*****************************************************************
05/27/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.122
*****************************************************************
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 Xinhua: Iran: EU nuclear proposal portrays new position
2 AFP: Uranium work could yet resume, Iran warns EU -
3 AFP: Iran, EU give themselves two months to find final accord on nuc
4 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA handed new evidence on Iran
5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. 'Ready for Permanent Talks Boycott b
6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: KEPCO Exiled to Provinces with 2 Companio
7 BBC: North Korea 'facing food crisis'
8 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Denies Nuclear Testing Reports
9 [southnews] US media censor uranium weapons stories
10 US Leads Nuclear NPT Conf to Deadlock
11 Reading Eagle: Editorials: U.S. shouldn’t put weapons in space
12 Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference At UN Closes With 'very Little'
13 IPS-English DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Talks End With Bickering,
14 Main Committees For Nuclear Review Conference UN To Agree On Texts
15 [southnews] Nuclear debate turns heat on Israel
16 [progchat_action] Google Alert for: Depleted Uranium
17 Victory for Nuclear Proliferation?
18 A Nun Prays as Diplomats Bicker Over Nuclear Arms
19 [toeslist] America's broken nuclear promises - news from final
20 Guardian Unlimited: Robin Cook: America's broken nuclear promises en
21 BBC: Leaders split on nuclear treaty
22 Mos News: Jimmy Carter Addresses Russia’s Putin on Nuclear Safety -
23 Japan Times: Energy security a must as demand soars: report
24 DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Talks End With Bickering, Backsliding
25 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine offers US firms to take part in the development o
26 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuke Conference Offers No New Action
27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Conference Approaches End
NUCLEAR REACTORS
28 US: Blackouts would limit TMI sirens regulators say
29 US: [NukeNet] GAO report on NRC
30 US: [NukeNet] Many Nuclear Plants Lack Backup Sirens
31 US: [CMEP] Illinois does not need new nuke
32 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Conference With Arizona Public Service Co. for
33 US: KRT Wire: Nuclear reactor prepares to test fuel with plutonium
34 US: NIRS: In the Event That a Nuclear Melt Down Coincides with Elect
35 US: NRC: NRC Publishes Licensing, Inspection and Annual Fees for Fis
36 US: newsobserver.com: Report: Some risk at N-plant
37 Interfax: Chernobyl plant denies accident has occurred
38 US: Hampton Union: Congressmen question NRC
39 US: toledoblade.com: Keep leash on Davis-Besse
40 US: NRC: NPF-73]
41 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
42 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
43 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of U.S.
44 US: Environment Colorado: Nuclear Power Not Needed to Reduce Global
45 US: Public Citizen: New Nuclear Reactor in Illinois Is Unnecessary,
NUCLEAR SECURITY
46 IAEA: Nuclear Weapons Grade Material Removed from Latvia
NUCLEAR SAFETY
47 [DU-WATCH] UK is covering DU NOW
48 US: Rocky Mountain News: Feds play coy on Flats compensation plan
49 US: DenverPost.com: Feds say Flats' workers claims will be expedited
50 US: Guardian Unlimited: Sick Weapons Workers to Be Compensated
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
51 US: KRT Wire: Making sense of MOX: experts' opinions differ
52 US: Deseret: Bishop uses defense bill to try to bar N-waste from Uta
53 LTVNEWS.COM: Where To Bury Waste Product From Canada's Nuclear React
54 US: ICT: Policy debate: Power plants on Navajo land, Part 2
55 US: PE.com: Senate passes perchlorate evaluation bill
56 Pahrump Valley Times: YUCCA MOUNTAIN Commercial use of railroad poss
57 US: AU ABC: Mining company in talks on Kakadu uranium.
58 Scotsman.com News: 'Clean-up' that will transform Dounreay
59 News & Star: Thorp leak lasted three months
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
60 The State: SRS named finalist for new n
61 AP Wire: SRS among finalists for one of two new nuclear power plants
62 New Mexican: Lab's UC partisans express relief
63 SF Chronicle: SAN FRANCISCO / Regents vote to make a bid for Los Ala
64 DOE: DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
65 Oakland Tribune: UC faces just one challenger in fight for lab
66 California Aggie: Board of Regents to bid for Los Alamos
67 lamonitor.com: UC votes to stay in the game
68 PISJ: What were they thinking? Storing nuke waste at INL
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Xinhua: Iran: EU nuclear proposal portrays new position
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-27 19:26:05
TEHRAN, May 27 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran's chief nuclear
negotiator Hassan Rowhani said here Friday that the European
Union (EU) had presented a proposal that portrays its new
position on Iran's nuclear program in the latest round of talks.
"I have brought the EU's proposal to Iran because it
portrays a new position on the part of the Europeans, and we
must make a decision over the proposal," Rowhani said, quoted by
the official IRNA news agency.
Rowhani made the comments upon his arrival in Tehran after
holding a key round of talks in Geneva on Wednesday with foreign
ministers of the European trio of Britain, France and Germany.
The negotiator said that he had informed the Europeans in
the talks that Iran could no longer tolerate the delaying of the
talks and would resume some uranium enrichment activities.
"The Europeans have proposed to present a comprehensive plan
within the next two months for all-out cooperation with Iran in
different areas including technical and nuclear issues," Rowhani
added.
"Iran would inform the European trio if it has accepted
their proposal. If the proposal is rejected, Iran will resume
the enrichment activities," he stressed.
Iran and the EU have just prevented the deadlocked bilateral
nuclear negotiations from going further to crisis in Wednesday's
talks, during which the two sides in fact prolonged the
negotiations to wait for the result of Iran's presidential
elections on June 17.
The current deadlock came as a result of the EU's repeated
rejection to Iran's demand of keeping restricted uranium
activates.
Frustrated Tehran in late April threatened to resume its
highly sensitive uranium enrichment activities, which it
suspended in last November in exchanged for the economic and
technological incentives promised by the EU.
Tehran's threat was immediately hit back by the EU, which
warned of backing a US-proposed referral of Iran's nuclear case
to the UN Security Council, which might inflict harsh sanctions
on the country.
The United States has accused Iran of developing nuclear
weapons secretly, a charge rejected by Tehran as politically
motivated. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
2 AFP: Uranium work could yet resume, Iran warns EU -
Friday May 27, 12:33 PM
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran is still examining the European Union's
latest offer to solve a dispute over its nuclear programme and
could yet resume uranium conversion if it rejects the new
proposal, Tehran's top atomic official said.
"We will restart (work at the) the Isfahan (uranium) conversion
plant, and the fuel cycle is our (non-negotiable) red line,"
Hassan Rowhani said, replying to a question on what will happen
if Iran refuses to accept the EU plan.
The Isfahan plant is used for uranium
conversion, a precursor stage in nuclear enrichment, a process
that the EU wants Iran to renounce as it can be used to develop
nuclear weapons. "Since the European proposal was a new one and
it is up to the regime's officials to make a decision, we
brought it to Tehran. If not accepted we will begin enrichment
in Isfahan," he added, quoted by the IRNA news agency.
Rowhani also warned the Europeans that if "they want to drag out
the negotiations, we will begin the enrichment in Isfahan."
His comments come after Iranian officials and the foreign
ministers of Britain, France and Germany on Wednesday managed in
a last-ditch meeting in Geneva to avert a collapse of talks.
The European ministers, representing the 25-nation EU, agreed
with Iranian negotiators that they would make new proposals to
Tehran in late July or August on cooperation in civilian nuclear
power and trade ties.
Iran in turn pledged to maintain a suspension of its uranium
enrichment programme agreed in Paris last November, amid fears
that Tehran's plans would allow it to develop a nuclear bomb.
"Up to now, each time we have asked the Europeans to make clear
proposals they have ducked the issue and taken time," Rowhani
said.
"This is the first time they have committed to making overall
proposals."
The EU ministers had sought a September deadline, but in the end
accepted a request by Iranian negotiators in Geneva to bring it
forward. Iran insists its bid to master the full nuclear fuel
cycle, including uranium enrichment, is aimed at generating
electricity and is a right for any country that has signed the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
3 AFP: Iran, EU give themselves two months to find final accord on nuclear crisis
Friday May 27, 07:23 PM
VIENNA (AFP) - The European Union this week pushed back by two
months the deadline for a final deal with Iran on its nuclear
program, or a new battle if Tehran were to resume sensitive
nuclear fuel work. Following a meeting in Geneva with Iran's
chief negotiator Hassan Rowhani, the foreign ministers of
Britain, France and Germany pledged to come up with proposals
for a deal with Tehran by the end of July.
The EU is expected to offer help with developing civilian
nuclear power, as well as commercial and political ties, in
exchange for respecting a deal struck last November to freeze
its uranium enrichment program. In the meanwhile Washington,
which accuses the Islamic state of trying to develop nuclear
arms, will watch the Iranians with an eagle's eye as will the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The United States has long wanted the IAEA to refer Tehran to
the UN Security Council, a move than can lead to sanctions, and
negotiators say the Europeans leaned strongly on this threat in
Geneva. A diplomat said Iran's negotiators were left with no
doubt that the EU-3 had started to draw up contingency plans on
referring Iran to the council during the IAEA's next board
meeting, if the talks failed.
After weeks of brinkmanship Tehran backed down, for now, from its
threat to resume its uranium conversion cycle. The process is a
precursor to nuclear enrichment that lies at the heart of
suspicions that Tehran is seeking atomic weapons.
The Iranians have refused to portray the outcome as a climbdown.
Rowhani on Friday said Iran will restart conversion work if top
officials in Tehran did not find the EU proposals due in July,
unacceptable. "We will restart (work at the) the Isfahan
(uranium) conversion plant, and the fuel cycle is our
(non-negotiable) red line." He added: "Since the European
proposal was a new one and it is up to the regime's officials to
make a decision, we brought it to Tehran. If not accepted we will
begin enrichment in Isfahan."
Rowhani also warned the Europeans that if "they want to drag out
the negotiations, we will begin the enrichment in Isfahan."
In Geneva, he had reiterated Tehran's official line that it was
not seeking nuclear arms but had the right to pursue a civilian
nuclear program, and that this included enrichment work.
The EU-3 said it was "satisfied" with the outcome. German Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer sounded a note of warning, telling
reporters: "We have our different positions and it is not easy to
narrow them."
But a Paris-based diplomat said what mattered for now, was that
the dialogue with Tehran did not collapse and the November accord
had survived. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday
welcomed Iran's decision to keep the suspension in place as a
"very positive development." The Iran dossier will be under
scrutiny again at the next meeting in mid-June of the IAEA's
board of governors. While the fuel work suspension holds, the
IAEA is likely to focus on other areas of concern on Iran's
program and demand information its inspectors claim Tehran so far
failed to furnish, a diplomat here said.
"The EU-Iran Geneva agreement will take the focus away from the
suspension, and will put the focus on unresolved questions on
Iran's nuclear program," he told AFP.
"The IAEA wants to establish the history of the nuclear program
in Iran ... a country that has hidden nuclear activities for 17
years."
One issue still troubling the UN nuclear watchdog is plans its
inspectors found for a highly sophisticated P-2 nuclear
centrifuge found in Iran. Tehran said it had not worked on the
centrifuges for seven years, but said a diplomat: "The worry is
that they are lying ... that they have been working secretly on
more developed centrifuges."
Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA handed new evidence on Iran
Ian Traynor in Vienna
Friday May 27, 2005
The Guardian
Senior Pakistani army officers arrived in Vienna yesterday to
help UN nuclear investigators try to solve one of the most
troubling questions about Iran's nuclear programme, signalling a
potential breakthrough in the two-year investigation.
Bowing to international pressure to assist in the inquiry,
Pakistan delivered uranium enrichment components for analysis by
the International Atomic Energy Agency in order to establish
whether traces of weapons-grade uranium found in Iran match that
on the Pakistani equipment.
Iran has been telling the truth in arguing that the
weapons-grade uranium was not manufactured in Iran but imported
via a Pakistan-based network trading in nuclear technology.
"Both sides are cooperating and the testing and analysis of
samples is under way in connection with the IAEA's verification
work in Iran," said an agency spokesman of the IAEA-Pakistan
investigation.
Traces of the weapons-grade uranium were found by UN inspectors
in Iran in 2003, ringing alarms in the west and at IAEA
headquarters. But the provenance of the material has never been
clarified.
The discovery coincided with revelations that Iran had been
secretly trying to enrich uranium for 18 years, obtaining
equipment and knowhow from a black market network headed by the
disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is under
house arrest in Islamabad.
Tehran said the suspect uranium traces must have been due to
contamination on the equipment obtained from the Khan network.
But Pakistan stalled for more than a year in helping the
inspectors to answer the questions.
The Pakistani officers are expected to remain in Austria,
guarding the samples while they are analysed at an IAEA
laboratory.
The discovery of the weapons-grade traces almost two years ago
was one of the most startling discoveries in the Iranian
investigation. Inspectors no longer believe that Tehran produced
the material. But if the Pakistani and Iranian traces do not
match, the finding will throw open the possibility that Iran
obtained nuclear equipment from another, as yet unknown, source.
The findings are expected to be made available to diplomats at a
meeting of the 35-strong IAEA board in Vienna next month, a
session that is also expected to divulge further details of
Iran's nuclear programme.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. 'Ready for Permanent Talks Boycott by N.Korea'
Home> National/Politics Updated May.27,2005 19:37 KST
Defense for Asia and the Pacific, said Thursday his government
was getting ready in case North Korea does not return to
six-party nuclear disarmament talks.
At a hearing of the House International Relations Committee,
Lawless said, "We are preparing ourselves for the possibility
that the DPRK has made a strategic decision to abandon the
talks. We certainly hope that that's not the situation."
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, Washington's
representative to the six-party talks, reiterated the U.S. line
that there is no deadline for Pyongyang to come back to talks
but added, ˇ°Clearly the situation canˇŻt go on forever.ˇ±
Hill made an unusual criticism of Beijing. "If [the Chinese]
ultimately fail, if they fail to get their very close friend to
come to the table, the six-party process is going to fail,ˇ± he
said. ˇ°I would agree with you that there is enough influence
there that they should be able to convince their very close
friend to come to the table. And they haven't done it. So this
is indeed a problem." He urged China to take a more active role,
saying, "China needs to, for the interests of these talksˇ¦ that
they host in Beijing, they need to get their close friend -- by
whatever means -- to come to the table."
Hill appeared to calm fears that Washington is angry with Seoul
for continuing contacts with Pyongyang. ˇ°I think it's very
important that the Korean people be allowed to carry on that
dialogue. And we also support their effort to give humanitarian
assistance, because we have people in North Korea who are
literally ˇ¦ malnourished,ˇ± he said. ˇ°It's their peninsula,
they're -- these are all the same people... So we have to be
respectful of the fact that this is a terrible tragedy that left
that peninsula divided."
Lawless meanwhile reassured the committee that the Korea-U.S.
alliance is in better shape than reports have suggested. "We
have come to agreement on the relocation of Yongsan Garrison, as
well as the entire 2nd Infantry Division, to enduring facilities
south of Seoul. We have agreed to transfer 10 specific missions,
areas, from United States responsibility to the responsibility
of the Republic of Korea. That process is well under way as I
speak. We have come to agreement on the redeployment of 12,500
American soldiers from Korea over the next few years,ˇ± he said.
ˇ°With the full cooperation of the Republic of Korea, we have
accomplished all of this in a relatively short period of time.
We're very proud of that record."
The U.S. plans to hold bilateral talks on the North Korean
nuclear dispute with South Korea and Japan next week in
Washington.
Meanwhile, about rumors the Pyongyang was preparing for a
nuclear test, North Korea's Korea Central TV said Thursday,
"After speaking ill of our republic as an outpost of tyranny and
a fearful country, the U.S. has come up with a fabrication about
a missile test and an underground nuclear test." This is the
first direct public denial North Korea has made concerning signs
of the country was preparing for an underground nuclear test.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: KEPCO Exiled to Provinces with 2 Companions
> Updated May.27,2005 20:33 KST
to a provincial city together with two of its subsidiaries, the
government decided Friday. The move automatically scraps an
alternative plan to relocate a radioactive waste disposal
facility along with the electric power provider. The government
will unveil the new destination of KEPCO next month when it
announces its plan for the relocation of public agencies.
Provincial governors and mayors came to an agreement on the
relocation of government agencies at a meeting presided over by
Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan at his official residence in
Samchong-dong on Friday.
A government official said competition to become the new home
for KEPCO among provinces and regional cities had overheated, so
the government decided to move it somewhere where there are no
other government agencies. It has not been decided which of
KEPCOˇŻs 10 subsidiaries including Korea Power Engineering
Company will be moved with it.
The government signed the agreement on principles ruling the
relocation of public agencies with 12 provincial governors and
mayors, excluding the heads of the metropolitan area and Daejon.
Under the deal, the central government will decide what agencies
to move but will cooperate with local governments in relocating
them. The chairman of the Presidential Committee on Balanced
National Development, Seong Gyeong-ryung, said the agreement
would help resolve the conflict between local governments over
the relocation plan.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
7 BBC: North Korea 'facing food crisis'
Last Updated: Friday, 27 May, 2005
By Charles Scanlon BBC News, Seoul
[North Korean farmers preparing fields for rice - 20/4/05]
North Korea cannot feed itself
The World Food Programme (WFP) has repeated its warning of a food
crisis in North Korea and says the situation is getting worse by
the day.
The WFP regional director, Anthony Banbury, said contributions
from overseas had all but dried up.
He said the organisation was having to cut handouts to some of
those most in need.
North Korea has depended on food aid from overseas for the last
decade.
But major donors have made no new contributions this year and the
WFP is warning of disaster if they do not resume shipments.
Mr Banbury said governments had expressed great frustration with
North Korea's actions, and the hostile atmosphere was making them
reluctant to send more aid.
North Korea declared itself a nuclear weapons state in February,
and has refused to return to international talks on its nuclear
programme.
The government food ration has already been cut to 250g (9oz),
just half the recommended daily amount.
The WFP says it has also cut supplies to two and a half million
of the most needy recipients, including children, the elderly and
pregnant women.
It has warned of a possible return to famine conditions.
South Korea is sending fertiliser, which will help the next
harvest in five months' time.
It has held out the prospect of food aid but is reluctant to give
it while the North refuses to discuss its nuclear programme.
The United States says it is also considering food aid but has
yet to make a decision.
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Denies Nuclear Testing Reports
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday May 27, 2005 10:31 AM
AP Photo TOK202
By PAUL ALEXANDER
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea dismissed reports it is
preparing for a nuclear test as a U.S. ``fabrication,'' raising
hopes that the reclusive communist nation may be ready to return
to the nuclear bargaining table.
With the statement late Thursday on Korean Central Television
Station, the North's only nationwide network, Pyongyang appeared
to be inching back from the stalemate over its nuclear program
that has taken on increasingly ominous tones.
The North, which pulled out of six-nation negotiations after the
third round in June, still kept up its anti-American rhetoric.
But pragmatism could be prevailing with the North now struggling
to ward off a famine.
U.S. officials said earlier this month that North Korea appeared
to be digging tunnels and building a reviewing stand in the
northeast and said these could be preparations for a nuclear
test. North Korea criticized the report, based on satellite
imagery, but had not denied such preparations were under way
until Thursday.
``The U.S. leadership has recently ... come out with a
fabrication that there are some kind of missile tests and signs
of an underground nuclear test,'' KCTS said.
The North has repeated claims that Washington is preparing to
unseat North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and refused to rule out a
pre-emptive attack of its own.
``Our army and people do not want a war our relations (with the
United States) to worsen, but we also would not beg for dialogue
and peace under any circumstances,'' KCTS said.
There has been a recent flurry of activity aimed at persuading
Pyongyang to return to negotiations involving the two Koreas,
the United States, China, Japan and Russia.
Two weeks ago, U.S. State Department officials went to North
Korea's office at the United Nations, reportedly to reiterate
assurances that Washington recognizes North Korea's sovereignty
and has no plans to attack, and to urge resumption of the
six-party talks.
The two Koreas also held their first face-to-face talks in 10
months last week, with Seoul repeatedly bringing up the nuclear
issue. Working-level talks were held Friday on the makeup of a
South Korean delegation that is to go to Pyongyang next month
for the fifth anniversary of a historic summit accord.
North Korea claimed in February to have nuclear weapons, and
international experts believe it has enough plutonium to build
about six bombs. It said earlier this month that it had removed
8,000 fuel rods from a reactor, a move that could allow it to
harvest more weapons-grade plutonium.
It's not unusual for the North to raise tensions before entering
into negotiations in hopes of extracting aid and other
concessions from the West. The World Food Program on Friday
appealed for more food for North Korea, warning of a worsening
food crisis.
The North has depended on outside aid to help feed its 24
million people since the 1990s, when more than 1 million are
estimated to have died from famine.
A top State Department official predicted Thursday that North
Korea's decision to remain isolated internationally will
eventually lead to the collapse of its government. Assistant
Secretary of State Christopher Hill said North Korea is showing
no interest in taking lessons from the successes neighboring
China has enjoyed from its reform program.
