec requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted
use.
AppTec has conducted surveys of the facility and provided
information
to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license
termination
criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted use.
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license
amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the
licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has
reviewed
the information and final status survey submitted by AppTec.
Based on
its review, the staff has determined that there are no
additional
remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed
action.
Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual
radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the
residual
radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part
20, a
Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support
of the
license amendment to terminate the license and release the
facility for
unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated AppTec's request
and the
results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed
action
complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The
staff
has found that the environmental impacts from the action are
bounded by
the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3,
[[Page 72224]]
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of
Rulemaking on
Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the
basis
of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts
from
the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined
not to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the action.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action, including the application
for the
license amendment and supporting documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
.
From this site, you can access the
NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS),
which
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The
ADAMS
accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are:
the
Environmental Assessment (ML043410104); Decommissioning Report
for
AppTec Laboratory Services, Inc. (ML042320058); and Letter from
New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (ML043290287).
Please
note that on October 25, 2004, the NRC terminated public access
to
ADAMS and initiated an additional security review of publicly
available
documents to ensure that potentially sensitive information is
removed
from the ADAMS database accessible through the NRC's web site.
Interested members of the public may obtain copies of the
referenced
documents for review and/or copying by contacting the Public
Document
Room pending resumption of public access to ADAMS. The NRC
Public
Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD,
and can
be contacted at (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to:
pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] .
These documents may be viewed electronically at the NRC
Public
Document Room (PDR), 0 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will
copy
documents for a fee. The PDR is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 6th day of
December,
2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer,
Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety,
Region I.
[FR Doc. 04-27244 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
37 Business Day: SA awards nuclear contract to Mitsubishi
[http://www.businessday.co.za/sasfin]
TOKYO - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries said on Monday it has signed
a deal to design and develop a helium-driven turbo-generator
system, the major component of a nuclear power plant planned by
South Africa.
PBMR (Pty) Ltd., a South African nuclear power engineering
company set up in 1999 to develop pebble bed modular reactors
(PBMRs), plans to use the system at a plant to be built at
Koeberg, near Cape Town.
"Successful operation of the PBMR demonstration unit will lead
to commercialization of the small-size, high-temperature
gas-driven nuclear power generation systems," Mitsubishi said in
a statement.
South Africa plans to introduce at least eight PBMR modules,
with the first commercial reactor to start by 2013, the Japanese
company said.
A 1,320-megawatt plant can be built by configuring eight
165-megawatt reactors at one site.
PBMR (Pty) Ltd. is owned by Eskom and the Industrial Development
Corp. of South Africa and by British Nuclear Fuels.
The PBMR is a small and cost-efficient reactor with power
generating capabilities that require relatively low initial
investment.
It is said to be well suited to applications in areas where the
power transmission grid is undeveloped, Mitsubishi said.
AFP
14 December 2004
*****************************************************************
38 [DU-WATCH] 6000 TONS OF DU DUMPED IN IRAQ
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:59:38 -0600 (CST)
-------Original Message-------
From: David Broatch Date: 12/11/04 02:21:10 To: du-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [du-list] collection of references re weapons used in
Fallujah
May explain some of the burnt human remains of USUK victims
evidenced at..
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album
php?set_albumName=album28&page=1
collection of references.....
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302593.html is Us-army used
Napalm, Phosphor and Depleted Uranium in Iraq
10.12.2004 14:10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
U R A N I U M
The Us army used 3000 - 6000 tons of depleted uranium in this and
the last war in Iraq. Depleted Uuranium causes heavily genetically
defects; pics of victims (very graphic):
http://www.irak
be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DU-SLIDES2000_bestanden/frame
htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
N A P A L M AND P H O S P H O R
And a copy from indymedia ireland:
IRAQ: US-Army uses Napalm and Phosphor !
by x Friday, Nov 19 2004, 9:17pm international / anti-war / news
report
International media and newspaper report that the US-army uses
Napalm and Phosphor bombs in Falluja.
Here is a summary (with links; some in foreign language) MASS MURDER
IN FALLUJA
Since the beginning of the US-attac on Fallujah the city is almost
completely closed; which means that men between 15 and 55 are not
allowed to leave the city. Helicopters and Snipers shoot on those
who try to flee. The city is bombed all day, 7 days a week. US-army
Sources say about 1200 insurgents" have been killed; the number of
dead civilians is not reported - and, probably: not counted. At the
moment there are still about 50.000 to 100.000 people in the city.
There is no medical aid for them. They have wether electricity nor
water or food.
The US-army uses Napalm and Phosphor in Falluja:
PHOSPHOR OVER FALLUJA:
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/11-13/001.php (from a german newspaper
report:)
- grenades with white phosphor have been fired on Falluja which
created a wall of fire, burning all the time (phosphor flames can`t
be stopped by water - phosphor creates fire by a chemical reaction).
- many people did melt; so enourmous is the heat - Iraqi doctor
Kamal Hadeethi told journalists of the Washington Post: ;I`ve seen
many people injured; the streets are full of crying people -and
full of dead people: they even were melt down to the street.+ Falluja
residents told that all the streets are destroyed, houses are ruines,
and at walls stick parts of human meat.
- white phosphor reacts simply by contact with air and creates
temperatures which even make metall melt - when white phosphor burns
it sets free clouds of toxic smog. therefore white phosphor can
also be seen as a chemical weapon - white phosphor was used in WW
II against german cities
US-TROOPS DESTROY HOSPITALS IN FALLUJA BBC, 6.Nov.04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm
A hospital has been razed to the ground in one of the heaviest US
air raids in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
NAPALM IN FALLUJA:
according to: http://www.freace.de/artikel/aug2003/napalm060803.html
- it seems that the US used in this war every weapon they had -
besides nukes.
- but also grenades with low radioctive uran were fired (all in all
between 1000 and 2000 tons of uran-munition; in kosovo and serbia,
were the US also used this weapon, cancer rate among the population
nowadays is extremely high.) - "Daisy Cutter" bombs (BLU 82)were
used; effect: a fireball with radius more than one square mile;
miles around this square mile the explosion creates a vacuum: so
the lungs of people implode.
- according to the San Diego Union-Tribune Napalm was used against
Iraqis.
The Pentagon tries to manipulate and denies the use of Napalm: they
don`t call it Napalm bombs today; they call it "Mark 77 Fire Bombs",
wich would have only an "quite similar effect".
Officially the US destroyed all its Napalm bombs in 2001.