``It's a real problem,'' Hill said, alluding to North Korea's
self-imposed isolation. ``And it's a problem that will
ultimately be their undoing.''
Hill expressed frustration with North Korea's seeming focus on
``small issues,'' such as the occasional pejorative comments in
Washington, when it should give top priority to resolving the
``monumental'' issue of nuclear weapons development.
``We're talking about an issue that would profoundly affect the
future of North Korea,'' he said.
``Are they serious?'' he asked. ``I can't answer that right
now.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
9 [southnews] US media censor uranium weapons stories
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 19:26:14 -0500 (CDT)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/HO7EnA/3MnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
A dedication in 2120 might say: Dedicated to the memory of the Iraqi
people. Many people believe Iraq was the birthplace of civilization some
5,000 years ago. Iraq was destroyed and radioactively contaminated in an
early 21st Century Oil War by a fascist world power, now extinguished.
US media censor uranium weapons stories
Depleted uranium turns to poison gas
Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner & Online Journal Contributing
Writer
May 27, 2005A dedication in 2120 might say: Dedicated to the memory of
the Iraqi people. Many people believe Iraq was the birthplace of
civilization some 5,000 years ago. Iraq was destroyed and radioactively
contaminated in an early 21st Century Oil War by a fascist world power,
now extinguished.
Dedication to the Iraqi People in 2005: Iraq is uninhabitable. The wars
in Central Asia all were nuclear wars fought with radiation-dispersing
American weapons.
None of the Bushista NeoCons running this miserable genocide in Central
Asia care one whit. In fact, it is what they ordered from the US
military's list of services. Mostly, the remaining 300 million "good
Americans" do not care, do not know and do not want to know.
Those Iraqis not yet radiologically contaminated must leave Iraq as soon
as possible. Before they too get radiation poisoning, their genetic line
is kaput, they die and become just so much radioactive sand in the
deserts of Iraq.
The only hope of the US-UK troops in Iraq is that they get out before
they take a fateful breath in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The
not yet dead say there is a very slight metallic taste at the time.
Meanwhile the 140,000-pound A1M1 Death Machine Tanks keep dispensing
Poison Uranium Oxide Gas that lasts forever in the Occupied Territories
of Iraq, as per the Bushista NeoCons' instructions.
That's the bottom line. The US military, funded by the US taxpayer who
borrowed up to 80 percent of the world's savings at one time, killed the
Iraqi people. The Iraqis don't even know it yet. Most scientists and
just plain people are afraid to look them in the eye and tell them the
truth.
Censorship at Work
(America, Land of War Criminals) Radiation poisoning is a miserable way
to die. It means adult diapers, unbearable and unimaginable pain and
morphine as a goddess, if you can get it. Poisonous, radioactive,
ceramic uranium oxide gas colors everything else. There is no treatment
and there is no cure.
Radiation poisoning is a death sentence, courtesy of the US Political
Class delivered on target and on time by the US military, the most
lethal military in the history of the world. .
See for yourself how people are faring in the shadowy world of
government censorship, lies payola and grim everyday officially
sanctioned propaganda. You and your family are subject to these NeoCon
lies daily. If you are an American, chances are you believe them. You
are wrong, dead wrong. You could not possibly be more wrong.
Google these phrases at www.google.com
depleted uranium:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla
%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22depleted+uranium%22&btnG ...
On May 14, 2005, it received 971,000 Internet page hits. Lie: "Depleted
Uranium is really OK! After all, the Pentagon would not call it depleted
if it wasn't, would they?"
ceramic uranium oxide gas + battlefield: http://www.google.com/webhp
Truth: This stuff is deadly. It is Bad, Radioactive and Kills
peopleforever. It is not okay a year from now. It is not okay, ever.
Its use is always a war crime. Only 19 Google Net page hits.
May 14, 2005, the Google count was a minuscule 19 Hits. It's on fewer
than 19 websites. Nineteen is hardly any at all. That's it! Total for
the world as reflected by Google. But, still, I'm right and you are wrong.
Again, that's 971,000 vs 19 hits. That's a totally overwhelming
advantage. Yet, the US military and intelligence agencies keep investing
more and more resources and money to counter the miserable little 19
stories, articles and references to the genocidal product "ceramic
uranium oxide gas" used by the US military in Bosnia, the former
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraqin other words, Central Asia.
Why are they worried? In the world of "Big Media" what effect can a mere
19 articles have against the Tsunami of 971,000 page hits? Well, a lot,
actually.
Now Google the phrase Zyklon B (
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22zyklon+b%22&sourceid=mozilla-
search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a ... ) That is
the poison gas the Nazis used to kill millions of concentration camp
victims during the Holocaust of World War II. WW II lasted from 1939 to
1945.
You see, the United States Political Senior Class joyfully joined, 60
years later, the German Nazis of World War II in the decision to use
genocide as an official government policy (OGP.) This was not done by
mistake. No, these modern day butchers knew exactly what they were doing.
What's genocide? Dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/ )
defines it as: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire
national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
Weaponized Ceramic Uranium Oxide Gas betrays the motives of its users in
the US military and its advocates in politics, government and society.
Just as surely as the Nazi's poisonous hydrogen cyanide gas does for an
impartial war crimes investigator.
Genocide is the kind of international crime that has a big downside, if
knowledge of it gets out of a tightly controlled orbit of enthusiastic
and dedicated cult-like supporters. Of course, the CIA can easily
control the big media to manage the spin. It's pretty simple, they do so
every day. William Colby, former director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, once stated "The CIA owns anybody of consequence in the national
media." It is obvious on its face.
Folks, the CIA cannot control you, though: Tell your neighbors about the
US military's Kill Everything Uranium Weapons.
It's known unofficially as the "Kill'em All Policy." also: "Waste Them,"
"Whack Them," and "Nuke 'em." Once set free in the political environment
that is the kind of searing truth that burns out corruption: the
infection, pus, and bloody raw wounds of a democracy turned fascist.
Currently in the deepest, darkest, blackest part of the fascist
theocratic government in the United States, the slavishly obedient US
military sees little reason to revolt and say "No!" to the well-known
genocidal policies of the senior politicians. Even though poisonous
uranium gas sickens and kills their own troops, the officer corps goes
along with it as necessary because the civilian political leadership
wants it that way.
It is also, as a practical matter, an efficient method for eliminating
ailing vets that cost billions of dollars in budgetary appropriations
for the Veterans Administration. They are just following the advice of
US foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger.
In 1973, in General Alexander Haig's presence, then National Security
Advisor Henry Kissinger, referred pointedly to military men as "dumb,
stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.[10] Kissinger
set the public stage for the war managers to sacrifice the gullible, but
patriotic and "stupid," American troops to the use of weaponized uranium
oxide gas. American General Norman Schwarzkopf from the First Gulf War
stated they were not told anything about harmful uranium munitions.
As seen in the overwhelming comparison of 971,000 articles to 19
articles, the "depleted uranium" metal the US military and government
actively encourages the meek and submissive academic sector to study is
most often called "mildly radioactive." The same metal in most of the
rest of the world is "highly radioactive."
The "big media's talking heads" simply do as they are told, read what
they are handed and collect their millions in payola bribes; and, of
course, they smilea lot.
In short, the lying big media have you and your family controlled
perfectly. That makes the Professional Hairdo News Readers on your tube
guilty of being accessories to genocide and accessories to mass murder.
These media celebrities should utterly disgust everyday Americans,
anywhere, anytime. Wait just a few minutes and everywhere in America,
you will see their bright shiny faces on the boob tube. The men are
strong, confident and well fed. The women look gaunt, anorexic and coping.
In the ivy covered halls of academia, the US government has thousands of
frightened scientists busy studying the wrong radioactive metal, on
purpose. The War on Central Asia is a large well-organized industrial
killing operation. God forbid the overeducated, worthless clowns should
study the poison uranium gas that is actually crippling and killing our
own troops on the ground in Iraq, and Iraqi men, women and children.
Yes, you see: poisonous radioactive ceramic uranium oxide gas and dust
is altogether different from the elemental uranium block of metal from
which the more lethal version is derived.
This metal [uranium] humbly makes itself available for the having, by
anyone with the gumption to dig it out of the ground and "process" it
one time. No big deal, eh? Your watch dial might even glow with a cousin
metal. It has a pretty, soft glow, doesn't it?
Guess what? Glowing watch dials have absolutely nothing to do with the
lethal, crippling and killing radioactive uranium oxide gas used
everywhere by Americans on battlefields in the last 15 years. And, that
is the only place you will find this kind of uranium gasin the air on
battlefields.
Killing is all it is good for. Killing for an eternity. The US military
uses millions of pounds of the weaponized version of it promiscuously in
Iraq and Central Asia by order of senior American politicians.
That's a trick of the propagandists' art. See how easy you were to get
off the track? Stay focused. These monsters are really good at diverting
your attention. It's officially called "misdirection" in propaganda
classes. The real subject is "ceramic uranium oxide gas" + battlefields.
Remember!
When you talk to your neighbors tell them that is what all the fuss is
about. Guarantee you, when your neighbor Googles it, they are going to
find one of the 19 articles. In this case, being right is not a
consolation prize. It just means more threats and harassment for authors
who dare to write and speak about its use as a war crime.
Since 1943 American war planners have known "The amount necessary to
cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has
been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's
body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a
casualty." [9] This is from a Declassified document from the secretive
Manhattan Project
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Groves-Memo-Manhattan30oct43.htm
I invite you to try an experiment. Spend a while contemplating the
following two questions. Write to me with your conclusions.
Send them to: bobnichols@cox.net
1. What kind of a person purposefully selects a genocidal weapon for use
in Central Asia; then orders massive quantities of it used in battle.
2. What kind of person orders a government and military cover up of the
resulting slow genocide?
The only statements throughout history that speak to the very issue we
all face in the world today are these few sentences from the Nuremberg
War Crimes Tribunal at the end of World War II.
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national
obligations of obedience . . . therefore have the duty to violate
domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from
occurring."Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950
Since the obliging and compliant Congress will not stand up to the
president as they are supposed to, we have a serious problem in this
country.
I would not want any weak-minded souls to think I do not respect the
processes of government created by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and his
friends before 1776. Read all they wrote and said.
The Nuremberg statement is now international law and by extension, U.S.
law. It is now the duty of all loyal American citizens that the fascist
government controlling the United States and the US military can no
longer be allowed to exist; it must be replaced. The world, and
international law, holds all Americans accountable, and the price to pay
is dear.
As you think about the "problem" we have in the United States I send you
this greeting "Welcome to hell."
The following sources were consulted for this article.
Listen to the former director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project
Dr Doug Rokke Ph.D., former Nuclear Weapons Lab Scientist Leuren Moret,
former Army Sgt Dennis Kyne, human rights and war crimes lawyer Karen
Parker, Canadian nuclear celebrity Susan Riordan, well-known nuke power
plant investigator Russell Hoffman and Project Censored Award Winning
Writer Bob Nichols discuss these thought provoking questions and more on
the following recent World Wide Talk Radio Program: Depleted Uranium:
Cause and Effect 4 Hour Special
on The X Zone Radio Show :
http://www.xzone-radio.com/
and TalkStar Radio Network :
http://www.talkstarradio.com/
1. Nichols, "There Are No Words":
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm
2. Nichols, "My God! My Country Is Using Poison Gas In Iraq":
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Nichols0807.htm
3. Russell Hoffman, "Poison Fire, USA":
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/052705Nichols/052705nicho
ls.html
4. Moret, Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf
5. World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference:
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/
6. International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan written opinion of
Judge N. Bhagwat:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/tokyo_trial_13march04.doc
7. Gsponer and Hurni, "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical
Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And
The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons":
http://www.rense.com/general65/amy.htm
8. Ingri Cassel "An Interview with Amy Worthington" 5152005:
http://www.rense.com/general65/amy.htm
9. Declassified documents, the Manhattan Project, 1943 Memo to Gen.
Leslie Groves:
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Groves-Memo-Manhattan30oct43.htm
10. Kissinger's quote regarding military men comes from Chapter 14,
which extensively discusses Al Haig, Kissinger and other Nixon staff
advisors' negotiations and differences over national security issues
during the 19691974 period. The exact, direct quote marks begin with
the word 'dumb' and terminates after the word 'used'. SOURCE: Bob
Woodward & Carl Bernstein, The Final Days, second Touchstone paperback
edition (1994), Chapter 14, pp. 194195.
Copyright by Bob Nichols.
Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner and lives in Oklahoma
where 20 percent of the people cannot read. He is a contributor to
Online Journal, AxisofLogic.com, DissidentVoice.com other online
publications and the "San Francisco Bay View" newspaper. Nichols is a
former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Nichols can be
reached by email at bob.bobnichols@gmail.com
www.onlinejournal.com/Media/052705Nichols/052705nichols.html
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
10 US Leads Nuclear NPT Conf to Deadlock
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:10:39 -0500 (CDT)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20050527/ts_nm/nuclear_arms_dc
World split on nuclear arms despite danger
By Louis Charbonneau1 hour, 25 minutes ago
The danger of a nuclear holocaust may never have been greater, yet
the 188 signatories to the global pact against nuclear weapons have
rarely been more divided, arms experts and diplomats said.
Friday is the final day of the review conference of the 1970 nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, a monthlong meeting held once every five
years to take stock of the landmark accord.
Delegates at the conference, which began on May 2, had hoped to
agree on a plan of action to repair loopholes in the treaty that
enable countries to acquire sensitive atomic technology and to hear
from the five NPT members with nuclear weapons that they remained
committed to disarming.
But it descended into procedural bickering led by the United States,
Iran and Egypt.
"Beneath all the rhetoric and procedural games that have been played
out in the NPT review conference lies a stark and unpalatable fact
-- defending these privileges is put before protecting peoples'
lives," said Rebecca Johnson, head of the Acronym Institute, a
British think-tank.
As the United States backed down on its previous pledge to support
a ban on testing nuclear weapons or developing new bombs, Iran made
sure the conference did nothing to increase the pressure on Tehran
to give up its uranium enrichment program, which could be used to
make fuel for weapons.
Egypt delayed work at the conference after failing to focus criticism
on Israel's assumed nuclear arsenal.
"Why does it matter that it's a dismal conclusion? It's the most
important nuclear conference and takes place at a very critical
stage," said arms expert Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, a U.S. think-tank.
30,000 NUCLEAR BOMBS IN THE WORLD
The delegates had been trying to reach agreement in three committees
that cover the three pillars of the accord -- disarmament, verification
of safeguards on national nuclear programs and the peaceful use of
atomic energy. The committees failed to reach any conclusions.
Nine countries possess some 30,000 atomic weapons, nearly all of
them in the United States and Russia -- enough to destroy the planet
many times over. And dozens more nations could build a bomb if they
wanted to.
By signing the treaty, the acknowledged nuclear powers, the United
States, Russia, Britain, China and France, pledged to eventually
scrap their deadly arsenals but have not done so.
Israel is assumed to have around 200 nuclear weapons but neither
confirms nor denies it. Like atomic-armed India and Pakistan, Israel
has never signed the NPT. North Korea, which says it has the bomb,
withdrew from the treaty in 2002.
Before the meeting began, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N.'s
Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, said there were three reasons the
treaty is in urgent need of an upgrade.
"They are the emergence of a nuclear black market, the determined
efforts by more countries to acquire technology to produce the
fissile material usable in nuclear weapons, and the clear desire
of terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction," ElBaradei
wrote.
Ambassador Thomas Graham, a former U.S. diplomat who helped negotiate
every major arms control agreement over the last three decades,
said some delegates believed the nuclear threat was similar to the
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the United States and Soviet Union
were close to nuclear war.
"There's a lot to worry about out there, and this treaty is at the
heart of it," he said. This conference "is definitely going to have
a somewhat negative effect on efforts to keep the non-proliferation
regime afloat and to strengthen it."
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication
or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without
the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable
for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken
in reliance thereon.
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
11 Reading Eagle: Editorials: U.S. shouldn’t put weapons in space
May 27, 2005
The Issue: The Air Force has requested a presidential directive
that could put American weapons — offensive and defensive —
in space.
Our Opinion: President Bush should deny the request. It would
upset other nations around the world, and it would be too
expensive.
Sometime in the next few weeks, President Bush is expected to
decide on a request from the Air Force to develop a
national-security directive that could put U.S. offensive and
defensive weapons in space.
The president should deny the request.
“Space superiority is as much about protecting our space
assets as it is about preparing to counter an enemy’s space or
anti-space assets,” General John Jumper, former chief of Staff
for the Air Force, said last summer after his branch of the
military published a report on counterspace operations.
“The United States relies on space operations for its
security, and this reliance may make us vulnerable in some
areas,” Jumper argued.
But the space operations on which the United States re-lies are
such things as spy and communications satellites, not weapons
orbiting the planet that are capable of pinpointing any spot on
the Earth at any time.
Although it is vitally important to ensure the safety and
integrity of these instruments in orbit, it shouldn’t require
the use of weapons.
Air Force officials told The New York Times that the di-rective,
which is still in draft form, did not call for militarizing
space.
“The focus of the process is not putting weapons in space,”
Maj. Karen Finn, an Air Force spokeswoman, told the Times.
“The focus is having free access in space.”
With little public debate, the Pentagon already has spent
billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans
to deploy them.
But Pete Teets, who had been acting secretary of the Air Force
until resigning last month, said during a sympo-sium last year:
“We haven’t reached the point of strafing and bombing from
space. Nonetheless, we are thinking about those
possibilities.”
Because the president unilaterally withdrew the United States
from the 30-year-old Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which banned
space-based weapons, there is nothing except the Treaty on
Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration
and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies to prevent the militarization of space. That treaty,
signed in 1967, prohibits only nuclear weapons and other weapons
of mass destruction.
Should the president approve the Air Force directive, no doubt
it will spawn a storm of protest from around the globe, and
rightfully so.
No nation will accept the United States developing something
they see as the death star, said Teresa Hitchens, vice president
of the Center for Defense Infor-mation, a Washington, D.C.,
policy group.
“I don’t think the United States would find it very
com-forting if China were to develop a death star, a 24/7
on-orbit weapon that could strike at targets on the ground
anywhere in 90 minutes,” she told the Times.
But there is another reason why the president should not approve
the directive: It would be extremely expen-sive. A space-based
weapons system could cost anywhere between $220 billion and $1
trillion, experts said. And with the United States running up
billions of dollars of debt every year, the country cannot
afford such a program.
Trying to keep up with President Reagan’s so-called Star Wars
missile-defense system was one of the things that led the former
Soviet Union into insolvency. It could happen here, too.
And the lack of success of the Star Wars system draws into
question the technical aspects of such a weapon.
Posted by readingeagle at May 27, 2005 01:00 AM
*****************************************************************
12 Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference At UN Closes With 'very Little' Accomplished
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:00:25 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on pascal.ctyme.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG,
OPPORTUNITY_2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE
autolearn=ham version=3.0.3
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION CONFERENCE AT UN CLOSES WITH ‘VERY LITTLE’
ACCOMPLISHED
New York, May 27 2005 6:00PM
A <"http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/">conference at the United Nations
to review the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (<"http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/npt/">NPT)
will end today having accomplished
“very little” amid what its President said were widely diverging
views tackling nuclear arms and their spread.
Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil, President of the 2005 NPT Review
Conference told a press briefing that although the month-long
conference had accomplished very little in terms of results, agreements
or final decisions, there had nevertheless been some progress
“in the ways issues were discussed and the interest that delegations
had shown in those discussions and…documents presented.”
A spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a <'http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp">statement
the UN chief “very much
regrets” that the meeting closed without substantive agreement, noting
that the States parties “missed a vital opportunity to strengthen
our collective security against the many nuclear threats to
which all States and all peoples are vulnerable.”
While the vast majority of NPT States parties recognize the Treaty’s
enduring benefits, “the Secretary-General warns that their inability
to strengthen their collective efforts is bound to weaken
the Treaty and the broader NPT-based regime over time,” the statement
said.
Mr. Annan noted that countries will have a unique opportunity to
renew those efforts in September, when more than 170 Heads of State
and Government convene in New York to adopt a wide-ranging agenda
to advance development, security and human rights.
Ambassador Duarte said it was perhaps too early to tell, when asked
if the failure of the conference has undermined the 35-year-old
accord. “We’ll have to wait and see,” he added.
The Conference of State parties to the NPT meets every five years
to review the landmark accord, which seeks to prevent the spread
of nuclear weapons technology, foster the peaceful use of nuclear
energy and further the goal of general and complete disarmament.
Adherence to the NPT by 188 countries, including the five nuclear-weapon
States, renders it the most widely adhered-to multilateral
disarmament instrument.
This year, the Conference was nearly half way through its work before
the parties decided on an agenda, and just yesterday, its three
main committees failed agree on the texts covering the so-called
three pillars of the NPT – disarmament, verification of safeguards
on national nuclear programmes and the peaceful use of atomic
energy.
Today, Ambassador Duarte said he had decided against making a final
statement during the Conference’s wrap-up plenary because he felt
it would have been difficult in light of the “wide divergence
of views” among the States parties.