The speaker of the marines, Michael Daily, said, that "Mark 77 is
more environment-friendly than Napalm." (Mark 77 consists mainly
of cerosin - napalm consisted mainly of benzol; cerosin burns even
faster) - US-Marine Randolph Alles, who directed some Napalm attacs
himself said the Generals love Napalm because it has a big psychological
effect - due to the fire ball and its typicall smell".
links and pics:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message
type unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
39 [DU-WATCH] AFP: "Throw Away Soldiers"
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:50:02 -0600 (CST)
Famous Livermore nuclear scientist Marion Fulk wastes no words in describing
the life prospects of today's US battfield Troopers.
Bob Nichols
______________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bob Nichols
bobnichols@cox.net
Throw Away Soldiers
by Chris Bollyn
. Throw Away Soldiers? HAVING SEEN WHAT APPEARED to be a depleted uranium
(DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of
the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in
Fallujah. "Yes," Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1
Abrams tank."
Because U.S. Marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced
by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect
the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by
the use of DU.
Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab, told
AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered
throwaway soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere,
face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health
problems in the future.
[End]
For the full article by Mr. Bollyn go to Rense.com at:
http://www.rense.com/general60/troops.htm
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
40 Bellona: First nuclear submarine dismantled in the frames of
Russian-Japanese project
The first nuclear submarine of Victor-III class based in the
Russian Far East has been dismantled.
2004-12-13 16:25
The retired submarine was scrapped and its spent nuclear fuel
was unloaded in the frames of Russian-Japanese project ”Star of
Hope” at the navy shipyard ”Zvezda” in Bolshoy Kamen settlement,
the chief of the shipyard’s decommissioning department Alexander
Kiselev reported to ITAR-TASS in the beginning of November. The
empty reactor compartment was shipped to the site of the DalRAO
Company. The spent nuclear fuel was delivered to the Mayak
reprocessing plant, and the scrapped metal was sold.
Last year Japan signed a co-operation agreement with Russia and
pledged about $180m for nuclear weapon dismantling works. The
project ”Star of Hope” stipulates dismantling of one nuclear
submarine. According to Kiselev, the next project for scrapping
five submarines is under consideration now. 46 retired nuclear
submarines are waiting for dismantling at the Russian Far East
now, ITAR-TASS reported.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no]
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no]
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
41 [NYTr] Union Flag Flies over Dublin Marking Nuke Info-Sharing
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:29:04 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
For background, see "Ire to Get Access to Sellafield Security Info," Dec 9,
2004, at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20041206/010130.html
sent by rdooling (ireland news)
Monday 13th December 2004
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/17112
Union Flag Is Hoisted Over Dublin Again
The Union Flag has flown over the Custom House in Dublin Friday for
the first time since May 5, 1921, when the IRA burnt the building
in the last throes of the War of Independence.
This time, however, there was an atmosphere of concord as the
British and Irish governments marked their agreement to share
information on nuclear issues.
A flag could not be found in the Custom House itself and one was
supplied by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
*
Search the NYTr Archives at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
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 e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
=================================================================
*****************************************************************
42 Inyo Register: DOE to miss Yucca deadline
Monday, December 13, 2004
Agency admits it won't be able to apply for nuke waste license
by end of '04; Inyo cites chance to leap into the fight
By Jon Klusmire
The Inyo Register Staff
Suzanne Struglinski
Las Vegas Sun Monday, December 13, 2004 12:49 PM PST
The Energy Department will not file the Yucca Mountain project's
license application next month as planned, said Margaret Chu,
the department official who oversees the project.
It was the first time the department has said it will not meet
its goal of turning in the application by the end of 2004.
The delay could give Inyo County officials some additional time
to get California's two senators and the county's congressman to
jump into the fray and try to clarify contradictory guidelines
from the Department of Energy regarding transportation issues
and how the county can spend its DOE oversight grants to address
the potential impacts of Yucca Mountain on the county. The
proposed nuclear waste repository is located about 15 miles east
of Death Valley at Inyo's southeasternmost border.
The Inyo County Board of Supervisors decided earlier this month
to seek the help and political pull of Senators Barbara Boxer
and Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Buck McKeon to get some
straight answers out of DOE about the county's concerns.
"They have the resources, let's put 'em to work," said First
District Supervisor Linda Arcularius of the area congressional
delegation.
One question about how the county can spend its oversight
funding was just made crystal clear by recent legislation
awaiting the president's signature, said Andrew Remus, Inyo
County's Yucca Mountain Project Assessment Office coordinator.
The law allows Inyo County and other "Affected Units of
Government" to use oversight funds to make comments during the
licensing process that will conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, he said this week. The DOE had recently said it
would not allow AUGs to use oversight money to prepare comments
or data and present it during the licensing process.
The new law is "the best news we've heard lately," said Remus,
"because it puts us right in the game" during the licensing
process.
Another top county concern is the status of State Route 127 as a
potential route for shipments of nuclear waste through the
county to Yucca Mountain. The DOE also told the county it cannot
use oversight funds to study transportation-related issues.
The contradictory, confusing and, in the county's opinion,
illegal new guidelines about what the county can spend its
oversight funds on got a sour review from the supervisors.
The new guidelines "feed into the feeling that this is a done
deal," said Fourth District Supervisor Butch Hambleton of the
DOE's push to get Yucca Mountain open.
The proposed ban on spending DOE oversight money on a
"transportation impact assessment" flies in the face of various
court decisions and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, noted Remus.
He called the latest DOE directives "either schizophrenic or an
experimental approach to get people off their backs" concerning
high-level nuclear waste transportation issues.
The DOE seems to be assuming that the status of S.R. 127 is
solely a state issue, Remus said. However, since the highway is
currently being used as a route for low-level nuclear waste
shipments, the county is concerned that DOE will simply use S.R.
127 for high-level nuclear waste shipments, regardless of
whether the state and Inyo County designate the route for such
use, Remus noted.
The supervisors directed Remus to continue to work with the
state and Caltrans on the transportation issues surrounding the
possible designation of S.R. 127 as a high-level nuclear waste
route.
The Planning Department was instructed to also provide Boxer,
Feinstein and McKeon with copies of all queries and documents
about the county's concerns about the DOE and Yucca Mountain.
During a recent trip to Washington, D.C. to talk face-to-face
with DOE officials, Planning Director Leslie Klusmire said she
and Remus also visited the county's congressional group (the
trip was paid for by DOE oversight funds). She said staff
members from Sen. Boxer's office were already "taking some
action" on the county's concerns, and that Feinstein and
McKeon's staff would be "looking into the issues" raised by the
county.