Asked if he could explain why there had been so little progress this
year, he said: “You can probably write several books on why the
conference did not reach agreement.” He added that it would take
longer than a press conference to unravel that question, but mainly,
it had been due to the lack of convergence of views on the
best ways to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.
The Ambassador stressed, however, that whatever the results, it had
been very important that delegations got together to discuss their
national issues and interests. “So it’s perhaps premature to
say that this is a failure.”
2005-05-27 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
13 IPS-English DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Talks End With Bickering,
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 16:26:24 -0700
ROMAIPS NA WD IP
DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Talks End With Bickering, Backsliding
By Haider Rizvi
UNITED NATIONS, May 27 (IPS) - Month-long U.N. talks on a major
international treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons ended here
Friday with no consensus achieved on any of the core issues discussed,
including disarmament.
Delegates from 188 countries had been charged with reviewing and finding
ways to enhance the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such talks have
been held every five years since the pact was agreed in 1970.
''I regret that the conference has not been able to reach consensus,''
Sergio Duarte, who presided over the talks, announced at the closing
Friday. ''There are no recommendations.''
Frustrated and disappointed with the outcome of the meeting, civil society
leaders and independent nuclear experts said the United States and other
nuclear powers had failed to show the political will needed to strengthen
the treaty.
''The United States has had four weeks to demonstrate international
leadership on nuclear proliferation,'' said Susi Snyder of the Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom, a U.S.-based advocacy group.
''But all they have shown is a democratic deficit.''
''It's like the Wild West,'' added Alice Slater of Abolition 2000, a global
network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) campaigning for a treaty
to abolish nuclear weapons. ''There's a total disrespect for the rule of
law,'' she said, alluding to the U.S. role in negotiations.
Diplomats from the non-nuclear world had similar reactions.
''We have witnessed intransigence from more than one state on pressing
issues of the day, coupled with the hubris that demands the priorities of
the many be subordinated to the preferences of the few,'' said Canadian
envoy Paul Meyer. He did not name but was understood to refer to the United
States and Iran, which dominated the talks.
Observers said throughout the negotiations, the United States remained
inflexible on the question of fulfilling its obligations under Article Six
of the 35-year-old treaty, which requires signatories to pursue
negotiations on nuclear disarmament, a step many consider to be vital in
preventing nuclear proliferation.
From the start, a large majority of non-nuclear nations had stated that
they wanted to see the declared nuclear powers -- the United States,
Russia, France, Britain, and China -- take their treaty obligations
seriously by making drastic cuts in their nuclear arsenals.
The United States sought to keep the talks focussed on suspected nuclear
weapons development by Iran and North Korea, and thus confined its part in
the talks to emphasising the significance of the proliferation aspects of
the treaty.
''Much has changed since we last gathered here in 2000,'' Jackie Sanders,
President George W. Bush's special envoy, told delegates in a reference to
terrorist threats, North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty in 2002, and
Iran's alleged violations of its legal obligations under the NPT regime.
Defending her delegation's position, she said the United States was
pursuing a ''robust and comprehensive approach'' to counter the threat of
weapons of mass destruction, a reference to the Proliferation Security
Initiative, which is an attempt to stop the flow of nuclear material
outside the NPT fold.
Former U.S. diplomats and policy makers, who closely watched the
negotiations, said the issue of non-proliferation could not be addressed in
isolation from disarmament initiatives.
''If the disarmament pillar of the treaty is not strong, the other pillars
are not going to be strong either,'' said Thomas Graham, president of the
Lawyers Alliance for World Security. Graham led the U.S. delegation to the
NPT review conference in 1995. ''This has to change.''
Graham linked the survival of the NPT to four core issues including
negotiations on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), fissile material
cut-off treaty (FMCT), security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states,
and drastic reduction of arsenals by nuclear powers. But the United States
is not willing to endorse any of those moves.
On disarmament, former U.S. Defence Secretary Robert McNamara shared
Graham's concerns.
''Despite the end of the Cold War some 15 years ago, the United States'
nuclear weapons policies are essentially what they were when I was
secretary of defense 40 years ago,'' he told reporters this week.
He characterised U.S. policy as ''immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary,
very, very dangerous in terms of accidental or inadvertent use, and
destructive of the non-proliferation regime.''
The United States has deployed about 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads, he
said, noting that each one has a destructive power roughly 20 times greater
than that of the Hiroshima bomb, which killed about 10,000 civilians in the
Japanese city.
Of those 6,000 weapons, 2000 are on hair trigger alert, meaning they are
ready to launch within 15 minutes based on the decision of one man: the
U.S. president.
On May 1, the eve of this month's NPT talks, survivors of the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki atomic bombings joined tens of thousands of protesters in front of
U.N. headquarters to demand the abolition of nuclear weapons. On Friday,
some said they were at a loss to understand why the diplomats had failed them.
''A mere handful of countries can thwart the will of the great majority of
countries,'' Hiroshima mayor Tadatoshi Akiba said in a letter to the
conference president. ''Given what is at stake for humanity, this is
intolerable.''
(END/IPS/NA/WD/IP/HR/AA/05)
= 05272352 ORP014
NNNN
*****************************************************************
14 Main Committees For Nuclear Review Conference UN To Agree On Texts
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 08:50:59 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on pascal.ctyme.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham
version=3.0.3
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
MAIN COMMITTEES FOR NUCLEAR REVIEW CONFERENCE UNABLE TO AGREE ON
TEXTS
New York, May 26 2005 6:00PM
The month-long conference at the United Nations reviewing the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) heads into the final hours of
its work with its main committees unable to agree on the texts they
have been considering.
The 188 nations meeting in New York were trying to reach agreement
in three committees that cover the three pillars of the 35-year-old
accord – disarmament, verification of safeguards on national
nuclear programmes and the peaceful use of atomic energy. But the
conference will end tomorrow with no progress in the committees.
Main Committee I was unable to agree on nuclear disarmament and security
assurances, and Main Committee II failed to reach consensus
on safeguards, regional issues and the Middle East.
The Drafting Committee is continuing its work today on a final document
for the conclusion of review conference tomorrow.
2005-05-26 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
15 [southnews] Nuclear debate turns heat on Israel
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 09:26:26 -0500 (CDT)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MCfFmA/SOnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
The Bush administration's attempt to rally international support against
Iran for its nuclear ambitions has resulted in something that no one in
Washington wanted to happen - a UN debate on Israel's nuclear weapons
programme.
With the United States sending the wrong signal to signatories of the
global pact against nuclear weapons by backing out of previous arms
control pledges, arms experts and diplomats said yesterday.
Nuclear debate turns heat on Israel
by Haider Rizvi in New York
Thursday 26 May 2005 3:11 PM GMT
The Bush administration's attempt to rally international support against
Iran for its nuclear ambitions has resulted in something that no one in
Washington wanted to happen - a UN debate on Israel's nuclear weapons
programme.
Since the month-long review conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) opened in New York on 2 May, speaker after speaker have
called on the world community to help establish a nuclear-free zone in
the Middle East by urging Israel to give up its nuclear weapons programme.
Though equally concerned about Iran's and North Korea's nuclear
ambitions, diplomats from the developing world, especially those from
the Middle East, are leaving no stone unturned in raising questions
about Israeli nuclear weapons in the open debate.
"The presence of nuclear arms is an impediment to peace not only in the
region, but in the world," Qatari diplomat Nasr al-Ali told delegates
recently.
Saudi representative Naif Bin Bandar al-Sudairy added in a statement:
"These weapons are a major obstacle to peace and security in the region."
The legitimacy of the demand for establishment of nuclear-weapons free
zone in the Middle East emanates from a number of UN General Assembly
resolutions and recommendations made with consensus at the NPT review
conferences held in the past.
Israeli arsenal
Armed with 200 to 300 estimated nuclear bombs in its arsenals, Israel
argues that it is willing to join the treaty, but only after a
comprehensive peace agreement has been reached with its Arab neighbours,
many of whom it eyes as "hostile nations".
"A Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone will be viewed very favourably
by Israel once we have a comprehensive peace in the area," Israeli
ambassador Daniel Ayalon said recently.
Israeli officials say their nuclear arms do not pose a threat to other
countries and that they are merely a deterrent against invasion from its
larger neighbours.
"The real risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East emanates from
countries that, despite being parties to the international treaties, do
not comply with their relevant international obligations," Alan Bar,
director of Israeli foreign ministry's arms control department, says.
"These countries," he says, "are engaged in ongoing efforts to acquire
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles that have
destabilising effect on not only the region, but on global scale as well".
Bar says Israel has "never threatened its neighbours nor abrogated its
obligations under any disarmament treaty".
Arab diplomats dismiss such assertions vociferously.
Arab stand
"Peace is not based on possession of weapons of mass destruction," said
al-Sudairy. "Real peace must be founded on confidence, trust and good
intentions. It is based on freeing the region from injustice, occupation
and aggression."
Israel's friends in Washington who are involved in policy-making,
research and advice on nuclear issue blame Iran as the single most
potential source of nuclear destabilisation in the Middle East than any
other nation in the region.
"The question now is whether the whole NPT regime is threatened by Iran
and not whether a nuclear-free zone is immediately feasible," Aerial
Cohen, a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative
policy thinktank based in Washington, told Aljazeera.net.
"It may be feasible at some point, but right now you see a threat to the
NPT regime coming in the aftermath of both India and Pakistan and North
Korea delivering blows to non-proliferation."
Both India and Pakistan, who tested their nuclear weapons in 1998, have
refused to sign the treaty while in defiance to the US pressure to
abandon its nuclear programme, North Korea opted out of the treaty about
two years ago.
Iranian ambitions
"If Iran violates NPT," Cohen says, "there will be a 'domino affect'
that may involve Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, at which point Israel
may go hot. Meaning Israel may not just hide behind creative ambiguity
it did so far, but will put its nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert,
and that will be Iran's contribution to more unstable Middle East".
Cohen's fear about nuclear instability in the Middle East is something
that many US-based independent-minded researchers and analysts also
share, but from a radically different perspective.
"The world does well to remember that most Middle East weapons
programmes began as a response to Israel's nuclear weapons," says Joseph
Cirincione, who co-authored a recent study, Universal Compliance: A
Strategy for Nuclear Security, published by the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, a liberal policy thinktank based in Washington.
"Everyone already knows about Israel's bombs in the closet," he says.
"Bringing them out into the open and putting them on the table as part
of a regional deal may be the only way to prevent others from building
their own bombs in their basements."
Urgency underlined
Though Cirincione admits that it will not be easy to create such an
agreement, he makes a point that there is no time to lose.
Looking at the current diplomatic currents in the Middle East as being
favourable for the Bush administration, Cirincione believes "this is
precisely the time" to intensify efforts to create a zone free of
nuclear weapons.
"It should be obvious that Israelis are better off in a region where no
one has nuclear weapons than in one where many nations have them," he
argues.
Interviews with the US diplomatic sources barely suggest any serious
move in this direction.
"Our position has been the same," said an official from the US mission
to the UN on the condition of anonymity. "We have urged Israel to join
the treaty. We have a long-standing concern over its safeguard facilities."
The US response suggests that while the US does recognise the need for a
nuclear free zone in the Middle East, it has no intention as yet to
convince Israel to sign the NPT.
In the 1990s, the US, Israel and the Arab nations had all supported the
goal of non-proliferation, but they failed to make any progress after
the Palestinian-Israeli peace process collapsed.
The US attempt to bring Iran into the focus of international debates on
proliferation while turning a blind eye to Israel's illegal possession
of nuclear weapons compelled numerous delegates to dub the US nuclear
policy as based on nothing but double standards and hypocrisy.
Arab diplomacy
"Some states which are waging war against nuclear weapons are defending
Israel and thwarting initiatives to establish a nuclear-free zone in the
Middle East," Syrian ambassador Fayssal Mekdad told Aljazeera.net, in an
obvious reference to the US, which accuses Syria of supporting terrorist
groups.
Though disappointed with the US role, Arab diplomats are actively
participating in the review conference negotiations, with Egypt being in
a leadership role.
Representing the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement, the Egyptian
delegation is urging the conference to set up a subsidiary body to
implement its past resolutions on nuclear weapons
free zones.
"This conference should establish a practical roadmap that guarantees
the establishment of nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East,"
Egyptian envoy Ahmed Fathallah told delegates last week.
No miracles
The agenda includes negotiations over the question of nuclear weapons
free zone in the Middle East, a move the US had tried to block but failed.
While they expect no miracles towards the end of the conference, which
will go on for another week, diplomats from the Arab world see the
continued discussion on the issue of nuclear free zone as a significant
step forward.
"Israel has to be brought in," Mekdad said shortly after the president
of the conference declared that the agenda had been finalised. "We are
not going to give up. We'll be there talking about it."
Aljazeera
By Haider Rizvi in New York
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AD889632-03CC-4810-8F4E-D8D6EE4D39D6.htm
_________________________________
US under fire at nuclear arms meeting
FRIDAY , 27 MAY 2005
UNITED NATIONS: The United States is sending the wrong signal to
signatories of the global pact against nuclear weapons by backing out of
previous arms control pledges, arms experts and diplomats said yesterday.
The 188 parties to the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty are near the end of
a month long conference that participants said would almost certainly
fail to agree on any steps to improve the pact aimed at halting the
spread of nuclear arms.
"The chances are very slim," said Abdul Minty, head of South Africa's
delegation, "There is a big divide. . . The US is developing new nuclear
weapons and we want to know against whom."
Minty complimented US officials for eventually permitting agenda items
they would have preferred to ignore. But he said America's refusal to
reaffirm its "unequivocal commitment" to disarmament was problematic for
many treaty signatories.
Washington has been exploring the idea of developing smaller atomic
weapons "mini nukes" or "bunker busters".
The UN-sponsored conference, which began on May 2 and ends on Saturday,
bogged down from the start in wrangling over the agenda and allocation
of work among committees.
Nuclear activists and diplomats blamed the delays on a dispute between
Iran and the United States over what Washington sees as Tehran's atomic
weapons ambitions a charge Iran denies.
Jonathan Granoff, president of US-based Global Security Institute,
assailed the Bush administration for renouncing the 1996 Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which Washington signed during the Clinton
administration but had not ratified.
"Why should anyone expect that any commitments we make now would be
treated any differently five years from now, if the commitment we made
10 years ago can be so readily dispensed with," Granoff said.
One US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bush
administration would never agree to a pact like the test ban treaty
"that limits our options in a state of war."
Some analysts condemned this as irresponsible. "The principle that the
US is establishing is that governments can renege on the commitments of
their predecessors in office," observed Joseph Cinincione, an arms
expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The United States, Russia, China, France and Britain tried to agree on a
joint statement that included language on Iran and North Korea, which
says it already has nuclear weapons, US and European diplomats said on
Tuesday.
However, a senior diplomat involved in the conference said the five
powers had so far failed to agree on a text. "It's very unlikely at this
point," he said. "They've been unable to agree on disarmament and other
issues."
Diplomats said there would probably be no consensus statement out of the
conference, confirming it was the failure many participants had expected
it would be.
But another diplomat said it was unfair to blame the United States,
saying critics were missing the point of the conference. "This is not
about disarmament, it's about stopping proliferation," the diplomat said.
US and other officials have accused Iran and Egypt of using the
non-aligned block of developing states as a vehicle to push
anti-American and anti-Israel agendas.
Egypt pushed the conference to call on Israel, which is assumed to have
some 200 nuclear warheads, to sign the non-proliferation treaty, which
it has not done.
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
16 [progchat_action] Google Alert for: Depleted Uranium
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:39:22 -0500 (CDT)
Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species.
NOTE: All of these are important pieces. -- kl, pp
From: "Dave Patterson"
Date: May 27, 2005 2:48:12 PM GMT+07:00
Subject: Google Alert for: DEPLETED URANIUM
- in case there's any of this of interest you have not seen ...
On 26/5/48 at 8:42 John wrote:
From 'Duty, Honor, Country' To Depleted Uranium Cancer
uruknet.info - Italy
... The Uranium Medical Research Centre says we have "poisoned a
significant portion of the civilian population" in many areas of
Afghanistan ...
Senate OK's bill to study health effects of depleted uranium
WTNH - New Haven,CT,USA
... 18, 2005 9:50 PM) _ Connecticut today moved closer to becoming the
first state to study the health effects on military personnel of
depleted
uranium and other ...
Iraq: ghost of Vietnam
Milli Gazette - India
... They wait for medical care that never arrives. They wait for jobs
and
rebuilt infrastructure. Depleted Uranium (DU) is to Iraq what Agent
Orange
is to Vietnam. ...
Carpooling with Adolf Eichmann
Dissident Voice - Santa Rosa,CA,USA
... And somehow the American public's acceptance of that provided our
sane
leaders today with logical reasons for firing depleted uranium shells
in
Kosovo, Iraq ...
MEDIA ALERT: BBC STILL IGNORING EVIDENCE OF WAR CRIMES
uruknet.info - Italy
.. live inside the "green zone," from the ones who have watched their
country laid waste by dictatorship, violence, bombs, depleted uranium
and
occupation ...
_______________________________________________
Mai-not mailing list
Mai-not@globalproblematique.net
http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not
*****************************************************************
17 Victory for Nuclear Proliferation?
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:40:43 -0500 (CDT)
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Friday, May 27, 2005
Victory for Nuclear Proliferation?
Four weeks of meetings at the United Nations to review the Non-Proliferation Treaty are expected to end today in failure. Arms control and disarmament groups are blaming the United States and other nuclear weapons states. The following policy analysts are available for interviews:
Amb. THOMAS GRAHAM, Jr., tgraham@morganlewis.com,
http://www.gsinstitute.org Graham is a member of the Global
Security Institute's Bipartisan Security Group and was involved
in negotiations for every major international arms control and
non-proliferation agreement of the past 30 years. He said today:
"Nuclear weapons probably would have spread all over the world
were it not for the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If that had
happened, it would have created a nightmare security situation,
where virtually every conflict would have had the risk of going
nuclear, and sub-national terrorist groups would likely have
acquired nuclear weapons. The NPT is based on a central bargain:
183 non-nuclear countries would not acquire nuclear weapons and
in exchange the nuclear powers were to adhere to a series of
treaties and would disarm with the ultimate goal of eliminating
nuclear weapons. The U.S. has not delivered on the commitments it
made in 1995, which were the price for making the NPT permanent.
There have been failures in the past, but this failure appears to
! be at this stage the most acute failure in the history of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference process."
ALICE SLATER, [via Chris Cooper, ccooper@abolitionnow.org],
http://www.abolition2000.org Slater is the director of the Global
Resource Action Center for the Environment and a coordinator of
the AbolitionNow! campaign, a coalition of 2,000 groups from 90
countries. She said today: "The U.S. is fighting over
acknowledgement of a deal they made 10 years ago -- when, in
exchange for countries agreeing to extend the NPT indefinitely,
the U.S. [said it] would, among other things, support a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But this administration refuses
even to submit th e CTBT to the Senate for an u p-or-down vote on
ratification. In the meantime, it is doing its own proliferating
by maintaining a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons on
hair-trigger alert and researching new, smaller, and more usable
nuclear weapons."
SUSI SNYDER, susi@reachingcriticalwill.org,
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org Secretary general of the
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Snyder said:
"It is convenient to blame Iran and Egypt and others for the
failure of the NPT Review Conference. But that begs the question.
Egypt, for example, has been very vocal about the importance of
acknowledging past agreements and bringing Israel into the
Treaty. And Iran has consistently called for a nuclear weapons
free zone in the Middle East. Both of these actions would
strengthen t he non-proliferation regime. When th e U.S. refuses
to even discuss these issues, then it is the one sabotaging the
Non-Proliferation Treaty."
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public
Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541)
484-9167
http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
18 A Nun Prays as Diplomats Bicker Over Nuclear Arms
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:00:36 -0500 (CDT)
Planet Ark : A Nun Prays as Diplomats Bicker Over Nuclear Arms
WORLD: May 27, 2005
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31003/story.htm
UNITED NATIONS - A thin Japanese woman beats a prayer drum for peace day
after day in front of UN headquarters while diplomats from 188 nations
bicker about the future of the world's 30,000 nuclear weapons.
"Why do we keep destroying this earth?" asked Jun Yasuda, a 56-year-old
Buddhist nun born in Tokyo.
For the past month, diplomats from states that signed the 1970
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have been taking stock of the
landmark pact against the spread of atomic weapons. They have
been unable to agree on any measures that could strengthen the
treaty.
"It's basically a failure," said one senior diplomat at the
conference. Hundreds of delegates from across the globe have
heard the steady beat of Yasuda's drum as they entered the United
Nations every day since the NPT review meeting began on May 2.
Yasuda has friends who suffered in the US atomic bombings of the
Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But she says
her presence outside the UN building is a "peace vigil" in
support of the NPT, not a protest. Yasuda's drumming will cease
on Friday, the last day of the 2005 NPT Review Conference.
Inside the United Nations, diplomats use words like "failure,"
"collapse," and "disaster" to describe the conference.
Participants had hoped to agree on steps to stop countries with
nuclear weapons ambitions from getting sensitive technology and
to persuade the five NPT members with nuclear arms to scrap their
stockpiles of the world's deadliest weapons.
Diplomats from developing countries and nuclear activists place
the burden of the blame on the United States, which they accuse
of reneging on previous disarmament commitments.
Several diplomats said France was Washington's main ally in
blocking references to the disarmament pledges the weapon states
made at the last NPT review meetings in 1995 and 2000.
Under the treaty, the United States, Russia, China, France and
Britain pledged to eventually disarm, while the other signatories
agreed to pursue only peaceful nuclear technology.
US SAYS BELIEVES IN NPT
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher denied the conference
had been a failure and said Washington was committed to
nonproliferation.
"The United States has shown by its actions and by its efforts ... we do
believe in the (NPT), and we're focused on the specific steps to carry it
out," he said.
"I suppose pointing fingers at the United States is a popular thing to do,"
Boucher said. A recent arms reduction agreement with Moscow showed
Washington was committed to reducing its weapons arsenal "down to very low
levels," he said.
Participants said Egypt and Iran also helped prevent the conference from
accomplishing much of anything.
Iran did not want any critical statements about its own NPT
breaches, while Egypt wanted the conference to demand Israel sign
the NPT and give up its assumed nuclear arsenal.
Israel, like nuclear-armed Pakistan and India, has never signed
the treaty. It has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads. North
Korea, which says it has the bomb, withdraw from the treaty in
2002.
Since Cairo could not achieve its goal, it forged what one arms
expert called an "unholy alliance" with Tehran, Washington and
Paris to block any hard outcome from the review.
Failure of the conference "doesn't mean the NPT has failed or
that the process has failed," the senior diplomat said. "It means
people don't have the political will."
The Buddhist nun said the world could only get rid of nuclear
weapons by building more trust.
"Where does this nuclear bomb come from? From fear, not trust,"
Yasuda said. "You have to trust."
(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert in Washington)
Story by Louis Charbonneau
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
*****************************************************************
19 [toeslist] America's broken nuclear promises - news from final
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 12:14:09 -0500 (CDT)
Dear All:
Going into the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Conference
Review, in the New York this May, the NPT which is the cornerstone
of international nuclear disarmament efforts, was at serious risk
because countries were not fulfilling their obligations under the
treaty and because of the development of a whole new era of nuclear
weapons in countries already nucleararmed, and of nuclear
proliferation in others.
Here are three items reporting on the final hours of the conference
showing the complete frustration with United States and other nuclear
weapons states for failing to strengthen the global nuclear non-
proliferation regime during four weeks of meetings at the UN in New
York. As well two of the articles bear witness to the hope for
renewal and parallel processes that NGO's were able to bring forth
during the Review Conference..
[1] A Passing Storm by Rhianna Tyson of WILPF's Reaching Critical
Will - A project of the Womens International League for Peace and
Freedom May 27, 2005 No. 20 News in Review Civil society
perspectives on the Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty May 2-27 , 2005
Surreal. Poisonous. Derisive. Shameful. These were some of the
adjectives that were used by diplomats and NGOs alike yesterday to
describe the atmosphere and mood surrounding the final hours of the
NPT Review Conference.
"Conferences fail. Talks end up in collapse. Hard-won agreements are
flushed away by the will of a single government. But governments
change, and with them, the policies that nurture or wreck
diplomatic opportunities change, too. Today, the thunderstorm of this
Review Conference will finally pass, just as the clouds will part
above the United Nations building. Given the lack of substantive,
transparent progress in the governmental meetings of this conference,
civil society, whose efforts here this month did sprout new ideas for
reaching nuclear disarmament, will grow stronger after the rain." -
Rhianna Tyson
[2] America's broken nuclear promises endanger us all Bush has done
his utmost to frustrate talks on the non-proliferation treaty by
Robin Cook Friday May 27, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1493410,00.html
Previous review conferences, which come round every five years, have
been used as an important opportunity to regenerate support for the
treaty. Not this time. The full weight of Washington diplomacy was
focused on preventing any reference in the agenda to the commitments
the Clinton administration gave to the last review conference. As a
result, the first two weeks of negotiation were taken up with arguing
over the agenda, leaving barely one week for substantive talks.
Robert McNamara, the former US defence secretary and no peacenik, has
observed that if the people of the world knew "they would not
tolerate what's going on in the NPT conference". -Robin Cook
[3] www.Abolition2000.org For Immediate Release May 26, 2005 Contact:
Chris Cooper, 212-726-9161; ccooper@abolitionnow.org The Empire
Strikes Out! Global Disarmament Groups Blame U.S. for Failure to
Strengthen NPT
[New York, NY] A coalition of over 2000 groups from 90 countries
today blamed the United States and other nuclear weapons states for
failing to strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime
during four weeks of meetings at the United Nations to review the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States has had four weeks to
demonstrate international leadership on nuclear proliferation. But
all they have shown is a democratic deficit, charged Susi Snyder,
Secretary General of the Womens International League for Peace and
Freedom. Clearly, the U.S. delegation never wanted to strengthen the
Treaty. Instead, they have spent four weeks behind closed doors
refusing to recognize agreements they made 5 and 10 years ago. They
have bottled up all substantive discussion by haggling over arcane
procedures. They have demonstrated a lack of compromise and an
unwillingness to move the global non-proliferation regime forward.
Its like the Wild West, said Alice Slater, co-founder of Abolition
2000, the global network working toward a treaty to abolish nuclear
weapons. There is a total disrespect for the rule of law.
fyi-janet
===================================
[1] A Passing Storm http://www.reachi
ngcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/NIR2005/day20.pdf Reaching Critical Will
A project of the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom
May 27, 2005 No. 20 News in Review
The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of WILPF or the
Reaching Critical Will project. If you would like to submit an
article or graphic to the News in Review, contact the Editor. WILPF
UNO 777 UN Plaza 6th floor New York, NY 10017
Info@reachingcriticalwill.org www.reachingcriticalwill.org - Rhianna
Tyson, WILPF
A Passing Storm
Surreal. Poisonous. Derisive. Shameful.
These were some of the adjectives that were used by diplomats and
NGOs alike yesterday to describe the atmosphere and mood surrounding
the final hours of the NPT Review Conference.
The final negotiations, which consumed the last two days, were
focused on an asterisk to the Final Document, which itself is nothing
more than a technical report of the meeting. I
In the beginning of the Conference, the Non-Aligned (NAM) had fought
hard for the inclusion of a reference in the agenda to the 1995 and
2000 Conferences. Having lost that week-and-a- half-long battle,
their only recourse was to make a statement that welcomed the
adoption of the agenda, noting that it provided an opportunity to
include results of previous review conferences and their agreements.
At that time, the UK also made a statement, speaking on behalf of the
Western Group, which simply welcomed the adoption of the agenda.
Now, two weeks later, the last battle was fought over how, or if, to
include references to these statements. For the Non-Aligned, a
reference to their statement would ensure a reference- albeit a
minor, asterisked one- to past conferences. While such a footnote is
a tremendous regression from the triumph of 2000, it would still
ensure that those historic agreements would not be entirely negated.
Nonetheless, the Western Group refused to allow even this minute
reference to be included in this otherwise worthless Final Document.
After days of closed-door negotiations and debates, the Non-Aligned
caved. There will be no asterisk to their statement, and thus no
reference whatsoever to 1995 and 2000 in the 2005 Final Document.
NGOs are left in the corridor struggling to understand why. After
all, this past month of procedural wrangling was justified on the
principle behind the position of the Non-Aligned, rather than the
efficacy of their efforts. Obviously a footnote isnt terribly
significant in the real world of nuclear weapons; it is not a
decisive factor in whether or not a country will disarm or
proliferate. The battle, then, was over the principle of the matter.
To ignore, then renege, then deny commitments already reached in a
multilateral forum serves to not only undermine the Treaty itself,
nor just the review process, but rather multilateralism itself. While
some hawks may view this past month of procedural quarreling as
evidence of the failure of multilateralism, it was multilateralism
that the NAM were trying to save.
But then to capitulate at the last minute, to agree to strike out any
and all references to the revered past conferences, strips the NAM of
their principled position, and tosses them into the anti-
multilateralist trap set by the US and others, to whom the erosion of
the NPT serves only to further justify unilateral or plurilateral
alternatives.
The governments should be embarrassed at the tremendous waste of
time, energy and resources that this Conference consumed, and indeed,
most diplomats are. Many were walking around in a deliriumlike haze,
aghast at the futility of their efforts to strengthen the NPT.
Some, however, refused to give up all hope. The Conference did, after
all, provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, for the forging of
common ground from which to build substantive work in the future. It
did facilitate the coming together of almost 2000 NGO
representatives, which refuse to allow what happened behind closed
doors to erode their determination to see a world free from nuclear
weapons.
One diplomat likened this Conference to a thunderstorm dark, scary
and potentially damaging. A thunderstorm, however, also cleanses and
nourishes the growth of new life. This analogy resonates even more
strongly with those of us in New York who, for the past week, have
been suffering through continued on page 6
A Passing Storm continued from page 1 unseasonably cold and rainy
weather, a perfectly poetical climatic reflection of the gloomy and
dismal atmosphere in the basement of the UN. Today, however, the
weather report tells us to expect the first warm and sunny day that
New Yorkers have seen in a while.
Conferences fail. Talks end up in collapse. Hard-won agreements are
flushed away by the will of a single government. But governments
change, and with them, the policies that nurture or wreck
diplomatic opportunities change, too. Today, the thunderstorm of this
Review Conference will finally pass, just as the clouds will part
above the United Nations building. Given the lack of substantive,
transparent progress in the governmental meetings of this conference,
civil society, whose efforts here this month did sprout new ideas for
reaching nuclear disarmament, will grow stronger after the rain.
<><><><><><><><>
(2) America's broken nuclear promises endanger us all Bush has done
his utmost to frustrate talks on the non-proliferation treaty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1493410,00.html
Robin Cook Friday May 27, 2005
The Guardian
Not a day goes by without a member of team Bush lecturing us on the
threat from weapons of mass destruction and assuring us of the
absolute primacy they give to halting proliferation. How odd then
that the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty will break
up this evening, barring an 11th-hour miracle, with no agreed
conclusions. And how strange that no delegation should have worked
harder to frustrate agreement on what needs to be done than the
representatives of George Bush.
The tragedy is that, for all its faults, the non-proliferation treaty
has hitherto been the best barrier put up by the international
community against the spread of nuclear weapons. With the support of
all but a handful of nations, the treaty provided a robust
declaration that the development of nuclear weapons is taboo. That
peer-group pressure has since resulted in more countries abandoning
nuclear weapons than acquiring them.
South Africa disowned and dismantled its nuclear weapons after the
collapse of the apartheid regime. New states to emerge from the
Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, renounced the nuclear systems they
inherited on their territory. Argentina and Brazil dropped the
nuclear capability they were developing after negotiating a non-
nuclear pact between themselves. Even Iraq turned out to have
abandoned its nuclear weapons programme, although in that particular
case the success of the non-proliferation regime was more of an
embarrassment to George Bush.
Previous review conferences, which come round every five years, have
been used as an important opportunity to regenerate support for the
treaty. Not this time. The full weight of Washington diplomacy was
focused on preventing any reference in the agenda to the commitments
the Clinton administration gave to the last review conference. As a
result, the first two weeks of negotiation were taken up with arguing
over the agenda, leaving barely one week for substantive talks.
Robert McNamara, the former US defence secretary and no peacenik, has
observed that if the people of the world knew "they would not
tolerate what's going on in the NPT conference".
Observance of the non-proliferation treaty rested on a bargain
between those states without nuclear weapons, who agreed to renounce
any ambition to acquire them, and the nuclear-weapon powers, who
undertook in return to proceed in good faith to disarmament. It suits
the Bush administration now to present the purpose of the treaty as
halting proliferation, but its original intention was the much
broader ambition of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The acrimonious
exchanges inside the present review conference reflect the
frustration of the vast majority of states, who believe they have
kept their side of the deal by not developing nuclear weapons but
have seen no sign that the privileged elite with nuclear weapons have
any intention of giving them up.
It was to bridge the growing gulf between the two sides that the
British delegation, led by Peter Hain, at the last review conference
in 2000 helped broker agreement to 13 specific steps that the nuclear-
weapon powers could take towards disarming themselves. Labour scores
reasonably well against those benchmarks. Britain has taken out of
service all non-strategic nuclear weapons and as a result has
disarmed 70% of its total nuclear explosive power. It has also halted
production of weapons-grade material and placed all fissile material
not actually in warheads under international safeguards. This
positive progress will be comprehensively reversed if Tony Blair does
proceed as threatened to authorise construction of a new weapons
system to replace Trident, but until then Britain has a good story to
tell.
Not that it gets heard in the negotiating chambers, where it is
obscured by our close identification with the Bush administration and
our willingness in the review conference to lobby for understanding
of their position. Their position is simply stated: obligations under
the non-proliferation treaty are mandatory on other nations and
voluntary on the US. Even while the review conference was sitting,
the White House asked Congress for funds to research a bunker-busting
nuclear bomb, although to develop new nuclear weapons, especially
ones designed not to deter but to wage war, is to travel in the
opposite direction to the undertakings the US gave to the last review
conference.
The rationale for the bunker-buster is revealing. Its objective is to
penetrate and destroy deeply buried arsenals of weapons of mass
destruction. Perversely, the current regime in Washington does not
perceive its development of nuclear weapons as an obstacle to
multilateral agreement on proliferation but as the unilateral means
of stopping proliferation. Whatever may be said for this muscular
approach to proliferation, there is for sure no prospect of
negotiating an agreed text with the rest of the world legitimating
it.
Any progress within the non-proliferation treaty is therefore likely
to be on hold until George Bush is replaced by a president willing to
return to multilateral diplomacy. This is worrying as there are
other pressing problems that should not be left waiting.
One of the design flaws of the treaty dates from its negotiation in
the pre-Chernobyl era of rosy optimism about nuclear energy. As a
result it turned on a deal in which the nuclear powers undertook to
transfer peaceful nuclear know-how in return for other nations
forswearing the military applications of nuclear technology. At the
time many of us warned that it was inconsistent to enshrine the
spread of nuclear energy in a treaty trying to halt the spread of
nuclear weapons.
It therefore is no surprise that we now have a crisis over the
advanced nuclear ambitions of Iran. One of the weaknesses in the
west's negotiating position is that there is nothing in the non-
proliferation treaty to prohibit Iran from acquiring a declared
nuclear energy programme, although it seems implausible that the
country has any urgent need for one, as it practically floats on a
lake of oil.
The desirable solution is for an addition to the treaty banning
countries without nuclear weapons from developing a closed fuel cycle
for nuclear energy, which would stop them acquiring the fissile
material for bombs. But this would deepen the present asymmetry
between the nuclear powers and everyone else, and is only going to be
negotiable if there is some evidence that we are serious about
disarmament.
If the review conference breaks up in failure to agree, I suspect
there will be some in Washington celebrating tonight, perhaps not in
anything as foreign as French champagne but in the Napa Valley
imitation. Within their own narrow terms they will have succeeded.
They will have stopped another multilateral agreement and will have
escaped criticism for not fulfilling their commitments under the last
one. But in the process they will have weakened the non-proliferation
regime and made the world a more dangerous place. The next time they
lecture us on their worries about weapons of mass destruction, they
do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Guardian Unlimited ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
<><><><><><><><>
[3]
ABOLITION 2000 www.Abolition2000.org For Immediate Release May 26,
2005
Contact: Chris Cooper, 212-726-9161; ccooper@abolitionnow.org
The Empire Strikes Out! Global Disarmament Groups Blame U.S. for
Failure to Strengthen NPT
[New York, NY] A coalition of over 2000 groups from 90 countries
today blamed the United States and other nuclear weapons states for
failing to strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime
during four weeks of meetings at the United Nations to review the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States has had four weeks to
demonstrate international leadership on nuclear proliferation. But
all they have shown is a democratic deficit, charged Susi Snyder,
Secretary General of the Womens International League for Peace and
Freedom. Clearly, the U.S. delegation never wanted to strengthen the
Treaty. Instead, they have spent four weeks behind closed doors
refusing to recognize agreements they made 5 and 10 years ago. They
have bottled up all substantive discussion by haggling over arcane
procedures. They have demonstrated a lack of compromise and an
unwillingness to move the global non-proliferation regime forward.
Its like the Wild West, said Alice Slater, co-founder of Abolition
2000, the global network working toward a treaty to abolish nuclear
weapons. There is a total disrespect for the rule of law. The U.S. is
fighting over acknowledgement of a deal they made ten years ago. In
exchange for countries agreeing to extend the NPT indefinitely, the
U.S. would, among other things, support a Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT). But this Administration refuses even to submit the
CTBT to the Senate for an up-or-down vote on ratification. In the
meantime, it is doing its own proliferating by maintaining a massive
stockpile of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert and researching
new, smaller, and more usable nuclear weapons.
There are serious concerns about the proliferation of nuclear
technology. But it is impossible to prevent that proliferation while
the nuclear weapons states insist on maintaining large stockpiles of
weapons themselves, noted Alyn Ware of the Lawyers Committee on
Nuclear Policy. Its like a parent telling a child not to smoke while
smoking a pack of cigarettes in their face. It is not going to work
and we expect better leadership than that from the worlds
superpowers. We believe that states have a moral and political
obligation to abolish nuclear weapons. But they also have a legal
responsibility to do so, noted Ware. He cited the decision in 1996 by
the International Court of Justice that the threat or use of nuclear
weapons is generally illegal and the unanimous conclusion that states
have an obligation to achieve complete nuclear disarmament.
Given the lack of implementation here, we are looking at going back
to the court to force compliance on this legal obligation, he said.
It is convenient to blame Iran and Egypt and others for the failure
of the NPT Review Conference, said Snyder.
But that begs the question. Egypt, for example, has been very vocal
about the importance of acknowledging past agreements and bringing
Israel into the Treaty. And Iran has consistently called for a
nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Both of these actions
would strengthen the non-proliferation regime.
When the U.S. refuses to even discuss these issues, then they are the
ones sabotaging the Treaty.
The huge presence this month of more than 400 youth reflects the
increasing concern among young people about the dangers of nuclear
weapons, said Sophie LeFeez, a youth representative with the French
Peace Movement. Here we listened to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
survivors testimonies and we noticed the deliberate will of some to
make the conference fail and the powerlessness of the majority to
prevent that, LeFeez said. This is a matter of great concern to us
because this generation is failing to provide us, the next
generation, with a world free of nuclear weapons. We do not want to
inherit a world where nuclear weapons jeopardize our security, our
environment, and our lives.
Hilda Lini, Director of the Secretariat for the Nuclear Free and
Independent Pacific, noted that non-governmental organizations would
fill the leadership gap presented by many national governments.
Whatever is the outcome of the NPT Review Conference, it will not
disempower civil society from continuing the work we have done for
decades, she said. Civil societys leadership role is growing each
day. We have the majority of the worlds population in support of
nuclear abolition and we will continue to forge links between non-
governmental organizations and tell our governments to work toward
abolishing the threat of nuclear weapons. Behind the scenes, NGOs
have been working with delegations on the legal, technical and
political elements of achieving a nuclear weapon-free world, noted
Ware. We have drafted a model Nuclear Weapons Convention, for
example, that shows how it is possible to phase out nuclear weapons
under strict and effective international controls. We are also
working with the state parties to all the nuclear weapons free zones
who met, for the first time, in Mexico City just prior to the NPT
Review Conference. We will continue to work with like-minded states
to achieve progress outside of the NPT framework if we have to.
Slater alluded to other parallel processes for achieving
international agreements on nuclear disarmament, including new
Abolition 2000 committees that will pressure NATO member-states to
reject the placement of U.S. nuclear weapons within their
territories. Early efforts to pressure NATO states have met with some
limited success recently when the Belgian Senate requested that NATO
remove nuclear weapons from that country. The nuclear superpowers are
on notice. It is not going to be business as usual, said Slater. NGOs
have vital information and knowledge to share with governments, said
Lini. Our wish is that the governments of the nuclear weapons states
would work more closely with their counterparts in the academic,
scientific and social communities to achieve progress that they have
been unable to achieve alone.
Contact: Chris Cooper or Alice Slater 212-726-9161
ccooper@abolitionnow.org Susi Snyder
917-940-5882 susi@reachingcriticalwill.org Alyn Ware
212-818-1861 alyn@pnnd.org Abolition 2000 is a global network
of citizens, political & religious leaders, professional
associations, colleges and universities, Nobel laureates, retired
military leaders, and municipalities in over 90 countries committed
to eliminating nuclear weapons.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/NJYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toeslist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
toeslist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: Robin Cook: America's broken nuclear promises endanger us all
Bush has done his utmost to frustrate talks on the
non-proliferation treaty
Robin Cook Friday May 27, 2005 The Guardian
Not a day goes by without a member of team Bush lecturing us on
the threat from weapons of mass destruction and assuring us of
the absolute primacy they give to halting proliferation. How odd
then that the review conference on the non-proliferation treaty
will break up this evening, barring an 11th-hour miracle, with no
agreed conclusions. And how strange that no delegation should
have worked harder to frustrate agreement on what needs to be
done than the representatives of George Bush.