The DOE's decision to delay its license application will be
"helpful to us," said Remus, because it will give the county
time to complete the transportation risk assessment currently
under way and also complete some hydrological and groundwater
studies from data recently collected by test wells in the Death
Valley area, he noted.
While Inyo County tries to get some clarification about local
transportation issues, the DOE's plans regarding submittal of
the license are still a bit vague.
Remus said that he wouldn't be surprised if missed December
deadline pushes back the entire Yucca Mountain schedule by
almost a year.
Chu, the director of the civilian radioactive waste program,
said the department is "revising our original intent," by not
submitting the application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
She did not give a specific reason for the delay.
Chu did not specify when the department plans to turn in the
application.
"We do not expect long delays," Chu said at a management meeting
between the Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Monday at the commission's headquarters. She said the department
hopes to have a tentative new schedule by the next quarterly
management meeting.
The department said it has a draft of the application done.
W. John Arthur, the deputy director of the department's Las
Vegas-based Office of Repository Development, told the
commission staff that a lot of progress has been made on the
application but not enough to meet next month's deadline.
"We do not believe the delay will be significant," Arthur said.
"We'll take no more time than is absolutely required."
Arthur said department staff has been reviewing each page of the
application's draft. It is "technically sound and adequate" but
needs more transparency, readability and consistency throughout
the document.
The department sent documents to back up its license application
to the NRC earlier this year, but an NRC licensing board found
the information inadequate. The commission will not put a
license application on its docket until six months after the
backup information is certified.
Arthur said the department could recertify its material on the
License Support Network, a database of documents supporting
technical aspects of the project, by spring 2005.
C. William Reamer, director of the commission's High Level Waste
Repository Safety Division, asked Chu if the department would
not be handing in the application by the end of 2004. Chu said
it would not.
Reamer later asked the department to put in writing any new
decisions that are made on the schedule, especially if they are
made before the next meeting, so that those involved are aware
of them.
Meanwhile, the department is trying to figure out how to
allocate the $577 million earmarked for the project by Congress
over the weekend.
This is the same level it received in 2004 but $303 million less
than the department's request for 2005.
Chu said it will take some time to study how the decrease from
its request will affect the program and the department is
already planning its budget request for 2006.
"We have reached a point where historical levels of funding no
longer work," she said.
(Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western News Service)
©2004 [pub@inyoregister.com]
*****************************************************************
43 Nebraska State Paper: NU Faces Payment of Millions For Landn Cleanup
[ne.StatePaper.com]
Monday, December. 13, 2004
The University of Nebraska is faced with a potentially huge
expense for cleaning up radioactive waste on 9,600 acres near
the former Nebraska Ordinance Plant near Mead.
The NU Regents have been warned about the potential costs,
ranging from $2 million to $6 million, by Michael Calvert,
director of fiscal and program analysis for the Legislature.
Discussion of possible revenue sources centered on the three
basic areas that regents traditionally have looked to:
appropriations from the Legislature, higher tuition, or cuts in
existing NU programs. Given that the Legislature faces
substantial revenue shortfalls for the coming two-year budget
cycle, talking lawmakers out of money for the settlement could
be difficult.
The money would be required for partial payment to cleanup
radioactive waste on NU property near Mead. The U.S. Department
of Justice sued the University in 2002 over payment for the
cleanup.
In the 1970s the university buried radioactive medical waste on
the property, located near the Nebraska Ordnance Plant. The
plant manufactured bombs for use in World War II and the Korean
War. The plant also was responsible for substantial
contamination of land in the area.
NU Faces Payment of Millions For Land Cleanup
© 2004 Nebraska StatePaper.com
*****************************************************************
44 UPI: Sen. Reid's new power may shut down Yucca -
(United Press International)
December 13, 2004
Washington, DC, Dec. 13 (UPI) -- Shifting power on Capitol Hill
is casting doubt on whether nuclear waste will be transferred on
schedule from Washington State to Nevada.
The Seattle Times reported Monday the ascension Sen. Harry Reid,
D-Nev., as Democratic leader puts him in a better position to
stall or kill the project to move some 30,000 tons of high-level
nuclear waste from Hanford, Wash., to Yucca Mountain, Nev.
Reid became minority leader last month after Sen. Tom Daschle of
South Dakota lost his re-election bid.
The Yucca Mountain site is scheduled to open in 2010. Hanford's
nuclear waste is to be mixed with glass and made into logs 14
feet long and 2 feet in diameter.
Some 9,000 logs were to be transported to Yucca Mountain between
2013 and 2028. Officials are not sure where the Hanford nuclear
waste would go if it cannot be stored in Yucca.
Officials in Washington said the issue is not over, however.
"I wouldn't say Yucca Mountain is a foregone conclusion," said
Mike Wilson, a nuclear-waste manager for Washington's Ecology
Department. "We're in a wait-and-see posture."
[UPI Perspectives]
*****************************************************************
45 fremontneb.com: University may need $6 million to clean up radioactive site
, Fremont, Nebraska's Community Newspaper
LINCOLN (AP) - Despite already tough budgets, the University of
Nebraska may need to dig a little deeper to find up to $6
million to cover the clean up of a radioactive site on
university-owned property.
Dave Lechner, the university's vice president for business and
finance, said Saturday that some of that money might need to be
found as early as May when an investigator hired by the
university could begin identifying soil and water contamination
on the site near Mead.
In 2002, the U.S. Justice Department sued the university to
decontaminate its portion of what was once the Nebraska Ordnance
Plant. Bombs had been made on the site during World War II and
the Korean War.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the university acquired 9,600 acres of
the land near Mead after the plant had closed, Lechner said.
Since then, the university has used the land primarily for
agricultural research and
storage, he said.
The university also buried radioactive medical waste on the site
during the 1970s and possibly further contaminated the area by
allowing pesticides to leak into the soil while cleaning farm
equipment.
But two university consultants said the university's
contribution to the toxic problems at the site is just a small
portion of a mess caused largely by the ordnance plant, said
Regent Charles Wilson of Lincoln.
The Board of Regents was briefed Friday about the ongoing
negotiations with the federal government and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
During the briefing, one of the consultants put the price tag at
between $2 million and $6 million dollars.
"So I asked, 'If a $4 million bill suddenly lands on our desk,
do we just have to cough it up?'" Wilson said. "Evidently,
that's the part of it still being negotiated."
The university has not set aside a fund to deal with the
cleanup, which puts it in a tough financial situation, Lechner
said.
The options the university now faces are asking the state to pay
the bill for them, cutting university spending, raising tuition
or a combination of those choices.
University officials have already briefed the governor's office
and state senators about the situation, Wilson said.
Those discussions will likely intensify as it becomes clearer
how big the bill will be and when it will come due, Wilson said.
The Board of Regents may approve an agreement on the cleanup at
its January meeting.
"I would hate to have the responsibility fall onto the current
students," Wilson said. "So we'll have to try to seek some
relief from the state, the state aid portion of the budget ...
to deal with this."
But the university will likely have some significant competition
for state funds.
Though state tax receipts are expected to be up 4 percent, a
swarm of state-funded programs have been talking about their
needs for more money.
That situation "suggests not a single storm but a series of
competitive storms on the horizon," said the state's budget
administrator Gerry Oligmueller.
"The competition is going to be a bit more spirited (for state
funds) this time around," he said.
This Page Last Updated Dec 13, 2004 - 11:20:54 am CST
Copyright © 2004 Fremont Tribune
*****************************************************************
46 Seattle Times: Opinion: Bodman at Energy: some early advice
Monday, December 13, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
Samuel W. Bodman's nomination as the new U.S. energy secretary
might be cause for optimism in the Northwest.
President Bush's choice has been known to expound on the
importance of environmental stewardship. A chemical engineer by
training, he has been an academic, a chemical-company CEO and
deputy secretary in both the treasury and commerce departments.
The past four years of the administration's energy policy have
been discouraging for the Northwest on several fronts. Chief is
the administration's resistance to the fact that the Northwest
electricity market is unique and deserves unique consideration.
Also, the Energy Department's attempts to unilaterally change the
rules for Hanford nuclear cleanup has flouted years of productive
relationship with state regulators.
So, here's some advice on how nominee Bodman can do better:
• Remember the federal Columbia River hydropower system has
nurtured industries reliant on lower-cost power. Hydropower is
renewable, but the Bonneville Power Administration pays as much
for endangered salmon programs as it does for operations. Hydro's
variability means management controls that work in other regions
don't work here.
z • Do not believe the myth that federal taxpayers subsidize
Northwest power. Northwest ratepayers bear the full cost of the
dams, their maintenance and mitigation programs with payments to
the U.S. Treasury, on time and with interest.
• Learn the lessons of Enron and California's failed deregulation
and how the administration's failure to act hurt the Northwest.
• Respect the Northwest's environmental ethic. We want
conservation, energy-efficiency technology and alternative energy
sources. We have wind farms and plans for more. The wind farm tax
credit needs to be renewed for more than one year.
• Don't be tempted to raid the sizable nuclear cleanup budget to
pay for other things. The Hanford region did its duty for the
nation's nuclear defense through the Cold War. Now the federal
government must keep its promise to clean up the mess.
• Accept U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell's invitation to tour the
Northwest and see why it's unique.
Northwest leaders likely will continue to have differences of
opinion with the new energy secretary, but Bodman can do some
mending with better understanding.
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
47 Seattle Times: Fate of Hanford nuclear waste in flux
Monday, December 13, 2004 - Page updated at 10:56 A.M.
By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times Washington bureau
JACKIE JOHNSTON / AP
Unidentified workers at the "tank farms" on the Hanford nuclear
reservation near Richland enter an area known to have hazardous
vapors in March. With Yucca Mountain's future uncertain, the
final resting place for Hanford waste has become a revolving
target.
A major shift of political power on Capitol Hill has thrown into
doubt the schedule for removing high-level nuclear waste from the
Hanford nuclear reservation.
About 30,000 tons of high-level waste from Hanford are to be
buried in Nevada at Yucca Mountain, which federal officials hope
to open in 2010. Waste stored there would be radioactive for
10,000 years.
Nevada's senior senator, Democrat Harry Reid, a staunch opponent
of the proposed nuclear repository, became Senate Democratic
leader last month, replacing Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota,
who lost his bid for re-election.
Reid's ascent puts him in a far better position to stall or
possibly kill the Yucca Mountain Project, about 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.
With Yucca Mountain's future uncertain, the final resting place
for Hanford waste becomes a revolving target.
Although there is general agreement that nuclear-waste cleanup is
a good thing, recent developments underscore the lack of
consensus on where nuclear waste should ultimately be stored, and
how it should get there.
At first glance, there may seem little connection between
Hanford — considered the worst environmental mess in the Western
Hemisphere — and Daschle's defeat on Nov. 2.
But U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, whose district includes
Hanford, said he made the connection as soon as the polls closed
on election night.
Daschle's loss meant the minority-leader position was suddenly
vacant. Reid, who was Daschle's second in command, became the
instant front-runner. He was elected minority leader by fellow
Democrats on Nov. 16.
Reid's rise and future opposition to Yucca Mountain could impact
waste scheduled to be shipped out of Hanford.
"That was one of the first things I thought about when Daschle
lost," Hastings said.
According to Hastings, opening Yucca Mountain as a nuclear-waste
dump is a done deal. If Reid wants to tinker with the process,
he does so at his own political peril.
No signs of letting up
High-level waste at Hanford is scheduled to be mixed with glass
— a process called "vitrification" — and made into logs 14 feet
long and 2 feet in diameter.
Nine thousand such logs are set to be transported to Yucca
Mountain between 2013 and 2028.
Planners don't know whether the logs will be shipped by truck or
train. In addition to opposing Yucca Mountain, the state of
Nevada is against a proposed 320-mile rail extension to the
site.
"To be sure, Harry Reid has more political clout by being named
minority leader," Hastings said. "He will have to spend a lot of
political capital if he wants to make this his No. 1 issue. He
has lists of senators on his side who want Yucca Mountain open."
But Reid has shown no signs of letting up.
On Nov. 21, Reid announced his longtime aide on nuclear issues
had been appointed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which
will make a final decision on whether to issue final permits for
Yucca Mountain.
History of the Yucca Mountain Project
1982 Congress establishes national policy to solve the problem
of nuclear-waste disposal. Congress wants policy based on
science.
1985 President Reagan approves three sites for extensive study,
including Yucca Mountain, Nev., and Hanford.
1987 Congress directs Department of Energy to study only Yucca
Mountain.
2002 U.S. Senate casts final vote approving development of Yucca
Mountain.