The tragedy is that, for all its faults, the non-proliferation
treaty has hitherto been the best barrier put up by the
international community against the spread of nuclear weapons.
With the support of all but a handful of nations, the treaty
provided a robust declaration that the development of nuclear
weapons is taboo. That peer-group pressure has since resulted in
more countries abandoning nuclear weapons than acquiring them.
South Africa disowned and dismantled its nuclear weapons after
the collapse of the apartheid regime. New states to emerge from
the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, renounced the nuclear systems
they inherited on their territory. Argentina and Brazil dropped
the nuclear capability they were developing after negotiating a
non-nuclear pact between themselves. Even Iraq turned out to
have abandoned its nuclear weapons programme, although in that
particular case the success of the non-proliferation regime was
more of an embarrassment to George Bush.
Previous review conferences, which come round every five years,
have been used as an important opportunity to regenerate support
for the treaty. Not this time. The full weight of Washington
diplomacy was focused on preventing any reference in the agenda
to the commitments the Clinton administration gave to the last
review conference. As a result, the first two weeks of
negotiation were taken up with arguing over the agenda, leaving
barely one week for substantive talks. Robert McNamara, the
former US defence secretary and no peacenik, has observed that
if the people of the world knew "they would not tolerate what's
going on in the NPT conference".
Observance of the non-proliferation treaty rested on a bargain
between those states without nuclear weapons, who agreed to
renounce any ambition to acquire them, and the nuclear-weapon
powers, who undertook in return to proceed in good faith to
disarmament. It suits the Bush administration now to present the
purpose of the treaty as halting proliferation, but its original
intention was the much broader ambition of a nuclear-weapon-free
world. The acrimonious exchanges inside the present review
conference reflect the frustration of the vast majority of
states, who believe they have kept their side of the deal by not
developing nuclear weapons but have seen no sign that the
privileged elite with nuclear weapons have any intention of
giving them up.
It was to bridge the growing gulf between the two sides that the
British delegation, led by Peter Hain, at the last review
conference in 2000 helped broker agreement to 13 specific steps
that the nuclear-weapon powers could take towards disarming
themselves. Labour scores reasonably well against those
benchmarks. Britain has taken out of service all non-strategic
nuclear weapons and as a result has disarmed 70% of its total
nuclear explosive power. It has also halted production of
weapons-grade material and placed all fissile material not
actually in warheads under international safeguards. This
positive progress will be comprehensively reversed if Tony Blair
does proceed as threatened to authorise construction of a new
weapons system to replace Trident, but until then Britain has a
good story to tell.
Not that it gets heard in the negotiating chambers, where it is
obscured by our close identification with the Bush
administration and our willingness in the review conference to
lobby for understanding of their position. Their position is
simply stated: obligations under the non-proliferation treaty
are mandatory on other nations and voluntary on the US. Even
while the review conference was sitting, the White House asked
Congress for funds to research a bunker-busting nuclear bomb,
although to develop new nuclear weapons, especially ones
designed not to deter but to wage war, is to travel in the
opposite direction to the undertakings the US gave to the last
review conference.
The rationale for the bunker-buster is revealing. Its objective
is to penetrate and destroy deeply buried arsenals of weapons of
mass destruction. Perversely, the current regime in Washington
does not perceive its development of nuclear weapons as an
obstacle to multilateral agreement on proliferation but as the
unilateral means of stopping proliferation. Whatever may be said
for this muscular approach to proliferation, there is for sure
no prospect of negotiating an agreed text with the rest of the
world legitimating it.
Any progress within the non-proliferation treaty is therefore
likely to be on hold until George Bush is replaced by a
president willing to return to multilateral diplomacy. This is
worrying as there are other pressing problems that should not be
left waiting.
One of the design flaws of the treaty dates from its negotiation
in the pre-Chernobyl era of rosy optimism about nuclear energy.
As a result it turned on a deal in which the nuclear powers
undertook to transfer peaceful nuclear know-how in return for
other nations forswearing the military applications of nuclear
technology. At the time many of us warned that it was
inconsistent to enshrine the spread of nuclear energy in a
treaty trying to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.
It therefore is no surprise that we now have a crisis over the
advanced nuclear ambitions of Iran. One of the weaknesses in the
west's negotiating position is that there is nothing in the
non-proliferation treaty to prohibit Iran from acquiring a
declared nuclear energy programme, although it seems implausible
that the country has any urgent need for one, as it practically
floats on a lake of oil.
The desirable solution is for an addition to the treaty banning
countries without nuclear weapons from developing a closed fuel
cycle for nuclear energy, which would stop them acquiring the
fissile material for bombs. But this would deepen the present
asymmetry between the nuclear powers and everyone else, and is
only going to be negotiable if there is some evidence that we
are serious about disarmament.
If the review conference breaks up in failure to agree, I
suspect there will be some in Washington celebrating tonight,
perhaps not in anything as foreign as French champagne but in
the Napa Valley imitation. Within their own narrow terms they
will have succeeded. They will have stopped another multilateral
agreement and will have escaped criticism for not fulfilling
their commitments under the last one. But in the process they
will have weakened the non-proliferation regime and made the
world a more dangerous place. The next time they lecture us on
their worries about weapons of mass destruction, they do not
deserve to be taken seriously.
r.cook@guardian.co.uk
Guardian Unlimited ż Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
21 BBC: Leaders split on nuclear treaty
Last Updated: Friday, 27 May, 2005
[North Korean spent nuclear fuel rods in Yongbyon]
Iran and North Korea are accused of seeking to develop weapons
Nuclear chiefs have failed to agree new measures to stop weapons
proliferation after a month of talks in New York.
Delegates from 188 nations had been discussing ways to beef up
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which first came into
force in 1970.
The accord aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, achieve
disarmament and promote nuclear energy.
But even amid international concerns about nuclear activities in
Iran and North Korea, no deal was struck.
Politics and procedural wranglings dogged the planned review of
the treaty from the start, the BBC's Jonathan Marcus reports
from the UN headquarters in New York.
He adds that it is hard to see the conference as anything other
than a lost opportunity to bolster the NPT.
'Wasted weeks'
"I regret that the conference has not reached consensus,"
conference chairman Brazilian Sergio Duarte told the delegates on
the final day of the talks.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWERS
Signed the NPT: US Russia, UK, France, China Declared or known:
India, Pakistan, Israel Suspicions over: North Korea, Iran
Formerly had programmes: Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Iraq, Libya, Romania, South Africa, Ukraine NPT
Three separate committees had been discussing the three key
areas that the treaty covers - nuclear disarmament, safeguards
on national nuclear programmes and the peaceful use of atomic
energy.
Arms control advocates say the US delegation came intent on
focusing on the proliferation side of the equation and was
totally unwilling to give any ground on US pledges to scrap its
nuclear arsenal, our correspondent says.
The delegates also wasted two weeks of the talks arguing on
empty procedural wrangling, he says.
In recent months the US and Iran in particular have been at
loggerheads over Tehran's nuclear activities.
Washington accuses Iran of using its nuclear energy programme as
a cover for developing nuclear weapons - a charge Tehran denies.
Global threat
When the talks began in May, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
called on world leaders to reinforce their commitment to a
treaty and for former Cold War rivals Russia and the US to
reduce their current nuclear arsenals.
Mr Annan warned then of the possibility of a nuclear
catastrophe.
"In our interconnected world, a threat to one is a threat to
all, and we all share responsibility for each other's security,"
he said.
"The plain fact is that the regime has not kept pace with the
march of technology and globalisation, and developments of many
kinds in recent years have placed it under great stress."
ESTIMATED NUCLEAR WARHEADS, STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL
[Map showing declared, suspected and potential nuclear nations]
*The US is also said to have some 3,000 warheads in reserve,
while Russia has about 11,000 in non-operational stockpiles
Israel declines to confirm it has nuclear weapons North Korea
claims it has nuclear arms but no details are available Iran is
accused by the US of ambitions to build nuclear arms
*****************************************************************
22 Mos News: Jimmy Carter Addresses Russia’s Putin on Nuclear Safety -
MOSNEWS.COM
Created: 27.05.2005 14:48 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:48 MSK
MosNews
Jimmy Carter, a former U.S. president, has sent Russia’s
president Vladimir Putin a letter to remind him how important it
is to stick to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, RIA Novosti
reported Friday.
The letter, cited on Putin’s official website, runs:
“I hope that you will personally show initiative to help
maintain and strengthen one of the most important international
treaties. In spite of the recent threat to the non-proliferation
policy in Asia and the Middle East, the nuclear states and the
rest of the world still disagree on the subject of arms control
program.”
The U.S. 39th president also cited a warning from a recent UN
report: “We are approaching the point beyond which the erosion
of the non-proliferation policy may become irreversible and
bring to a chain reaction.”
Carter expressed concern about the Iran and North Korea
situation and stressed the nesessity of including India, Israel
and Pakistan in the treaty,
Carter’s letter was prompted by the results of the New York
review conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a monthlong
meeting held once every five years to take stock of the landmark
accord.
Friday is the final day of the conference of the 1970 nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Nine countries possess some 30,000 atomic weapons, nearly all of
them in the United States and Russia. And dozens more nations
could build a bomb if they wanted to. By signing the treaty, the
acknowledged nuclear powers, the United States, Russia, Britain,
China and France, pledged to
eventually scrap their deadly arsenals but have not done so,
Reuters reports.
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
23 Japan Times: Energy security a must as demand soars: report
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Kyodo News
Japan must secure channels for a stable energy supply as global
energy demand is expected to surge in the next 25 years led by a
jump in demand forecast for Asian economies, particularly China,
warns a government report released Friday.
The Natural Resources and Energy Agency, under the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, warned in its annual white paper
that Japan should prepare for the possibility of a serious
supply problem by 2030, when global energy demand is expected to
soar 59 percent from the 2002 level.
Demand from China alone is expected to expand 21 percent by
2030 from the 2002 level, while the rest of Asia is forecast to
rise 6 percent, an agency official said.
The paper said Japan, which supplied only 19 percent of its
total energy demand, including nuclear power, as of 2002, needs
to continue energy stockpiling, conserve more energy and reduce
its dependence on oil and other resource imports to lower the
risk of an energy shortage.
The Middle East has supplied nearly 90 percent of Japan's crude
oil in recent years, marking a recovery from the upper 60
percent level in the 1980s following the oil crises of the 1970s.
The country tried to move away from Middle East oil after the
crises caused prices to skyrocket, but Japan is dependent on the
region again as supplies in other regions are shrinking, the
official said.
As a country with advanced energy conservation experience,
Japan needs to help its Asian neighbors heighten energy security
through technology transfers, the paper says.
The report also says the number of pirate attacks on vessels
transporting crude oil from the Middle East has been on the rise
in the Malacca Strait in recent years. The attacks pose threats
to the energy security of Asia, it says.
Turning to "important developments" on energy matters, the
white paper touches on the row between China and Japan over oil
and gas exploration projects in the East China Sea.
China has been developing natural resources in the area close
to what Japan claims is the median line separating the two
countries' exclusive economic zones.
Tokyo began taking steps in April to grant test-drilling rights
to Japanese companies in the area east of the line as it was
"urgently needed to secure our rights" in the waters, the report
says.
The Japan Times: May 28, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
24 DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Talks End With Bickering, Backsliding
Haider Rizvi
UNITED NATIONS, May 27 (IPS) - Month-long U.N. talks on a major
international treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons
ended here Friday with no consensus achieved on any of the core
issues discussed, including disarmament.
Delegates from 188 countries had been charged with reviewing and
finding ways to enhance the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT). Such talks have been held every five years since the pact
was agreed in 1970.
''I regret that the conference has not been able to reach
consensus,'' Sergio Duarte, who presided over the talks,
announced at the closing Friday. ''There are no
recommendations.''
Frustrated and disappointed with the outcome of the meeting,
civil society leaders and independent nuclear experts said the
United States and other nuclear powers had failed to show the
political will needed to strengthen the treaty.
''The United States has had four weeks to demonstrate
international leadership on nuclear proliferation,'' said Susi
Snyder of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom,
a U.S.-based advocacy group. ''But all they have shown is a
democratic deficit.''
''It's like the Wild West,'' added Alice Slater of Abolition
2000, a global network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
campaigning for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. ''There's a
total disrespect for the rule of law,'' she said, alluding to the
U.S. role in negotiations.
Diplomats from the non-nuclear world had similar reactions.
''We have witnessed intransigence from more than one state on
pressing issues of the day, coupled with the hubris that demands
the priorities of the many be subordinated to the preferences of
the few,'' said Canadian envoy Paul Meyer. He did not name but
was understood to refer to the United States and Iran, which
dominated the talks.
Observers said throughout the negotiations, the United States
remained inflexible on the question of fulfilling its
obligations under Article Six of the 35-year-old treaty, which
requires signatories to pursue negotiations on nuclear
disarmament, a step many consider to be vital in preventing
nuclear proliferation.
From the start, a large majority of non-nuclear nations had
stated that they wanted to see the declared nuclear powers --
the United States, Russia, France, Britain, and China -- take
their treaty obligations seriously by making drastic cuts in
their nuclear arsenals.
The United States sought to keep the talks focussed on
suspected nuclear weapons development by Iran and North Korea,
and thus confined its part in the talks to emphasising the
significance of the proliferation aspects of the treaty.
''Much has changed since we last gathered here in 2000,''
Jackie Sanders, President George W. Bush's special envoy, told
delegates in a reference to terrorist threats, North Korea's
withdrawal from the treaty in 2002, and Iran's alleged
violations of its legal obligations under the NPT regime.
Defending her delegation's position, she said the United States
was pursuing a ''robust and comprehensive approach'' to counter
the threat of weapons of mass destruction, a reference to the
Proliferation Security Initiative, which is an attempt to stop
the flow of nuclear material outside the NPT fold.
Former U.S. diplomats and policy makers, who closely watched
the negotiations, said the issue of non-proliferation could not
be addressed in isolation from disarmament initiatives.
''If the disarmament pillar of the treaty is not strong, the
other pillars are not going to be strong either,'' said Thomas
Graham, president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security.
Graham led the U.S. delegation to the NPT review conference in
1995. ''This has to change.''
Graham linked the survival of the NPT to four core issues
including negotiations on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT), fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), security
assurances to non-nuclear weapon states, and drastic reduction
of arsenals by nuclear powers. But the United States is not
willing to endorse any of those moves.
On disarmament, former U.S. Defence Secretary Robert McNamara
shared Graham's concerns.
''Despite the end of the Cold War some 15 years ago, the United
States' nuclear weapons policies are essentially what they were
when I was secretary of defense 40 years ago,'' he told
reporters this week.
He characterised U.S. policy as ''immoral, illegal, militarily
unnecessary, very, very dangerous in terms of accidental or
inadvertent use, and destructive of the non-proliferation
regime.''
The United States has deployed about 6,000 strategic nuclear
warheads, he said, noting that each one has a destructive power
roughly 20 times greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb, which
killed about 10,000 civilians in the Japanese city.
Of those 6,000 weapons, 2000 are on hair trigger alert, meaning
they are ready to launch within 15 minutes based on the decision
of one man: the U.S. president.
On May 1, the eve of this month's NPT talks, survivors of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings joined tens of thousands
of protesters in front of U.N. headquarters to demand the
abolition of nuclear weapons. On Friday, some said they were at
a loss to understand why the diplomats had failed them.
''A mere handful of countries can thwart the will of the great
majority of countries,'' Hiroshima mayor Tadatoshi Akiba said in
a letter to the conference president. ''Given what is at stake
for humanity, this is intolerable.''
(END/2005)
Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine offers US firms to take part in the development of uranium fields
27.05.2005, 14.14
KIEV, May 27 (Itar-Tass) - Ukraine offered U.S. companies to
take part in the development of uranium fields, the upgrading of
thermal power plants, geological surveys and oil and gas
production, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko said at a
meeting with U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman on Friday.
Ukraine has already received more than 280 million dollars for
implementing the program to improve safety at its nuclear power
plants, according to Timoshenko.
For his part, Bodman, expressed readiness to provide technical
assistance in developing Ukraine's energy strategy. He also
expressed an interest in plans of works at the Chernobyl nuclear
power plant, which are funded by donor countries, including the
United States.
Ukraine's uranium industry is based on large deposits in the
Kirovograd region. The country is developing three uranium
fields: Vatutinskoye, Michurinskoye and Tsnetralnoye.
In 2003, it began to develop the fourth uranium field. The
project costs some 300 million dollars.
Uranium is produced by the Vostochny ore dressing works, which
supplies it to Russia’s TVEL corporation.
In 2004, Russia planned to buy about 1,000 tonnes of uranium in
Ukraine.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuke Conference Offers No New Action
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday May 27, 2005 11:16 PM
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A monthlong conference to toughen global
controls on nuclear arms ended Friday with nothing to show for
its four weeks of divisive work.
From Japan's ``extreme regret'' to Norway's ``profound
disappointment,'' delegates expressed frustration that the
failure to agree on an action plan for growing nuclear threats
might weaken the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the pact that
has helped keep a lid on doomsday weapons for 35 years.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes ``their inability to
strengthen their collective efforts is bound to weaken the
treaty,'' his spokesman said. Annan said world leaders should
deal with the issues at a global summit scheduled here for
September.
The failure comes at a time of heightening nuclear tensions in
the world.
North Korea has pulled out of the treaty and says it is building
atom bombs. Iran's uranium-enrichment program raises questions
about possible weapons plans. Arab states view Israel's nuclear
arsenal as increasingly provocative.
The conference had futilely debated proposals to address all
these issues.
Many delegates also were disturbed over the Bush
administration's talk of modernizing the U.S. nuclear force, and
sought U.S. reaffirmation of commitments made to disarmament
steps at the nonproliferation conferences of 1995 and 2000.
In this meeting's final hours, the U.S.-led Western group of
nations blocked any mention of those commitments in the
conference's already-thin final report.
The disagreements even kept conference President Sergio de
Queiroz Duarte from issuing a statement endorsing
nonproliferation principles. ``It would be very difficult for me
in the face of so many divergencies,'' the Brazilian diplomat
told reporters.
Members of the 188-nation Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
convene only once every five years to assess the workings of the
1970 treaty and find ways to make it work better - political
commitments that give a boost to nonproliferation initiatives.
Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not
to develop them, and five with the weapons - the United States,
Russia, Britain, France and China - undertook to eventually
eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, were
guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology.
Citing that guarantee, Iran has obtained uranium-enrichment
centrifuges, which can produce both fuel for nuclear power
plants and material for bombs. The United States contends Iran
plans to build weapons, but the Iranians say they're interested
only in peaceful energy.
Delegations here had promoted ideas, for example, for limiting
access to such dual-use technology with bombmaking potential,
along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear
facilities and to pressure nuclear-weapons states to shrink
their arsenals more quickly.
On withdrawal from the nonproliferation pact, which North Korea
managed without consequence, some delegations supported plans to
make the process more difficult and penalty-laden.
But the dozens of proposals were stalled for more than two weeks
while delegations squabbled over the agenda. Then, when debate
finally started, it proved impossible to win consensus.
Iran objected to any mention of it as a proliferation concern.
Egypt balked at toughening treaty withdrawal, since it wants
that option open as long as ex-enemy Israel has nuclear bombs.
And the United States fought every reference to its 1995 and
2000 commitments.
Those commitments included, for example, activating the nuclear
test-ban treaty and negotiating a verifiable treaty to ban
production of bomb materials - both steps the Bush
administration opposes, but other weapons states support.
In final speeches Friday, delegation after delegation, including
the European Union representative, spoke of the importance of
the 1995-2000 commitments.
``If we allow agreements at one conference to be rolled back at
the next, we will undermine the very premise the multinational
system is based upon,'' said South Africa's Abdul Minty.
The lead U.S. delegate, Jackie Sanders, countered that the
United States has a ``strong record on nuclear disarmament.''
She expressed only mild disappointment at the conference
outcome, instead pointing to unilateral Bush administration
initiatives to halt the spread of ultimate weapons, such as its
efforts to intercept illicit nuclear trade.
In an Associated Press interview from his Vienna headquarters,
the U.N. nuclear agency head, Mohamed ElBaradei, said of the
failed conference, ``It is vital that we pick up the pieces and
look forward. We have a golden opportunity at the summit meeting
in New York'' in September.
As the conference closed, the U.N. spokesman's office said Annan
``challenges leaders to use that (summit) opportunity to make
bold commitments and address the pressing challenges.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Conference Approaches End
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday May 27, 2005 8:01 AM
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A global conference to tighten controls on
the spread of nuclear arms entered its final day empty-handed,
after weeks of backroom bickering and political paralysis left
it with no action plan to offer at a time of mounting nuclear
tension in the world.
The 188-nation meeting produced divisive debates over issues
ranging from Iran's uranium centrifuges, to Israel's nuclear
capabilities, to U.S. weapons plans. But it yielded no consensus
recommendations for concrete steps to rein in atomic arms. At
best, it might adopt a brief statement endorsing
nonproliferation principles.