2005 Nuclear Regulatory Commission expected to consider Yucca
Mountain license application filed by Department of Energy.
2010 If approved, Yucca Mountain would begin to accept waste.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Reid has argued that scientific studies of Yucca Mountain are
incomplete.
"I wouldn't say Yucca Mountain is a foregone conclusion," said
Mike Wilson, nuclear-waste manager for the Washington state
Department of Ecology. "We're in a wait-and-see posture."
However, the leader of a Hanford watchdog group says he is
unconcerned about the future of Yucca Mountain.
Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of America Northwest,
said he supports Reid's advancement because he agrees with the
senator's position that states should have greater control over
nuclear waste.
If Reid torpedoes Yucca Mountain, treated high-level waste would
be safe at Hanford, Pollet said.
"I believe if Yucca Mountain is not safe, it shouldn't be open,"
Pollet said. "Glassified, high-level waste should stay at
Hanford. That's the safest thing."
There is little agreement about Yucca Mountain within Washington
state's congressional delegation.
In a 2002 vote, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray voted for a
resolution approving Yucca Mountain as a national nuclear-waste
repository. Seven House members from Washington state also
supported the measure.
The state's other senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted
against the Yucca Mountain resolution. At the time, Cantwell
said there wouldn't be enough room in Yucca Mountain to handle
Hanford's waste. She was joined by House Democrats Jim McDermott
of Seattle and Adam Smith of Tacoma.
Raising other questions
Uncertainty over Yucca Mountain raises other questions.
Government planners say they need definitive answers to begin
plotting transportation routes from Hanford and other sites to a
national repository.
There has been no decision on whether the material will travel
by truck or train. Either way, most observers agree an accident
would be a national catastrophe.
"This is all a crapshoot, and no one knows," said Tim Holeman,
nuclear-waste manager at the Western Interstate Energy Board, a
group of 12 Western states and three Canadian provinces charged
with developing a system to transport radioactive materials.
"I can't tell you how Harry Reid's appointment would influence
this matter. All I can tell you is there is a little more
uncertainty," he said. "We have to plan for transportation now.
We can't wait for the politicians to tell us."
With the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expected to hold hearings
on Yucca Mountain next year, state environmental officials say
they will pay close attention to what happens in the other
Washington.
"Everything is still in flux right now," said Wilson, of the
state Ecology Department. "Everybody is in a wait-and-see mode."
Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124 or
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
48 Seattle Times: Hanford initiative spurs legal rematch
Monday, December 13, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
By Shannon Dininny The Associated Press
YAKIMA — Washington state and the federal government are already
battling in court over an initiative limiting nuclear-waste
disposal that was overwhelmingly approved by Washington state
voters last month.
But it's not the first time the two sides have fought over a
voter-approved measure that bars the federal government from
sending radioactive waste to south-central Washington's Hanford
nuclear reservation — and the last time, the federal government
won.
Supporters of the current initiative, however, contend this time
will be very different.
"The legal, political and environmental landscape have all
dramatically changed," said Michael Robinson-Dorn, an assistant
professor at the University of Washington School of Law who is
fighting to uphold the measure.
In 1980, Washington state voters passed Initiative 383, which
prohibited temporary, interim or permanent storage, within the
state of Washington, of any radioactive waste produced outside
the state.
The federal government filed suit, and a judge ruled that the
measure violated federal laws governing interstate commerce and
nuclear waste. A federal appeals court later upheld the ruling.
But I-383 was a "blunt tool" with a very different purpose: to
force Congress to recognize that states should have a say in
nuclear-waste disposal, Robinson-Dorn said.
Congress responded by giving states the authority to enact
compacts with each other governing waste and shipments of waste,
he said.
"Even though it was overturned, it had a different purpose and
it achieved that purpose," he said. "In a very real way, 383
made a difference."
And no one should rule out the current initiative, either, he
said.
Initiative 297, which was approved by 69 percent of Washington
voters last month, bars the U.S. Department of Energy from
sending more radioactive waste to Hanford until the existing
waste there is cleaned up. It also places additional
restrictions on waste burial and permits, among other things.
Supporters of the initiative take issue with the federal
government's plans for disposing of waste from World War II and
Cold War-era nuclear-weapons production nationwide. The Energy
Department chose the 586-square-mile Hanford site to dispose of
some mildly radioactive waste and mixed low-level waste, which
is laced with chemicals.
The site also would serve as a packaging center for some
transuranic waste before it is shipped elsewhere for long-term
disposal. Transuranic waste is highly radioactive and can take
thousands of years to decay to safe levels.
Federal Energy Department officials have said the site's most
dangerous waste will be shipped out of state. But the state has
promised to vigorously defend the initiative in court.
"We think the state is totally within its rights with this
initiative," said David Mears, senior assistant attorney general
for Washington state.
Attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department declined to discuss
the constitutionality of the measure, citing the court fight.
But the federal government appears poised to again argue that
the initiative violates federal laws governing interstate
commerce and nuclear waste.
This time, though, there are several caveats to the case. The
drafters of the initiative wrote it specifically to bar waste
imports until existing waste at the site is cleaned up, which
they say does not violate federal laws governing interstate
commerce.
"We're not saying it's OK [that] if your waste is generated in
Washington, you can dump it in a leaking landfill, but not if it
comes from somewhere else. We're saying a leaking landfill is a
leaking landfill and it's bad, so clean it up first," said
Gerald Pollet, executive director of the Hanford watchdog group
Heart of America Northwest, which sponsored the initiative.
The new measure also applies specifically to mixed waste, which
contains both radioactive waste and nonradioactive hazardous
materials. Federal law give states authority to regulate
hazardous waste.
That means federal law gives Washington state broader authority
to force thorough cleanup at Hanford before any more waste comes
into the state, Pollet said.
"Hanford is the poster child of all contaminated areas in
America. If Congress meant to say you have the authority to stop
making a problem worse, they meant it for Hanford," he said.
Both sides are sure to cite legal cases bolstering their claims.
But it is the defenders of the initiative who face an uphill
battle, despite its passage, said Philip Bobbitt, professor of
constitutional law at the University of Texas.
"There's no doubt in my mind that the federal government has the
authority to regulate nuclear waste," he said.
The drafters of the initiative were wise to focus on mixed
waste, he said, but the legal landscape hasn't changed.
"The problem is that even if that succeeds, and while that is a
superior and prudent attack, the courts are not the final
arbiter of intent. Congress is the final arbiter of its intent,"
he said. "Congress could still take it up and cram it down your
throats. As a political maneuver to buy time, it may make sense.
But in the end, it won't stand up."
Earlier this month, a federal judge imposed a temporary stay of
the initiative, blocking it from becoming law, and the two sides
agreed to extend the stay through 2005 while they make their
cases in court.
Shipments of waste to the site already were halted as a result
of another lawsuit, which means the $2 billion annual cleanup
will continue under current regulations and schedules at the
site.
Meanwhile, Heart of America Northwest and several other groups
filed a court motion seeking to join the state in defending the
initiative.
The federal government must give more than lip service to the
idea of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal
government, said Robinson-Dorn, who is representing the groups.
"Washington has the power to protect its citizens' health, its
citizens' natural resources. Congress recognizes this dual
sovereignty, and it's given states power to act," he said. "It's
now up to the federal government to decide how compliance with
its own laws is unconstitutional."
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
49 SPI: New Hanford battle begins, triggered by voter-passed initiative
[seattlepi.com] Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
Monday, December 13, 2004
By SHANNON DININNY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
YAKIMA -- Washington state and the federal government are already
battling in court over an initiative -- overwhelmingly approved
last month by state voters -- that is intended to limit nuclear
waste disposal.
But it's not the first time the two sides have fought over a
voter-approved measure that bars the federal government from
sending radioactive waste to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation --
and the last time, the federal government won.
Supporters of the current initiative, however, contend that this
time will be different.
"The legal, political and environmental landscape have all
dramatically changed," said Michael Robinson-Dorn, an assistant
professor at the University of Washington School of Law who is
fighting to uphold the measure.
In 1980, state voters passed Initiative 383, which prohibited
temporary, interim or permanent storage, within the state of
Washington, of any radioactive waste produced outside the state.
The federal government filed suit, and a judge ruled that the
measure violated federal laws governing interstate commerce and
nuclear waste. A federal appeals court later upheld the ruling.
But I-383 was a "blunt tool" with a very different purpose: to
force Congress to recognize that states should have a say in
nuclear waste disposal, Robinson-Dorn said.
Congress responded by giving states the authority to enact
compacts with each other governing waste and shipments of waste,
he said.
"Even though it was overturned, it had a different purpose and it
achieved that purpose," he said. "In a very real way, 383 made a
difference."
And no one should rule out the current initiative either, he
said.
Initiative 297, which was approved by 69 percent of Washington
voters, bars the U.S. Department of Energy from sending more
radioactive waste to Hanford until the existing waste there is
cleaned up. It also places additional restrictions on waste
burial and permits, among other things.
Supporters of the initiative take issue with the federal
government's plans for disposing of waste from World War II and
Cold War-era nuclear weapons production nationwide. The Energy
Department chose the 586-square-mile Hanford site to dispose of
some mildly radioactive waste and mixed low-level waste, which
is laced with chemicals.
The site also would serve as a packaging center for some
transuranic waste before it is shipped elsewhere for long-term
disposal. Transuranic waste is highly radioactive and can take
thousands of years to decay to safe levels.
Energy Department officials have said the site's most dangerous
waste will be shipped out of state. But the state has promised
to vigorously defend the initiative in court.
"We think the state is totally within its rights with this
initiative," said David Mears, senior assistant attorney general
for Washington state.
Attorneys for the Justice Department declined to discuss the
constitutionality of the measure, citing the court fight. But
the federal government appears poised to again argue the
initiative violates federal laws governing interstate commerce
and nuclear waste.
This time, though, there are several caveats to the case. The
drafters of the initiative wrote it specifically to bar waste
imports until existing waste at the site is cleaned up, which
they say does not violate federal laws governing interstate
commerce.
"We're not saying it's OK if your waste is generated in
Washington, you can dump it in a leaking landfill, but not if it
comes from somewhere else. We're saying a leaking landfill is a
leaking landfill and it's bad, so clean it up first," said
Gerald Pollet, executive director of the Hanford watchdog group
Heart of America Northwest, which sponsored the initiative.
The new measure also applies specifically to mixed waste, which
contains both radioactive waste and non-radioactive hazardous
materials. Federal law give states authority to regulate
hazardous waste.
That means federal law gives Washington state broader authority
to force thorough cleanup at Hanford before any more waste comes
into the state, Pollet said.
"Hanford is the poster child of all contaminated areas in
America. If Congress meant to say you have the authority to stop
making a problem worse, they meant it for Hanford," he said.
Both sides are sure to cite legal cases bolstering their claims.
But it is the defenders of the initiative who face an uphill
battle, despite its passage, said Philip Bobbitt, professor of
constitutional law at the University of Texas.
"There's no doubt in my mind that the federal government has the
authority to regulate nuclear waste," he said.
The drafters of the initiative were wise to focus on mixed
waste, he said, but the legal landscape hasn't changed.
"The problem is that even if that succeeds, and while that is a
superior and prudent attack, the courts are not the final
arbiter of intent. Congress is the final arbiter of its intent,"
he said. "Congress could still take it up and cram it down your
throats. As a political maneuver to buy time, it may make sense.
But in the end, it won't stand up."
Earlier this month, a federal judge imposed a temporary stay of
the initiative, blocking it from becoming law, and the two sides
agreed to extend the stay through 2005 while they make their
cases in court.
Shipments of waste to the site already were halted as a result
of another lawsuit, which means the $2 billion annual cleanup
will continue under current regulations and schedules at the
site.
Meanwhile, Heart of America Northwest and several other groups
filed a court motion seeking to join the state in defending the
initiative.
The federal government must give more than lip service to the
idea of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal
government, said Robinson-Dorn, who is representing the groups.
"Washington has the power to protect its citizens' health, its
citizens' natural resources. Congress recognizes this dual
sovereignty and it's given states power to act," he said. "It's
now up to the federal government to decide how compliance with
its own laws is unconstitutional."
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA
98119 (206) 448-8000
Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
[newmedia@seattlepi.com]
©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
50 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Shipping plans deserve praise
Today: December 13, 2004 at 8:54:40 PST
Your Dec. 7 article headlined, "Panel: Yucca transportation plan
flawed," emphasized some of the points raised by the Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board in a recent letter to Energy
Department managers of the Yucca Mountain repository project.
Neither the meeting of the board held in Salt Lake City, to
which the letter refers, or the letter itself was as negative as
your article infers.
I was at the meeting and it appeared to me that the board was
generally pleased with what was discussed and, yes, they were
"concerned" with budget and schedules, as are many within and
outside the federal government.