``It's a tragic lost opportunity,'' British arms-control
advocate Ian Davis said of the monthlong conference. ``There was
a shortage of political will.''
The members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty convene only
once every five years to assess the workings of the 1970 treaty
and find ways to make it work better - political commitments
that give a boost to nonproliferation initiatives.
Under the 1970 nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged
not to develop them, and five with the weapons - the United
States, Russia, Britain, France and China - undertook to
eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states,
meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear
technology.
Citing that guarantee, Iran has obtained uranium-enrichment
centrifuges, which can produce both fuel for nuclear power
plants and material for bombs. Washington contends Tehran plans
to build weapons, but the Iranians say they're interested only
in peaceful energy.
Delegations here had promoted ideas, for example, for limiting
access to such dual-use technology with bombmaking potential,
along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear
facilities, pressure nuclear-weapons states to shrink arsenals
more quickly, and take other steps to reduce the global role of
the ultimate weapons.
Some also supported plans to make withdrawing from the treaty
more difficult and penalty-laden. That was a response to North
Korea's announced withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and its
declaration that it has built nuclear bombs - all done without
consequence under the nonproliferation pact.
But the three conference committees were caught in a crossfire
of interests, including U.S.-Iranian antagonisms, and all failed
to reach consensus on action programs to send to the full
conference.
Iran objected to proposed language singling it out as a
proliferation concern. Egypt blocked action on toughening treaty
withdrawal, wanting the option to pull out as long as ex-enemy
Israel, not a treaty member, has a nuclear arsenal. The United
States, for its part, objected to any reference in a final
document to disarmament commitments it and other weapons states
made at the 1995 and 2000 conferences.
Those commitments included, for example, activation of the
nuclear test-ban treaty and negotiation of a verifiable treaty
banning production of bomb material - both steps now opposed by
the Bush administration.
Critics here accused Washington of reneging on those
commitments, undermining the balance of nonproliferation and
disarmament obligations in the treaty, perhaps making some feel
less bound by their pledge to forswear nuclear bombs.
``I wish the United States had been more flexible here, and not
tried to question or downgrade the validity with respect to the
1995 and 2000 commitments,'' said Thomas Graham, a former lead
U.S. arms negotiator. Critics also said Bush administration talk
of developing new nuclear weapons violates at least the spirit
of the nonproliferation treaty.
A spokesman indicated the U.S. delegation blocked the
disarmament language because it felt the conference was paying
too little attention to Iran and Washington's other
proliferation concerns.
``We're happy to talk about their issues,'' said Richard
Grenell, ``but there needs to be a recognition we have to talk
about our issues and their issues - not exclusively their
issues.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
28 Blackouts would limit TMI sirens regulators say
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:35:32 -0700
Blackouts would limit TMI sirens
Just 19 of 96 would work, regulators say
Friday, May 27, 2005
BY GARRY LENTON
Of The Patriot-News
Only 19 of the 96 sirens that are supposed to warn those living near the
Three Mile Island nuclear plant of an emergency would work during a
blackout, federal regulators have acknowledged.
But that is better than the other four nuclear plants in the state, as well
as most of the plants in the nation.
Three Mile Island installed 19 battery-operated sirens throughout the
10-mile emergency area around its plant last year in response to concerns by
local officials, said April Schilpp, a spokeswoman for plant owner Exelon
Nuclear.
From Our Advertiser
Nationwide, only 17 of 63 nuclear stations have sirens that can be sounded
during a blackout, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And sirens around Pennsylvania's four other nuclear power plants have no
backup system, officials said.
The situation concerns nuclear watchdog groups that have asked the NRC to
step in and require plant owners to provide backup power to the sirens.
The sirens, placed within a 10-mile radius of the plants, are supposed to
sound if a nuclear emergency is declared.
Watchdog groups and some government agencies fear plant neighbors would be
vulnerable if a blackout caused a plant emergency.
NRC officials, when they conduct mock terror attacks on plants, assume that
electrical power will be disrupted.
The NRC said it would not take action on the request because the Federal
Emergency Management Agency was already working on revising the warning
system.
FEMA began revising standards for the sirens after the massive electrical
blackout that affected the northeastern United States in August, 2003, wrote
J.E. Dyer, director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in a
May 18 letter to the watchdog group Nuclear Information and Resource
Service.
According to the NRC, there are no backup power supplies to sirens
surrounding the Peach Bottom, Limerick, Susquehanna, and Beaver Valley
plants.
Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Washington,
D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said, "Basically, we
have an inoperable emergency system at a majority of the sites."
From Our Advertiser
Rich Janati, chief of the division of nuclear safety at the state Department
of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Radiation Protection, acknowledged
that the situation was not ideal, but said the risk of a blackout and a
meltdown occurring at the same time was small.
However, Janati said the NRC and FEMA should evaluate the situation and
address it, perhaps by requiring plant owners to back-fit their emergency
notification systems.
Peach Bottom in York County has 97 sirens, but owner Exelon Nuclear has no
plans to fit them with rechargeable batteries, said Schilpp.
If the sirens failed, Peach Bottom officials would notify the counties, who
are prepared to go door-to-door if necessary to warn residents near the
plant, Schilpp said.
That's an irresponsible backup scenario, said Eric Epstein, chairman of
Three Mile Island Alert, which joined NIRS in asking the NRC to step in.
Epstein raised concerns that the state's aging electric transmission system,
coupled with plants operating at peak capacity, put the state at risk for
blackouts.
The problem can be corrected by having backup power in place, he said.
GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com
*****************************************************************
29 [NukeNet] GAO report on NRC
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:36:20 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
click on the URL for a PDF version of the report.
2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Challenges Facing NRC in Effectively
Carrying Out Its Mission, by James E. Wells, Jr., director, natural
resources and environment, before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate
Change, and Nuclear Safety, Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works. GAO-05-754T, May 26.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-754T
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05754thigh.pdf
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org
"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.0.0 - Release Date: 5/27/05
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
30 [NukeNet] Many Nuclear Plants Lack Backup Sirens
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 20:00:06 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sirens-No-Backup.html
Many Nuclear Plants Lack Backup Sirens
a.. E-Mail This
b.. Printer-Friendly
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 27, 2005
Filed at 9:36 a.m. ET
MIDDLETOWN, Pa. (AP) -- More than two dozen
nuclear power plants across the country lack
sirens that would warn of a nuclear emergency if
electricity also was blacked out, according to a
report by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Twenty-eight U.S. plants lack backup power for
sirens that are supposed to alert residents in a
10-mile radius of trouble, the NRC said. Seventeen
plants have full backup for the systems, while 18
others have at least some sirens that would remain
operable during an outage.
The NRC released the information Wednesday as part
of its response to a coalition of 17 activist
groups and elected officials that petitioned the
commission in February for information about the
siren systems.
''Basically, we have an inoperable emergency
system at a majority of the sites,'' said Paul
Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project
for the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information
and Resource Service.
Plants that lack any backup power for sirens
include the Indian Point plant just north of New
York City and the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo,
Ohio. At Three Mile Island in Middletown, the site
of a March 28, 1979, partial meltdown that remains
the nation's worst nuclear plant accident, only 19
of the 96 sirens would operate if power went out.
During mock terror attacks on plants, NRC
officials assume electric power would be
disrupted.
Working sirens would be crucial since a loss of
electricity can challenge nuclear plants' safety
shutdown systems and heighten the risk of a
core-melting accident, nuclear watchdog groups
said.
The groups have asked the NRC to step in and
require plant owners to provide backup power to
the sirens. The NRC said siren upgrades are in the
works at about half the plants that lack warning
systems that are fully backed up.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is
revising warning requirements following the
massive August 2003 electrical blackout in the
northeastern United States.
Todd Schneider, spokesman for Davis-Besse, said
the sirens are only one part of an emergency plan.
Warning messages are also spread by police car
loudspeakers and radio stations.
------
On the Net:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service:
http://www.nirs.org/press/05-25-2005/1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/
CRAC-2 Report:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html
NRC On Probability Of Meltdown:
http://www.mothersalert.org/probability.html
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
31 [CMEP] Illinois does not need new nuke
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 08:26:45 -0500 (CDT)
*** P R E S S R E L E A S E ***
For Immediate Release: May 26, 2005
Contact: Brendan Hoffman (202) 454-5130; Erica Hartman (202) 454-5174
New Nuclear Reactor in Illinois Is Unnecessary, Would Burden Community
More Than Benefit It
Environmental Study Dismisses Potential of Alternative, Renewable
Energy Sources While Underestimating Impacts of Nuclear Power
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Building more nuclear reactors at the existing
Clinton site poses far more risks than benefits to Illinois residents,
and the energy company seeking an early site permit for the reactors
should be denied, Public Citizen said today.
In comments filed late yesterday with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in response to the federal agency's legally required
environmental evaluation of nuclear operator Exelon's plans for an
additional reactor or reactors at its Clinton Power Station in DeWitt
County, the watchdog group criticized the NRC for failing to evaluate
the full breadth of impacts from a new nuclear power source.
Illinois-based Exelon has applied for a site permit, which would allow
the company to "bank" the site for 20 years, during which time it can
choose a reactor type and apply for a combined construction and
operating license.
"A new reactor in Clinton is unnecessary, unsafe and expensive," said
Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program. "Nuclear power is not a good deal for the
residents of Clinton and it's not a good deal for the American people."
Among the most pressing concerns cited by Public Citizen is how the
additional nuclear capacity would affect the health and vitality of
Clinton Lake. The Clinton nuclear reactor relies on water from the lake
to cool it, but additional generation capacity would require more water
and may overtax and deplete the lake, especially in drought years when
water levels are low. Such overuse may force the plant to shut down,
since the loss of coolant is a serious safety problem that could lead to
meltdown, and could make the lake less desirable as a source of
recreation due to high water temperatures. The precise impact is
unclear, since neither Exelon nor NRC has done a full analysis of how a
new reactor would affect the lake temperature.
"Although we found plenty of issues that should prohibit the granting
of a siting permit for a new reactor, this environmental review is
mostly notable for what it doesn't address," said Brendan Hoffman, an
organizer for Public Citizen's energy program. "We feel that the early
site permit process is designed to give the appearance that important
problems are being considered and resolved, when the difficult questions
are simply postponed or ignored altogether."
The NRC's environmental impact statement also fails to evaluate the
security threat of indefinitely storing onsite the additional nuclear
waste that would be generated by the proposed new nuclear unit. Another
nuclear reactor at Clinton could create 20 to 30 metric tons of
high-level radioactive waste annually. To date, there is no feasible
solution to safely and permanently dispose of this waste, which must
cool onsite for five years before it can be moved. Moreover, the
environmental impact statement does not adequately consider the
possibility and consequences of severe accident scenarios resulting from
the transportation of spent nuclear fuel, Public Citizen said.
NRC regulations do not require consideration of the need for the plant,
and a detailed consideration of need is absent from the agency's impact
statement.
Federal law does require a consideration of alternative energy sources,
but the NRC's review dismisses renewable energy as an alternative source
of power, saying that such sources are not "environmentally preferable"
to nuclear power despite acknowledging that Illinois has the untapped
potential to produce as much electricity from wind as from nine
additional nuclear reactors.
"These early site permits are costing taxpayers millions of dollars
because the government has subsidized the process to encourage big
energy companies to invest in nuclear power," said Hoffman. "We should
be investing in renewable and energy efficient technologies, not 20th
century technologies that suffer from the same fatal flaws now as they
have for the past 50 years."
Taxpayers are helping out Exelon - they foot half the bill for license
applications. Yet Exelon is not a very good corporate citizen in return.
Because it has taken advantage of new electricity deregulation rules,
its property tax payments have declined from 80 percent of DeWitt
County's total property tax revenue in 1996 to 53 percent in 2002. This
resulted in an annual revenue loss of $8.8 million to the county; local
officials report that their economy has "reached bottom," and Clinton
School District 15 has been forced to cut its budget by $3 million and
spend reserves over the past several years.
To read Public Citizen's comments, go to
http://www.citizen.org/documents/clintondeiscomments.pdf.
To read Public Citizen's new series of fact sheets on the five fatal
flaws of nuclear power (cost, safety, security, waste and
proliferation), visit http://www.citizen.org/cmep/fatalflaws.
###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization
based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit
www.citizen.org.
**********
To SUBSCRIBE to the CMEP ListServ, visit https://www.citizen.org/email/enteremail.cfm
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
*****************************************************************
32 NRC: NRC to Hold Conference With Arizona Public Service Co. for Palo Verde
News Release - Region IV - 2005-02
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
No. IV-05-023 May 26, 2005
CONTACT: Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov
conference with representatives of Arizona Public Service Co. on
Wednesday, June 1, to discuss an apparent violation of NRC
requirements at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. APS
operates the facility, located near Wintersburg, Ariz.
The conference will be held from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the NRCs
Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. The public is invited to
observe the meeting and will have one or more opportunities to
communicate with the NRC after the business portion, but before
the meeting is adjourned. Persons interested in participating in
the conference via telephone can do so by calling (800) 952-9677
and dialing extension 475 to be transferred to the meeting.
An NRC inspection of Palo Verde this past winter discovered that
changes made to the plants emergency action levels apparently
decreased the effectiveness of the plants emergency plan. The
changes removed direct use of measured radiation levels for the
plants classification of Site Area Emergency and General
Emergency levels.
Emergency preparedness is very important to protecting the
publics health and safety, said NRC Region IV Administrator
Bruce S. Mallett. Although the company corrected this problem
when it was brought to their attention, its important for us to
discuss with APS how this happened and how they will prevent any
recurrence.
The company asked the NRC for the opportunity to provide its
perspective on the apparent violation and to offer any other
information that they believe the NRC should take into
consideration in making an enforcement decision. No decision on
the apparent violations or any enforcement action will be made
at the conference. Those decisions will be made later by NRC
officials.
Last revised Friday, May 27, 2005
*****************************************************************
33 KRT Wire: Nuclear reactor prepares to test fuel with plutonium
| 05/27/2005 |
BY BRUCE HENDERSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
ROCK HILL, S.C. - (KRT) - Duke Power's nuclear plant on Lake
Wylie is about to become the first commercial reactor to make
electricity from plutonium meant for nuclear weapons.
Without fanfare, tests that begin in June will cross a line that
for decades separated military and commercial nuclear uses. The
current policy, dating to the Clinton administration, is to make
surplus bomb material unusable by burning it in power plants.
Plutonium-239, blended in small amounts into a fuel that Duke
will test at its Catawba, N.C., plant, is chilling stuff. A
single speck inhaled into the lungs can cause cancer. A
softball-size lump flattened Nagasaki. It remains radioactive
for at least 24,100 years.
Duke's test fuel, called mixed-oxide or MOX for short, won't
blow up because of its diluted content. A blend of 4 percent
plutonium and 96 percent uranium, the usual nuclear fuel, MOX is
designed to mimic the more familiar fuels.
Nuclear nonproliferation groups say it's still a bad idea.
Terrorists could steal the fuel and fashion a crude nuclear
device, they say, although government experts say that wouldn't
be easy. Duke won exemptions to some federal security rules for
handling plutonium.
More than 20 years of MOX use in European nuclear plants, most
experts agree, established its safe track record. The fuel Duke
will test, however, contains more of the purer type of plutonium
desirable for weapons.
After a few years of tests, Duke - alone among U.S. utilities -
plans to use the mixed-oxide fuel alongside full-uranium fuel in
all four of its nuclear reactors for 15 to 20 years.
The end of the Cold War, in the early 1990s, left the United
States and Russia with larger arsenals than either needed. By
producing MOX, the United States plans to get rid of 34 metric
tons of weapons plutonium. Russia agreed to do the same.
Duke agreed to join the swords-to-plowshares program because it
believes the fuel is safe and because it can buy a reliable
supply at a discount, saving millions of dollars - Duke won't
say how much - over the life of the program. The Department of
Energy, which owns the plutonium, will cover Duke's MOX-related
operating, maintenance and capital expenses.
Most critics of the program prefer an alternate disposal method,
canceled by the Bush administration, that would mix unneeded
plutonium with highly radioactive waste and shape it into
ceramic pucks.
Opponents also question MOX's safety in commercial reactors.
They argue that the type of MOX Duke will use could make bad
accidents worse by unleashing more radiation than uranium fuel
would.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Duke's tests in
March. The modest scale of the Catawba tests - four MOX fuel
assemblies among 189 conventional assemblies - will make
differences between the fuels barely register, the NRC said.
But subtle differences remain. Those differences could grow more
prominent if Duke expands its use of MOX, which it expects to do
in about 2011. They could also influence the way Duke operates
its reactors, and the outcome of severe accidents.
"The differences are not `good' or `bad,' " said Steve Nesbit,
Duke's MOX project manager. "It depends on what (circumstances)
you're looking at."
Compared with uranium fuel, plutonium atoms more easily split
and release a little more energy. MOX could make the systems
that control a nuclear chain reaction slightly less effective,
government analysts say. And a catastrophic but extraordinarily
unlikely accident that exposes the public to radioactivity could
cause more, or fewer, fatalities depending on the scenario.
For all the analyses and European experience, the true nature of
Duke's MOX won't be confirmed until the Catawba reactor starts
humming.
"The field is pretty well known," said Frank Akstulewicz, an NRC
reactor-regulation official. "If there's something that we're
missing, that would be surprising. But that's why we collect the
(test) data."
Plutonium is produced in all nuclear reactors as they burn
uranium. The man-made, refined plutonium-239 used in weapons
readily fissions in an atom-splitting chain reaction that
releases tremendous heat. A business consortium that includes a
Duke Energy subsidiary is under a $130 million contract with the
Department of Energy to build a fuel-making plant, beginning
next year, at the Savannah River Site. The federal installation
near Aiken, S.C., produced the nation's military plutonium for
decades after World War II.
With the contract, Duke agreed to burn MOX at Catawba and a
second Charlotte-area plant, McGuire on Lake Norman. A Virginia
Power plant was also part of the 1999 agreement, but the utility
soon dropped out, citing business reasons.
Advocacy groups have fought the plan on safety and security
grounds.
"It's bomb-making material. The fact that Duke has applied and
gotten exemptions from security requirements is very
troublesome," said Janet Zeller, executive director of the Blue
Ridge Environmental Defense League, based north of Charlotte in
the mountains of Ashe County.
In its challenge to Duke's federal application to test the fuel,
Blue Ridge protested Duke's request for several exemptions from
classified security rules that the public, including Zeller,
isn't allowed to read. Duke said the exemptions, such as
maintaining a tactical-response team and erecting additional
barriers, are measures it had already satisfied.
After months of debate over access to those rules, an NRC
licensing board granted the exemptions - with stipulations that
were also classified.
Rallying broad public opposition to MOX has been another
challenge for Blue Ridge. Few local people have publicly opposed
Duke's plan or written the NRC in protest.
The complexity of the issue "really makes your head spin," said
Rock Hill resident Chad Simpson. A former newspaper reporter
who's written about MOX, Simpson says he's still not convinced
the program is wise.
"There's a lot of information out there that I've come across,
and I don't fully understand why (Duke and the government) are
doing this," he said. "I don't fully understand it, and most of
the people I've talked to don't understand it."
But MOX isn't likely to fall out of the public eye.
Duke plans to seek federal approval, in 2007, to make MOX up to
40 percent of the fuel for Catawba and McGuire. Opposition
groups are likely to again protest.
Small differences in how MOX behaves could grow if Duke
increases its use, said Paul Turinsky, who heads the nuclear
engineering department at North Carolina State University.
"The reality is that probably some accidents would use up some
of their (safety) margin and others will gain margin" by using
MOX, Turinsky said. Turinsky, who has worked as a consultant to
Duke on MOX research, believes the fuel is safe to use.
The Department of Energy has estimated that the risk of an
accident in which the water that cools Catawba's reactor fuel is
lost - one of the worst the plant is designed to withstand -
would grow by 3.3 percent with the higher proportion of MOX
fuel.
Because the likelihood of such an accident is extremely small,
the increased risk is equal to one extra fatality for every 2.3
million years of plant operation.
If a more severe accident occurred, releasing radiation into the
open air, MOX could cause 8 percent more fatalities within 50
miles of the plant. About 17,700 would die immediately or later
by cancer, the Department of Energy estimated, compared with
about 16,400 with the uranium fuel already in use. No U.S.
nuclear plant has ever experienced such an accident.
Edwin Lyman, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists,
believes the study underestimated MOX's dangers. Lyman, whose
group opposes policies that could spread nuclear weapons,
believes 11 percent to 30 percent more deaths could result from
such an accident.
"It's clear that some of these (fuel) differences aren't so
minor," Lyman said. "I've been looking at them for many years,
and I don't believe there's enough experience with MOX to
resolve them."
Catawba and McGuire are particularly ill-suited to use MOX,
Lyman contends.
A 2000 study for the NRC concluded that nuclear plants designed
like Catawba and McGuire are substantially more likely to fail
in certain types of accidents. Both plants would use ice to
condense escaping radioactive steam, relieving internal
pressure. But their outer shells of concrete and steel aren't
designed to withstand the same pressures as most other U.S.
plants, which rely solely on stronger shells.