For balance, you might also have quoted this from the letter:
"The board commends the Energy Department on its effort in
developing a systematic approach to transportation planning."
A lot of detailed transportation planning remains to be done,
but as the president of a waste shipping company pointed out in
your article, there is time to get those things done and it
appears that the Energy Department recognizes the value in
coordinating their planning with states and other stakeholders.
BRIAN O'CONNELL
Editor's note: Brian O'Connell directs the Nuclear Waste
Program Office of the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, a group that has supported the Yucca Mountain
project.
All contents copyright 2004 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
51 Las Vegas SUN: Test Site may be center for U.S. documents
Today: December 13, 2004 at 10:56:24 PST
By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Nevada Test Site may become home to a new
branch of the Government Printing Office that would handle secure
documents as early as 2006.
Nevadan Bruce James, the Public Printer of the United States,
proposed the new facility be built in his home state as part of
his five-year "Strategic Vision for the 21st Century" for the
Government Printing Office.
The plan, released today, said the Test Site would produce
security and intelligence documents, including new "electronic
passports" complete with computer chips, because it is "one of
the nation's most secure federal locations."
GPO expects the new site to be functional and producing
passports and other documents by July 2006. It will also serve as
a "backup" facility -- a second digital printing center for the
Federal Register and Congressional Record.
The new site is part of a reorganization plan for the agency as
it wades through a massive transition from its historic role as
paper printer of all government documents to a digital document
operation.
James aims to relocate the agency's main facilities, now just a
few blocks from the Capitol, because it is not able to handle the
type of technology the GPO needs to support publishing electronic
documents. The printing office estimates that 50 percent of the
government's documents are "born digital" or created on a
computer, published to the Internet and will never need to be
printed by the U.S. government.
James, of Lake Tahoe's Crystal Bay, started his job as the
Public Printer in December 2002.
Nevada's senators, Harry Reid, a Democrat and John Ensign, a
Republican, support the idea. Reid is the incoming Senate
Democratic leader.
The GPO has not made a final decision about establishing a
facility at the Test Site, office spokeswoman Veronica Meter
said. It's not known yet whether the printing facility would be
housed in a new or existing building.
It was not immediately clear how the printing office identified
the Test Site as a suitable spot for its new "backup" facility,
or what approvals that site would need. It likely would not need
congressional approval, Meter said.
No cost or construction estimates were immediately available.
The strategic plan released today said the agency has hired a
real estate consulting company to assist the agency in selecting
and developing its new sites. The agency plan says "we expect"
the new headquarters will be in the Washington area and that the
security-document facility would be at the Test Site.
The Nevada Test Site, with its nearest border to Las Vegas about
65 miles northwest of the city, was the nation's nuclear weapons
proving ground during the Cold War, but no tests have been
conducted there since 1992.
Government officials have long pondered new uses for the site,
one of the most secure and remote government sites in the nation.
Proposals have ranged from wind farms to space shuttle launch
pads.
In recent years, the site has been used for counter-terrorism
training as part of a new war on terror.
All contents copyright 2004 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
52 [du-list] DU in the News dec 14th '04
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:43:08 -0800
Independent Media TV, Mon, 13 Dec 2004 4:57 AM PST
How the Pentagon downplays the risks of depleted uranium weapons -
Independent Media TV
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=10122&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported
For Matt Rohman, the symptoms began about the time that his unit returned
to its barracks in Germany after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. First came a
fatigue that sleep couldn't cure. Then severe pains in his joints. His
teeth started falling out; his hands and feet went numb. Asthma grabbed his
lungs.
Hampton Roads Daily Press, Mon, 13 Dec 2004 0:42 AM PST
It Wins Wars -- But at What Cost?
http://www.dailypress.com/news/specials/dp-du3,0,4750505.story?coll=dp-breaking-news
It Wins Wars -- But at What Cost? Chapter 3: The Silver Bullet. The fight
over depleted uranium weapons isn't about how well they work. It's about
how safe they are when the fighting is finished.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
53 IPS-English CANADA: Tiptoeing Around Weapons in Space
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:53:15 -0800
ROMAIPS NA IP
CANADA: Tiptoeing Around Weapons in Space
By Paul Weinberg
TORONTO, Dec 13 (IPS) - Ottawa's tendency to take contradictory or
ambiguous political positions on sensitive issues will be put to the test
in the current debate over the U.S. request that its northern neighbour
endorse its controversial ballistic missile defence (BMD) programme.
If it signs on to Washington's project, Canada will have difficulty
maintaining credible diplomatic opposition to the "weaponisation" of space
in international disarmament conferences, says Ernie Regehr, executive
director of Project Ploughshares.
The Canadian government has hinted it might be able to participate in BMD
without surrendering its opposition to weapons in space, an approach that
worries many observers.
"There is a significant element of the Canadian diplomatic establishment
that is very concerned about ballistic missile defence and the implication
it has for our arms control objectives," Regehr added in an interview.
Initially, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin supported Canada's
involvement in the plan to develop missiles that could be launched from
space to intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles headed towards
the United States or another country.
"If there is going to an American missile going off somewhere over Canadian
airspace, I think Canada should be at the table making the decisions," he
told reporters in 2003.
But Martin has shied away from taking a definitive position after his
government was reduced to a minority position in Parliament following the
June federal election.
The prime minister faces strong opposition to missile defence from two
other political parties in Parliament, as well from some members within his
Liberal Party.
However, a visit by U.S. President George W Bush earlier this month stirred
up the debate. "I hope we'll also move forward on ballistic missile defence
cooperation, to protect the next generation of Canadians and Americans from
the threats we know will arise," Bush said.
While the Canadian prime minister has promised a full open debate on the
question before taking an official decision, his government last August had
already negotiated an amendment that will now allow the Canada-U.S. North
American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) to share its global missile
surveillance and warning information with the U.S.-only northern military
command in North America (NORTHCOM), which would be responsible for the
operation of missile defence.
"The U.S. got what they wanted because that was the only question they had
in their mind -- what role NORAD was going to play," says defence analyst
Stephen Staples, director of the corporate security state project at the
Polaris Institute.
Another defence analyst, David Rudd, draws parallels between Martin's
position on BMD and the pledge of "not necessarily conscription but
conscription if necessary," made by Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King
who, in the face of division between English and French-speaking Canadians
over participating in the Second World War, had to deal with the problem of
insufficient numbers of volunteers to join the war effort in Europe.
Regehr says the United States is contemplating a space-based test as part
of the BMD programme in 2012. When that occurs, the post-World War II
"international norm" for the peaceful use of outer space will have been
broken, he added.
Governments of the United States and Russia (when it was part of the Soviet
Union) tried to control the spread of nuclear weapons with the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. However with a perceived threat of missiles
raining down on U.S. soil from so-called rogue states, the Americans in the
early 1990s began in earnest to develop a missile defence system.
But a variety of scientists and disarmament experts have disputed whether
such a system could provide sufficient protection against incoming long
range ballistic missiles from states such as North Korea and Iran.
The U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists recently urged in a letter
that the Martin government oppose Washington's programme on the basis that
diplomatic negotiations still remain the most effective and cheapest means
to limit the spread of new missile systems.
"North Korea has observed a fully verifiable moratorium on missile flight
tests since 1998 and taking steps to keep this moratorium in place should
be a top U.S. and international priority," said UCS co-director and senior
scientist David Wright and retired U.S. ambassador Jonathan Dean, an
advisor on global security issues for the same organisation.
Staple says the main reason the U.S. president made his first visit to
Canada on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1 was to drum up support for missile defence
among Canadian and European allies.
"Bush can't get to European capitals and try to argue for greater
participation in the war against terrorism when even Canada won't buy into
missile defence and we sit on the same continent as the Americans," argued
Staples.
But some Canadians, including Regehr, want Ottawa to stick to its official
position that long-term diplomacy is what is required to keep a lid on
weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
"You can't prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons by either the Iraq
strategy (i.e. a pre-emptive military assault on the government of former
President Saddam Hussein) or a ballistic missile defence strategy," he argued.
Further complicating Canada's role, says York University political
scientist Ann Denholm Crosby, is that despite its decision not to support
the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003, Canadian military personnel at NORAD's
U.S.-based headquarters in Colorado Springs have since 1996 been
participating in "key support functions" for all U.S. military engagements
worldwide.
This stems, she says, from a 1996 Canada-U.S. agreement on NORAD.
That deal established NORAD Command as part of a "system of interdependent
(U.S.) commands that make important contributions to the security of the
United States and Canada and bring the power of space to U.S. military
operations worldwide," according to Gen Joseph Ashy, commander-in-chief of
both NORAD and U.S. Space Command, speaking to the U.S. Senate Armed
Services Committee and quoted by Crosby in a recent paper.
All of the surveillance data the United States collects by satellite
through NORAD and other commands is pooled together, explains Crosby in an
interview, so the idea of Canada (via NORAD) excluding itself specifically
from BMD is questionable.
"There is a serious disconnect here between Canadian foreign policy and
Canadian military activity," she added.
*****
+Project Ploughshares (http://www.ploughshares.ca)
+Polaris Institute (http://www.polarisinstitute.org)
+Union of Concerned Scientists
(http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/index.cfm)
(END/IPS/NA/IP/PW/ML/04)
= 12131822 ORP007
NNNN
*****************************************************************
54 Lexington Herald-Leader: Strategic-missile threat has yet to emerge
| 12/13/2004 |
By Michael Cabbage
THE ORLANDO SENTINEL
WASHINGTON - The United States plans to spend more than $25
billion by 2010 to defend against a strategic-missile threat
that has yet to emerge.
The limited defense being rushed into operation in Alaska won't
provide a shield against the 3,000 nuclear warheads atop
Russia's 700 long-range missiles. It's also unlikely the system
ever will protect against the far more modest threat posed by
China's two dozen or so nuclear missiles.
Only two other countries -- U.S. allies Britain and France --
are known to have intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs,
capable of striking the United States. That means that for the
foreseeable future, the costly new system being deployed to
intercept ICBMs in midflight will guard exclusively against the
possibility that North Korea, and eventually Iran, will acquire
a long-range nuclear threat.
How real is that threat? There is considerable debate. However,
most experts agree that even if both countries eventually field
an ICBM, they are a long way from developing a nuclear weapon
sophisticated enough to ride atop it.
Even so, missile-defense proponents say the time to prepare is
now.
"It takes time to build these defenses," said Air Force Lt. Gen.
Trey Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency. "We can't
wake up one morning and say 'Oh, we have to go do that today'
when they already have demonstrated that."
Skeptics in Congress argue that Washington's increasingly
limited resources would be better spent protecting Americans
from far more likely threats, such as terrorist attacks using
bomb-laden trucks and ships. Only $125 million was spent by the
federal government on grants to improve port security throughout
the United States in 2004, compared with $2.93 billion for the
missile defense based in Alaska.
"The CIA has told us for years that the most likely attack on us
will not be a missile attack but a terrorist attack using
conventional means," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a longtime
critic. "Spending a fortune on a less likely threat while
underfunding defenses against the more likely threats is a huge
mistake."
Intelligence analysts are uncertain how close North Korea and
Iran are to fielding an ICBM that can hit the United States.
The most recent National Intelligence Estimate in 2001 said the
United States would "most likely" face long-range threats from
both nations by 2015. The report also identified Iraq under
Saddam Hussein as a future ICBM threat. He was said to possess
"a small covert force of (short-range) Scud-variant missiles,
launchers and conventional, chemical, and biological warheads."
U.S. forces found no such weapons in Iraq.
Critics have scorned the Bush administration for going to war
against Iraq, a country with neither long-range missiles nor
weapons of mass destruction, while taking only sporadic
diplomatic action against the other members of the "axis of
evil" that pose greater threats. Both North Korea and Iran are
developing long-range missiles under the guise of building
boosters to send satellites into space.
In August 1998, North Korea's attempt to launch a satellite atop
a Taepo Dong 1 rocket failed when the third stage malfunctioned,
dropping the payload into the ocean about 2,500 miles away.
Although North Korea has since adhered to a self-imposed testing
moratorium, new intelligence analyses indicate work is
proceeding on a longer-range Taepo Dong 2 that might be able to
hit Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast with a small warhead. An
advanced version might be capable of striking anywhere in the
United States.
Recent reports suggest North Korea also is working to acquire
medium-range missiles that could be fired from submarines and
ships. a threat that would fly beneath the system in Alaska.
Iranian progress on long-range missiles is almost as murky. The
country reportedly has help from Russia, China and North Korea.
In October, Iran said that an upgraded version of its most
powerful missile, the Shahab-3, has a range of about 1,250
miles, enough to reach Israel but short of being able to hit the
United States.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************