"Those ice condensers are still as dangerous as they were in
2000," Lyman said.
Nesbit, Duke's project manager, said the company never accepted
the report's finding because it was based on overly pessimistic
assumptions. The NRC has said the plants' risks remain within
safe boundaries.
If Duke expands its MOX use, fuel shipments to Catawba and
McGuire would contain enough weapons material for thousands of
nuclear bombs.
Critics say trucking plutonium to and from the fuel-making
facility at the Savannah River Site, about 135 miles south of
Charlotte, invites terrorism. The test fuel was made in France.
A secretive federal agency that says it has logged 1.6 million
miles successfully hauling nuclear material around the country
will truck the fuel to Duke's plants.
MOX's low plutonium concentration, packaged inside 1,500-pound
fuel assemblies, doesn't make it an inviting terrorist target,
the NRC says.
MOX makes environmental sense because it recycles plutonium that
had already been created when conventional fuel was burned, said
Rosa Yang of the Electric Power Research Institute, an industry
research center.
"You would hope that Duke would quickly use up this material so
it doesn't fall into the wrong hands," she said. "I find it
strange for people to be against it."
---
© 2005, The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.).
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
*****************************************************************
34 NIRS: In the Event That a Nuclear Melt Down Coincides with Electric Grid Failure
Entire Siren Systems Won't Work In Emergency Planning Zones for
28 U.S. Reactor Sites - NIRS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 25, 2005
CONTACT Paul Gunter, NIRS 202-328-0002
In the Event That a Nuclear Melt Down Coincides with Electric
Grid Failure Entire Siren Systems Won't Work In Emergency
Planning Zones for 28 U.S. Reactor Sites
Washington, DC ¬- In the event of a simultaneous accident where
the nuclear power station melts down at the same time the main
power lines fail, the emergency siren system for the entire
emergency planning zone will lose power and not be operable to
alert the surrounding populations to an approaching radioactive
cloud. In response to a petition filed by Nuclear Information
and Resource Service (NIRS) and 16 other organizations and local
governments, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
revealed that 28 reactor emergency plan zone siren systems are
entirely reliant upon electricity from their regional grid.
Another 18 sites have only partial emergency power backup
available to siren systems. Only 17 reactor sites have siren
systems that are fully backed up with emergency power systems so
that they would remain operable independent of the failure of
main power lines. The Department of Homeland Security /Federal
Emergency Management Agency have been engaged in revising public
notification systems since the August 14, 2003 northeast
regional electricity blackout but no date for completion is
available. The information was contained in a NRC denial issued
May 20, 2005 of an emergency enforcement petition submitted on
February 23, 2005 requesting that emergency back up power
supplies (rechargeable batteries preferably on photovoltaic
solar panels) be back fitted to all public alert systems around
the nation's nuclear power stations. The NRC released a list
specifying reactors sites without power back up, partial back up
and full back up, today.
\\\"These siren systems would not have worked from day one if
the grid failed the same time these reactors melted down,\\\"
said Paul Gunter, Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for
Washington, DC-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
\\\"NRC is saying that public safety can wait on bureaucratic
foot dragging that can leave communities not only in the dark
but without emergency notification if there is a nuclear melt
down,\\\" he said. "The seventeen sites that have emergency
power for all their sirens is enough to demonstrate that it can
and should be done for all of the reactor sites, today," Gunter
said.
The petition documents that grid failures as the result of
lightning, hurricanes, ice storms, earthquakes as well as
mechanical failures in the electricity distribution system
routinely cause a loss of power to community alerting systems
around nuclear power stations. The loss of offsite power
significantly increases the risk of a core melt accident because
of reduced safety systems. Typically, NRC mock terrorist attack
tests at reactor sites begin with the assumption that the main
power lines are taken down.
In its denial NRC argued that it is inappropriate for affected
communities to take up the request for back up power for sirens
under the agency\\\'s emergency enforcement petition process.
Instead, NRC determined that a request for back fitting the
nuclear industry with emergency power for its siren systems
should go through NRC\\\'s petition for rule making, a
bureaucratic process typically involving two years of
deliberations. NRC claims it does not want to duplicate efforts
of the DHS/FEMA to revise guidance on outdoor warning and mass
notification systems as directed by the House Committee on
Appropriations following the August 14, 2003 blackout.
NRC does not dispute the fact that many siren systems around
nuclear power stations will fail in the event of a radiological
release coinciding with a power blackout. The NRC and nuclear
industry\\\'s current fall back position is to rely upon
\\\"local route notifications\\\" where first responders (police
and fire departments, etc.) get into emergency vehicles and
communicate instructions through bull horns while traveling
through neighborhoods within the ten-mile emergency planning
zone.
\\\"It\\\'s absurd to suggest that with an approaching
radioactive cloud an already overburdened police or fire
department driving around neighborhoods with bull horns or along
roads, some possibly impassible, can adequately compensate for
deliberately leaving these sirens inoperable,\\\" said Gunter.
"NRC has sole jurisdiction to require reactor operators to back
fit the emergency notification system for the emergency planning
zone," said Gunter. "It is the responsibility of reactor
operator to demonstrate and maintain its emergency notification
system to work," Gunter concluded. NIRS is aware that Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D/NY) plans to raise this issue before
the Senate Environment and Public Works Oversight Hearing of the
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission scheduled for
Thursday, May 26, 2005 -30-
To view the February 23, 2005 Emergency Enforcement Petition and
a list of known nuclear power stations with emergency planning
zone siren failures go to:
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/ep2206petitionsirens02
232005.pdfFor a copy of the NRC May 18, 2005 Director's Decision
denying the Emergency Enforcement Petition please contact NIRS.
A copy of the NRC list of reactor sites with no back up power,
partial back up power and full back up power to emergency
notification systems is attached.
Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 25, 2005
1.Sites with backup power to all sirens
Millstone Pilgrim Seabrook Crystal River Farley St. Lucie Turkey
Point Vogtle Fermi Monticello Palisades Perry Prairie Island
Callaway River Bend Columbia Waterford
2.Sites with backup power to some sirens
Three Mile Island Shearon Harris North Anna Surry Braidwood Byron
Cook Dresden Duane Arnold LaSalle Quad Cities Comanche Peak
Arkansas Nuclear One Diablo Canyon Cooper Palo Verde San Onofre
South Texas
3.Sites without backup power to any sirens
Beaver Valley Calvert Cliffs Fitzpatrick/Nine Mile Point Ginna
Indian Point Limerick Oyster Creek Peach Bottom Salem/Hope Creek
Susquehanna Vermont Yankee Browns Ferry Brunswick Catawba McGuire
Oconee Robinson Sequoyah Summer Watts Bar Clinton Davis-Besse
Kewaunee Point Beach Fort Calhoun Grand Gulf Wolf Creek
Note: Hatch nuclear power station in Georgia does not utilize a
siren system within its emergency planning zone but a
distributed tone alert system.
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: NRC Publishes Licensing, Inspection and Annual Fees for Fiscal Year 2005
News Release - 2005-08
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 05-085 May 25, 2005
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to
reflect the licensing, inspection and annual fees it will charge
applicants and licensees for fiscal year (FY) 2005.
The agency is required by Congress to recover for the Treasury
nearly all of its annual appropriated budget through two types
of fees. One is for specific NRC services, such as licensing and
inspection activities, that apply to a specific license; this
fee is calculated using an hourly rate. The other is an annual
fee paid by all licensees, which recovers generic regulatory
expenses and other costs not recovered through fees for specific
services. These fees are contained in NRC regulations 10 CFR
Part 170 (fees for licensing and inspection services) and 10 CFR
Part 171 (annual fees). These fees are paid to the U.S. Treasury
and go into the general fund.
By law, the NRC must recover 90 percent of its budget for FY
2005 (Oct. 1, 2004 - Sept. 30, 2005) from fees, less the amount
($68.5 million) appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund for
high-level waste activities. The total amount to be recovered in
FY 2005 is $540.7 million, about $4.6 million less than last
year, when the mandate was to recover 92 percent of the agencys
budget. After accounting for carryover and billing adjustments,
the net amount to be recovered is approximately $538 million.
Under the final rule, the hourly rates used to assess Part 170
fees will change to allow the funds recovered to reflect more
accurately the resources NRC expends providing licensee-specific
services. The final rule also reflects higher salaries and
benefits resulting from the Government-wide pay raise. The new
hourly rates are $205 for the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and
$197 for the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program. Fees
not recovered under Part 170 will still be recovered under Part
171 to collect the 90 percent of the budget for FY 2005.
Instead of an across-the-board percentage increase, annual fees
for FY 2005 have been determined under the re-baselining method.
This method reflects NRC budget changes for certain classes of
licensees. Re-baselining fees will result in decreased annual
fees compared to FY 2004 for five classes of licenses (power
reactors, test and research reactors, spent fuel storage/reactor
decommissioning, rare earth mills, and transportation), and
increased annual fees for two classes (fuel facilities and
uranium recovery). Most materials users will have increased
annual fees.
The final FY 2005 annual fees include the following:
Class/category of licenses FY 2005 Annual fee
Operating Power Reactors (including Spent Fuel
Storage/Reactor Decommissioning annual fee)
$3,155,000
Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Decommissioning $159,000
Test and Research Reactors (Nonpower Reactors)
$59,500
High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility $5,449,000
Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility $1,632,000
UF6 Conversion Facility $699,000
Rare Earth Mills $73,700
Transportation:
Users/Fabricators $80,900
Users Only $4,300
Typical Materials Users:
Radiographers $12,800
Well Loggers $4,100
Gauge Users (Category 3P) $2,500
The final rule was published today in the Federal Register, and
becomes effective July 25. A proposed rule on this subject was
published February 22, with a request for public comment. The
agency received 16 comments, which are summarized, along with
the agency's responses, in the final rule Federal Register
notice.
Last revised Friday, May 27, 2005
*****************************************************************
36 newsobserver.com: Report: Some risk at N-plant
Modified: May 27, 2005 3:25 AM
By WADE RAWLINS, Staff Writer
A draft federal report analyzing the risk of a power failure at
a nuclear reactor causing core damage ranked Progress Energy's
Harris nuclear plant at the top of the list, though the risk
remains low.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized an updated study
of nuclear plant risk from a blackout. The study was authorized
after a massive power outage in August 2003 darkened the Midwest
and Northeast and caused nine nuclear plants to lose power.
The study, by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, considered total loss of power at 103 nuclear
reactors because of electrical grid blackouts coupled with
failure of the plants' backup emergency diesel generators.
The study said the potential for a blackout causing core damage
at the southern Wake County plant is one in about 61,000 years,
said Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. The Washington-based nonprofit agency
advocates on energy and environmental issues.
Core damage means that the metal tubes holding the fuel are
breached and start releasing radioactivity -- though not
necessarily into the atmosphere.
The reactor vessel, which holds the fuel rods, and the concrete
containment dome also would have to be ruptured before
radioactivity actually escaped.
"Right now, the threat is at a higher risk than it should be,"
said Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union for
Concerned Scientists. "If I lived five miles from the plant, I
wouldn't pack up my family and head out. But I would want to get
the plant fixed so that that problem never occurred."
Rick Kimble, a spokesman for Progress Energy, said the report
was a still a draft and the utility had not seen it.
"We've got some guys who are going through the report," he
said. "Until we do that, we are not going to comment."
At nuclear plants overall, the study said that the risk of core
damage from loss of power was lower than previous estimates,
generally due to better emergency generator performance.
Lochbaum said Harris ranked high in risk because the plant has
fewer backup diesel generators than some plants, and a generator
can be out of service for longer periods -- up to 14 days.
Lochbaum said the risk factor could be lowered simply by not
keeping backup generators down during seasons of unstable
weather, such as hurricane season, when there is a greater
likelihood of power outage.
Lochbaum and NC WARN, a Durham-based grass-roots nuclear
watchdog group, cited the NRC blackout study and unresolved fire
and equipment safety issues common at many nuclear plants,
including Harris, to argue that no new nuclear reactor should be
built.
"We need to solve the problems, and the oversight problems that
allowed them to occur, before discussing new reactors," Lochbaum
said.
Progress has not committed to building a nuclear plant but
estimated that it will need additional power generating capacity
by 2017. Based on that timetable, the utility would need to
start building a plant in about 2010, Kimble said. It has not
announced whether it would be coal-fired, nuclear or another
technology.
Progress Energy has joined a consortium of about a dozen
utilities that filed a proposal with the Department of Energy to
share the cost of preparing a licensing application to get a new
nuclear plant under construction by 2010.
Staff writer Wade Rawlins can be reached at 829-4528 or
wrawlins@newsobserver.com.
© Copyright 2005, The News &Observer Publishing Company
A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company
newsobserver.com
*****************************************************************
37 Interfax: Chernobyl plant denies accident has occurred
Interfax.com Text version Site map
May 27 2005 4:17PM
KYIV. May 27 (Interfax) - The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant has
denied allegations in the media that an accident has occurred at
the plant.
"The controlled parameters of the Shelter facility are within
limits set by the technological regulations," the plant's public
relations department said in reference to a concrete encasement
built over the Chernobyl unit that in 1986 became the scene of
the world's worst ever nuclear accident.
"No transgression of the control levels of the parameters of the
state of the Shelter facility has been recorded," the department
said.
It said radiation had stayed at an average of 70 microroentgens
per hour this week in the area of the plant's management
premises and at 1.51 milliroentgens per hour in the area of
Shelter's sighting pavilion.
The department said routine maintenance operations were in
progress at Shelter.
The plant is a state enterprise.
© 1991-2005 Interfax
All rights reserved
News and other data on this web site are provided for
information purposes only, and are not intended for
republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution
of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Interfax.
*****************************************************************
38 Hampton Union: Congressmen question NRC
Fri. May 27, 2005
By Susan Morse smorse@seacoastonline.com
SEABROOK - Two Massachusetts members of Congress have written a
letter to federal regulators about alleged security problems and
overtime violations at the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant.
Democrats Edward Markey and John Tierney asked the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission numerous questions about claims that an
intruder detection system wasn’t installed correctly and did not
work, and that the plant forced security guards to work overtime
to compensate.
"If these allegations are true, they represent a significant
homeland security lapse at the Seabrook nuclear power plant,
which the licensee appears to be compensating for by creating an
overworked, overtired and consequently less effective security
guard force," Markey and Tierney wrote in a letter to NRC
Chairman Nils Diaz.
On Tuesday, it was reported in The Hampton Union and Portsmouth
Herald that, based on an internal Seabrook Station document, the
NRC had indeed found flaws in the intruder detection system and
and declared it "inoperable."
Plant spokesman Alan Griffith said federal law prohibits him
from discussing safety issues, but he said "at no time has
Seabrook ever been in a position that it can’t protect public
health and safety." He added that the plant’s safety systems
"are multilayered and not isolated to any one system."
He admitted, however, that a a component of the security system
"was not operating the way we wanted it to" during a test.
And he called the overtime allegation "completely erroneous. We
have no idea where Markey is getting this."
Markey received the information from a Seabrook employee,
according to the letter.
Sandra Gavutis, executive director of nuclear watchdog group
C-10 in Newburyport, said the organization has heard about "a
lot of burnout and discontent among the guards" from
whistleblowers.
She said the public is given little information from the plant,
particularly since the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Since 9/11, when information like this comes to the public it
just makes us that more skeptical," she said. "It’s a breach in
the trust of the plant. They keep saying, ‘be assured, we’re as
concerned about safety as you are.’ This didn’t come from the
plant, it came from a whistleblower.
"It’s a real lapse of security, there should be real concerns,"
said Gavutis, "the installer, the NRC, the utility have fallen
short in protecting our safety."
Tierney represents Newburyport, where C-10 is located.
Gavutis said whistleblowers who come to C-10 are referred to
either Markey or Tierney.
Seabrook town officials expressed no real alarm at the alleged
lack of security at the plant.
"It really didn’t cause me any concern," said Fire Chief Jeff
Brown. "I expect they’re professionals at what they do."
"I just feel the agencies responsible will take care of this,"
said Selectwoman Cora Stockbridge. "I have faith they will take
care of it."
Town Manager Fred Welch said on Wednesday he had not been in
contact with plant officials concerning the alleged security
breach.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency does not comment on
security matters.
"If there is a security issue that is raised with us, we will
certainly take a close look at it and respond accordingly," he
said.
Seabrook Station unveiled the $14 million in security upgrades,
including the intruder detection system, last fall. The upgrades
were mandated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2003, with
a completion date of this Oct. 29.
The NRC required enhancements to the physical structure,
training and employee qualifications and a contingency plan,
leaving the implementation up to the individual plants.
The $14 million for the new security measures was paid by
Seabrook’s owners, FPL Energy Seabrook Station, part of FPL
Group, which also includes the subsidiary, Florida Power &Light.
- Information from The Associated Press was used in this story.
Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Newspapers.
Copyright © 2005 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please
*****************************************************************
39 toledoblade.com: Keep leash on Davis-Besse
"> Opinion » "> Editorials »
Article published Friday, May 27, 2005
OFFICIALS of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission insist
they aren't loosening the leash on the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Plant, but disbanding the agency's special oversight panel sure
makes it look that way.
The three-year-old panel, which held its final meeting Tuesday,
was supposed to keep close watch over operations of the Ottawa
County facility for three to five years, or so NRC chairman Nils
Diaz indicated in March, 2004.
Now, however, the panel is giving up the ghost, barely a month
after the NRC levied a record $5.45 million fine against
FirstEnergy Corp., the plant's owner, for safety lapses that led
to a brush with meltdown in 2002.
A troubling history of safety concerns with Davis-Besse since it
opened in 1977, and the NRC's own sometimes laissez faire
attitude toward regulation, together suggest that more oversight
is due, not less.
The NRC promised to keep Davis-Besse under close scrutiny as it
was restarted last year, which makes early dissolution of the
special panel all the more questionable.
Just six months ago, NRC officials were still expressing concern
that while FirstEnergy had improved its operation of the plant
to the "adequate" level, the utility still had a long way to go.
Three months ago, the NRC said a poor workplace atmosphere at
the plant remained an obstacle to proper operation.
Then in late April came the $5.45 million fine for allowing
corrosion to eat dangerously into the plant's steel reactor head
in 2002, a situation the NRC characterized as the nation's
closest brush with a meltdown since Three Mile Island in 1979.
The fine was followed two weeks ago by yet another safety
citation, this time for a computer problem that rendered
emergency notification sirens near the plant inoperable for a
month in 2004.
An NRC spokesman says that disbanding the oversight panel does
not mean operation of Davis-Besse is "perfect. It just means
that the plant is on the right track."
To those who live and work in northwest Ohio, such statements
are less than reassuring. Even though this newspaper has
supported nuclear power in general and Davis-Besse specifically
over the years, we recognize that to be safe a nuclear power
plant must indeed be pretty much perfect in its design,
construction, and operation.
It does not make much sense, therefore, to disband the safety
panel, especially when all the problems arising from the plant's
two-year shutdown apparently have not been entirely resolved.
Davis-Besse operated safely and efficiently for a long period in
the 1990s. It's up to the NRC and FirstEnergy, to ensure that
that promise is fulfilled once again.
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
40 NRC: NPF-73]
FR Doc E5-2687
[Federal Register: May 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 102)]
[Notices] [Page 30819] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27my05-101]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Receipt of Request
for Action Under 10 CFR 2.2206 Notice is hereby given that by
petition dated April 12, 2005, Mr. David Lochbaum of the Union of
Concerned Scientists requested that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) take action with regard to Beaver Valley Power
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner requests that the NRC
take enforcement action against FENOC and impose a civil penalty
of at least $55,000.
As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that the
licensee's February 9, 2005, license renewal submittal was not
complete and accurate in all material respects and that this is a
violation of 10 CFR 50.9, paragraph (a) which requires in part,
that information provided to the Commission by a licensee shall
be complete and accurate in all material respects.
The petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the
Commission's regulations. The petition has been referred to the
Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided
by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this
petition within a reasonable time. Mr. Lochbaum declined to meet
with or participate in a telephone conference with the Petition
Review Board on this matter stating that all pertinent facts were
contained within his petition. Copies of the petition are
available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (Accession No.
ML051100297). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of May 2005.
J. E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-2687 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
41 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
FR Doc E5-2688
[Federal Register: May 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 102)]
[Notices] [Page 30819-30820] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27my05-102]
Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section
IlI.G.1.a for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27,
issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), the licensee,
for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1
and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R,
Section III.G.1.a as it applies to the PBNP, Unit 1 auxiliary and
turbine buildings; and the PBNP, Unit 2 auxiliary and turbine
buildings, and the control building. The exemption requested is
from the requirement that, ``one train of systems necessary to
achieve and maintain hot shutdown from either the control room or
emergency control station(s) is free of fire damage,'' as it
applies to the PBNP, Unit 1 auxiliary and turbine buildings; the
PBNP, Unit 2 auxiliary and turbine buildings, and the control
building. Specifically, NMC has asked for a repair consisting of
powering a dedicated air compressor from one of two pre-planned
480 volt power sources using pre-staged power cords and
connecting the air compressor to nitrogen bottle manifolds on one
or both reactor units using pre-staged pneumatic hose with quick
connect fittings. The repair would be required no earlier than 8
hours into an event in which instrument air is disabled.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated March 5, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated
November 8, 2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action Appendix R, Section Ill.G.1.a of
10 CFR Part 50 requires that, ``one train of systems necessary to
achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions from either the
control room or emergency control station(s) is free of fire
damage.'' Appendix R, Section Ill.L.1 of 10 CFR Part 50 requires
that an alternative or dedicated shutdown capability shall be
able to, among other things, ``(c) achieve and maintain hot
standby conditions for a pressurized water reactor (PWR)''; and
``(d) achieve cold shutdown conditions within 72 hours.'' NRC
Inspection Report 50- 266/2003-007; 50-301/2003-007, dated
February 4, 2004, documents a Non- Cited Violation of Appendix R,
Section III.L.1.c, in that NMC, ``failed to ensure, without the
need for 'hot standby repairs,' adequate control air to the speed
controllers for the charging pumps during a postulated fire
requiring an alternative shutdown method.'' The installed backup
nitrogen gas bottle bank (for the charging pump speed
controllers) meets the requirements of the regulation, with the
exception that it is of limited capacity. This means that the hot
shutdown conditions could not be maintained indefinitely while
relying only on the installed bottle bank. However, the 8 to 14
hour capacity of the bottle banks is
[[Page 30820]] ample time to extinguish the fire, achieve stable
plant conditions in hot shutdown, augment staff with personnel
from the emergency response organization, and connect dedicated
power cabling and hoses to the dedicated compressor using the
furnished plugs and quick connect fittings (i.e., no tools
required). Because the bottle banks, hoses, cables, and
compressor are all located in areas that would not be affected by
the fires of concern, none would be damaged. Thus, the proposed
exemption is fully consistent with the intent of the applicable
sections of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, and literal compliance is
not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rules.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has
completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the level of
fire safety provided is equivalent to the technical requirements
of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R, Section IlI.G.1.a. As such, the
requested exemption does not pose an undue risk to the health and
safety of the public.
The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided
in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the regulation.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being
made in the types of effluents that may be released off site.
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent
released off site. There is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant
non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff
considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action''
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use
of any different resources than those previously considered in
the Final Environmental Statement for the Point Beach Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated
policy, on April 4, 2005, the NRC staff consulted with the
Wisconsin State official, Jeffery Kitsembel of the Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin, regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the
environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated March 5, 2004, as supplemented by letter
dated November 8, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd
day of May, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Harold K. Chernoff, Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-2688 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the
FR Doc E5-2689
[Federal Register: May 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 102)]
[Notices] [Page 30818-30819] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27my05-100]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of
public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the
following proposal for the collection of information under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Extension.
2. The title of the information collection: Design Information
Questionnaire--IAEA--N-71 and associated Forms N-72, N-73, N-74,
N-75, N-91, N-92, N-93, N-94.
3. The form number if applicable: IAEA Form N-71 and associated
Forms N-72, N-73, N-74, N-75, N-91, N-92, N-93, N-94.
4. How often the collection is required: Approximately 1 time
annually.
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Licensees of
facilities on the U.S. eligible list who have been notified in
writing by the Commission to submit the form.
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 1. 7. The
estimated number of annual respondents: 1. 8. An estimate of the
total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement
or request: 360 reporting hours (360 hours per response).
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13
applies: N/A.
10. Abstract: Licensees of facilities that appear on the U.S.
eligible list, pursuant to the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement, and
who have been notified in writing by the Commission, are required
to complete and submit a Design Information Questionnaire, IAEA
Form N-71 (and the appropriate associated IAEA Form) or Form
N-91, to provide information concerning their installation for
use of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of
charge
[[Page 30819]] at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852.
OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web
site:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days
after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer
listed below by June 27, 2005. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this
date. John Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(3150-0056), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@ombeop.gov or
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of May, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E5-2689 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
43 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of U.S.
FR Doc E5-2690
[Federal Register: May 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 102)]
[Notices] [Page 30820-30821] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27my05-103]
Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository:
Pre-Application Matters) May 23, 2005.
Before Administrative Judges: Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Alex S.
Karlin Alan S. Rosenthal. Order The Pre-License Application
Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board held its second case management
conference in this proceeding on May 18, 2005. The Department of
Energy (DOE), the NRC Staff, the State of Nevada (State), the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and the Nuclear Information and
Research Service (NIRS) attended the conference.
During this meeting the Board heard discussion on a written
request, filed by DOE on May 12, 2005, that the Board establish
uniform requirements for the retention of e-mails and other
documents that constitute or may constitute documentary material
as defined in 10 CFR 2.1001. DOE suggested that document
retention requirements should be part of the procedures required
under 10 CFR 2.1009, and that participation as a party in this
proceeding requires substantial compliance with such procedures
under 10 CFR 2.1012(b). DOE, the NRC Staff, the State, and NIRS
participated in the discussion of this proposal.
Upon consideration of this matter, and hearing no objection from
any of the participants during the May 18, 2005 conference, the
Board agreed that the matter warranted further consideration and
attention. The Board is concerned that, absent a uniform
procedure prescribed by a case management order, some of the
current participants, as well as other potential parties, might
not have timely instituted documentary material retention
policies or been aware of the need to adopt and follow retention
policies for such material. The development and specification at
this time of reasonable uniform documentary material retention
procedures should enable all current participants and potential
parties to avoid unnecessary burdens and expense.
Accordingly, the Board orders the participants attending the
second case management conference to meet and to confer for the
purpose of developing a joint proposed minimum acceptable
[[Page 30821]] standard of documentary material retention for
this proceeding.
The joint proposal shall be submitted to the Board by July 1,
2005.
In the event the participants cannot agree on a joint proposal,
then DOE, the NRC Staff, and the State each shall submit by that
date their respective, individual proposals. All other potential
parties are encouraged to participate in the meeting with DOE,
the State, and the NRC Staff and to contribute to the discussion
and proposed resolution of these issues. If agreement is not
possible, NEI, NIRS, or any other participating potential party
may submit an independent proposal to the Board by July 1, 2005.
Any potential party may submit comments on the proposals of any
other potential party by July 8, 2005.
At the second case management conference, counsel for DOE offered
to host the meeting of the participants and potential
participants. All of the participants agreed that the meeting
should be held on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 10 a.m., EDT, in
the main conference room of the law firm of Hunton & Williams
(counsel for DOE), 1900 K Street, NW., 12th floor, Washington,
DC. Any person desiring to participate in the meeting and
discussion of this issue should provide telephone or e- mail
notice, not later than 5 p.m. EDT, June 8, 2005, to counsel for
DOE via Ms. Belinda Wright, telephone 804-788-8581, e-mail
bwright@hunton.com. Such notice shall contain the following
information: (a) Name of person desiring to attend; (b)
organizational affiliation, if any; (c) daytime phone number; (d)
e-mail address; (e) mailing address; and (f) statement as to
whether the person intends to participate in person, or desires
to participate remotely in the event that electronic facilities
can be made available.
DOE, the State, NRC Staff, NEI, and NIRS are strongly encouraged,
through appropriate notices on their respective web sites, and
other reasonable methods, to inform the public, their
stakeholders, and any other interested persons or entities of the
proposal to develop uniform procedures, applicable to all
potential parties, concerning the retention of e-mails and other
documents.
It is so Ordered.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, on May 23, 2005.
For the Pre-license Application Presiding Officer Board.
Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. E5-2690 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
44 Environment Colorado: Nuclear Power Not Needed to Reduce Global Warming Emissions
For Immediate Release:
May 27, 2005 For More Information: Matthew Garrington (303)
573-3871, x310
DENVER—With Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman introducing a
new global warming bill late yesterday afternoon that includes
incentives for nuclear power, Environment Colorado voiced its
extreme disappointment and announced that it opposes the bill.
“Global warming is the most serious environmental threat facing
the planet today. We can significantly reduce global warming
pollution and save consumers money by increasing energy
efficiency and shifting to clean renewable sources of energy,”
stated Matthew Garrington, Field Organizer for Environment
Colorado.
Environment Colorado had supported the previous version of the
bill, the Climate Stewardship Act (S.342), as a good first step
in meeting this challenge. The bill would cap global warming
emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.
The bill introduced today, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation
Act, includes more than $5 billion in federal subsidies for new
nuclear power plants. The bill provides a wide range of
subsidies, including subsidies for engineering and design costs,
loans and loan guarantees for building new plants, and direct
financial awards for new projects. The bill also includes
extensive subsidies for new coal plants.
“There is no need to jeopardize our health, safety, and economy
with increased nuclear power when we have cleaner, cheaper, and
safer solutions to reduce global warming pollution,” said
Garrington.
Garrington noted that we can meet our future electricity needs
and reduce global warming pollution far beyond the goals in the
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act without increasing our
reliance on nuclear power. For example, a 2004 study by Synapse
Energy Economics found that America could reduce its emissions of
carbon dioxide from electricity generation by 47 percent by 2025
compared to business as usual and meet projected electricity
demand, while saving $36 billion annually in electricity costs
and cutting our reliance on nuclear power by nearly half.
“We continue to support the original Climate Stewardship Act, as
a good first step in tackling the challenge of global warming. We
do not support this new bill, which adds expensive and
unnecessary subsidies for dangerous nuclear power plants,” said
Garrington.
Environment Colorado is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide
environmental advocacy organization.
Denver: 1536 Wynkoop St., First Floor, Suite 100, Denver, Co
80202 • Phone: (303) 573-3871 • Fax: (303) 573-3780
*****************************************************************
45 Public Citizen: New Nuclear Reactor in Illinois Is Unnecessary,
Would Burden Community More Than Benefit It
May 26, 2005
Environmental Study Dismisses Potential of Alternative,
Renewable Energy Sources While Underestimating Impacts of
Nuclear Power
WASHINGTON, D.C. Building more nuclear reactors at the
existing Clinton site poses far more risks than benefits to
Illinois residents, and the energy company seeking an early site
permit for the reactors should be denied, Public Citizen said
today.
In comments filed late yesterday with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to the federal agencys
legally required environmental evaluation of nuclear operator
Exelons plans for an additional reactor or reactors at its
Clinton Power Station in DeWitt County, the watchdog group
criticized the NRC for failing to evaluate the full breadth of
impacts from a new nuclear power source.
Illinois-based Exelon has applied for a site permit, which would
allow the company to bank the site for 20 years, during which
time it can choose a reactor type and apply for a combined
construction and operating license.
A new reactor in Clinton is unnecessary, unsafe and expensive,
said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizens Critical Mass
Energy and Environment Program. Nuclear power is not a good
deal for the residents of Clinton and its not a good deal for
the American people.
Among the most pressing concerns cited by Public Citizen is how
the additional nuclear capacity would affect the health and
vitality of Clinton Lake. The Clinton nuclear reactor relies on
water from the lake to cool it, but additional generation
capacity would require more water and may overtax and deplete
the lake, especially in drought years when water levels are low.
Such overuse may force the plant to shut down, since the loss of
coolant is a serious safety problem that could lead to meltdown,
and could make the lake less desirable as a source of recreation
due to high water temperatures. The precise impact is unclear,
since neither Exelon nor NRC has done a full analysis of how a
new reactor would affect the lake temperature.
Although we found plenty of issues that should prohibit the
granting of a siting permit for a new reactor, this
environmental review is mostly notable for what it doesnt
address, said Brendan Hoffman, an organizer for Public
Citizens energy program. We feel that the early site permit
process is designed to give the appearance that important
problems are being considered and resolved, when the difficult
questions are simply postponed or ignored altogether.
The NRCs environmental impact statement also fails to evaluate
the security threat of indefinitely storing onsite the
additional nuclear waste that would be generated by the proposed
new nuclear unit. Another nuclear reactor at Clinton could
create 20 to 30 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste
annually. To date, there is no feasible solution to safely and
permanently dispose of this waste, which must cool onsite for
five years before it can be moved. Moreover, the environmental
impact statement does not adequately consider the possibility
and consequences of severe accident scenarios resulting from the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel, Public Citizen said.
NRC regulations do not require consideration of the need for the
plant, and a detailed consideration of need is absent from the
agencys impact statement.
Federal law does require a consideration of alternative energy
sources, but the NRCs review dismisses renewable energy as an
alternative source of power, saying that such sources are not
environmentally preferable to nuclear power despite
acknowledging that Illinois has the untapped potential to
produce as much electricity from wind as from nine additional
nuclear reactors.
These early site permits are costing taxpayers millions of
dollars because the government has subsidized the process to
encourage big energy companies to invest in nuclear power, said
Hoffman. We should be investing in renewable and energy
efficient technologies, not 20th century technologies that
suffer from the same fatal flaws now as they have for the past
50 years.
Taxpayers are helping out Exelon they foot half the bill for
license applications. Yet Exelon is not a very good corporate
citizen in return. Because it has taken advantage of new
electricity deregulation rules, its property tax payments have
declined from 80 percent of DeWitt Countys total property tax
revenue in 1996 to 53 percent in 2002. This resulted in an
annual revenue loss of $8.8 million to the county; local
officials report that their economy has reached bottom, and
Clinton School District 15 has been forced to cut its budget by
$3 million and spend reserves over the past several years.
Public Citizen
*****************************************************************
46 IAEA: Nuclear Weapons Grade Material Removed from Latvia
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
IAEA, US and Russia Remove Fresh Highly Enriched Uranium
Staff Report
26 May 2005 [Safeguards Inspectors]
Agency safeguards inspectors measure and verify the declared
highly enriched uranium. (Photo credit P. Pavlicek/IAEA)
+ Story Resources
+ Highly Enriched Uranium Repatriated from Latvia, NNSA News
[pdf]
+ IAEA & Research Reactors
+ US Department of Energy
+ GTRI Background
+ IAEA Safeguards
+ IAEA Technical Cooperation
+ Nuclear Fuel Take Back Programmes
The IAEA has helped Latvian authorities remove weapons grade
material from a shutdown research reactor in Salaspils, close to
the capital Riga.
On 25 May 2005, about three kilograms of fresh highly enriched
uranium (HEU) was safely airlifted back to Russia, which had
originally supplied the fissile material to fuel the Latvian
research reactor. Although this amount is less than what is
needed to build a nuclear bomb it still requires stringent
security arrangements to ensure its safety, and guard against
terrorist acts.
Dr. Andris Abramenkovs, Director of BAPA - Latvia´s Hazardous
Waste Management State Agency - says the fuel is obsolete since
the reactor is under decommissioning.
"Such materials must be stored in safe conditions, with very
expensive security arrangements for a very small amount of
fuel." The fuel is a legacy from the Soviet past, Dr.
Abramenkovs said, and so it must be sent back to the origin
country.
The nuclear fuel was airlifted under guard from an airport near
Riga to a secure facility, NPO Luch, in Podol´sk, Russia. There,
the HEU will be blended down to make it unsuitable for use in a
nuclear weapon.
The mission was a joint effort between Latvia, the Russian
Federation, the United States, and the IAEA. It was carried out
under the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, funded by the US.
The IAEA facilitated the contracts for the shipment to take
place.
IAEA safeguards inspectors were present to monitor the mission.
They measured and verified the declared HEU, before it was
loaded onto two specialised transportation containers, and
sealed. Technical experts from the US National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) and the Russian Federation also monitored
the operation.
The facility in Russia that received the HEU has worked closely
with the NNSA to implement security upgrades.
Latvia´s five-megawatt research reactor was shutdown seven years
ago and is partly decommissioned. Hopes are to fully
decommission the reactor by 2010, if a similar return shipment
involving spent fuel can take place in the coming years.
Over the past two years the IAEA has supported operations in
Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Libya, Uzbekistan and
the Czech Republic to transfer fresh HEU reactor fuel back to its
country of origin. Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic
Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna,
Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7;
E-mail: Official.Mail@iaea.org Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
47 [DU-WATCH] UK is covering DU NOW
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:54:47 -0500 (CDT)
Horror of USA's Depleted Uranium in Iraq Threatens World By James
Denver Vive le Canada Friday 29 April 2005 American use of DU is
"A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians,
rank with the worst atrocities of all time." US Iraq Military Vets
"are on DU death row, waiting to die."
"I'm horrified. The people out there - the Iraqis, the media and
the troops - risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation
from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It's going to
destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We
all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl
reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the
Sahara on your car."
The speaker is not some alarmist doomsayer. He is Dr. Chris Busby,
the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool
in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European
Committee on Radiation Risk, talking about the best-kept secret of
this war: the fact that by illegally using hundreds of tons of
depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely
endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world.
For these weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic,
radioactive particles in such abundance that-whipped up by sandstorms
and carried on trade winds - there is no corner of the globe they
cannot penetrate-including Britain. For the wind has no boundaries
and time is on their side: the radioactivity persists for over
4,500,000,000 years and can cause cancer, leukemia, brain damage,
kidney failure, and extreme birth defects - killing millions of
every age for centuries to come. A crime against humanity which
may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of
all time.
These weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic,
radioactive particles in such abundance that there is no corner of
the globe they cannot penetrate - including Britain. Yet, officially,
no crime has been committed. For this story is a dirty story in
which the facts have been concealed from those who needed them most.
It is also a story we need to know if the people of Iraq are to get
the medical care they desperately need, and if our troops, returning
from Iraq, are not to suffer as terribly as the veterans of other
conflicts in which depleted uranium was used.
A Dirty Tyson 'Depleted' uranium is in many ways a misnomer.
'Depleted' sounds weak. The only weak thing about depleted uranium
is its price. It is dirt cheap, toxic, waste from nuclear power
plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earth's
heaviest elements and DU packs a Tyson's punch, smashing through
tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, spontaneously catching
fire as it does so, and burning people alive. 'Crispy critters' is
what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be close. And,
when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater distance
he wrote: "The children's skin had folded back, like parchment,
revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes,
intact, stared straight ahead. I vomited." (Daily Mirror) The
millions of radioactive uranium oxide particles released when it
burns can kill just as surely, but far more terribly. They can even
be so tiny they pass through a gas mask, making protection against
them impossible. Yet, small is not beautiful. For these invisible
killers indiscriminately attack men, women, children and even babies
in the womb-and do the gravest harm of all to children and unborn
babies.
A Terrible Legacy Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects
have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have
developed cancer and leukemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published
in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are
dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death
rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per
1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of
lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers also
increasing 'at an alarming rate.' In men, lung, bladder, bronchus,
skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women,
the highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[1] On hearing that DU had been used in the
Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy Authority sent the Ministry of
Defense a special report on the potential damage to health and the
environment. It said that it could cause half a million additional
cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the authorities
only admitted to using 320 tons of DU-although the Dutch charity
LAKA estimates the true figure is closer to 800 tons. Many times
that may have been spread across Iraq by this year's war. The
devastating damage all this DU will do to the health and fertility
of the people of Iraq now, and for generations to come, is beyond
imagining.
The radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years killing
millions of every age for centuries to come. This is a crime against
humanity which may rank with the worst atrocities of all time.
We must also count the numberless thousands of miscarried babies.
Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died in the womb since DU
contaminated their world. But it is suggested that troops who were
only exposed to DU for the brief period of the war were still
excreting uranium in their semen 8 years later and some had 100
times the so-called 'safe limit' of uranium in their urine. The
lack of government interest in the plight of veterans of the 1991
war is reflected in a lack of academic research on the impact of
DU but informal research has found a high incidence of birth defects
in their children and that the wives of men who served in Iraq have
three times more miscarriages than the wives of servicemen who did
not go there.
Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would
break a heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs,
with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors
where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or
without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly,
some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing
the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.
Doctors report that many women no longer say 'Is it a girl or a
boy?' but simply, 'Is it normal, doctor?' Moreover this terrible
legacy will not end. The genes of their parents may have been damaged
for ever, and the damaging DU dust is ever-present.
Blue on Blue What the governments of America and Britain have done
to the people of Iraq they have also done to their own soldiers,
in both wars. And they have done it knowingly. For the battlefields
have been thick with DU and soldiers have had to enter areas heavily
contaminated by bombing. Moreover, their bodies have not only been
assaulted by DU but also by a vaccination regime which violated
normal protocols, experimental vaccines, nerve agent pills, and
organophosphate pesticides in their tents. And yet, though the
hazards of DU were known, British and American troops were not
warned of its dangers. Nor were they given thorough medical checks
on their return-even though identifying it quickly might have made
it possible to remove some of it from their body. Then, when a
growing number became seriously ill, and should have been sent to
top experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, many were sent to
a psychiatrist.
Over 200,000 US troops who returned from the 1991 war are now
invalided out with ailments officially attributed to service in
Iraq-that's 1 in 3. In contrast, the British government's failure
to fully assess the health of returning troops, or to monitor their
health, means no one even knows how many have died or become gravely
ill since their return. However, Gulf veterans' associations say
that, of 40,000 or so fighting fit men and women who saw active
service, at least 572 have died prematurely since coming home and
5000 may be ill. An alarming number are thought to have taken their
own lives, unable to bear the torment of the innumerable ailments
which have combined to take away their career, their sexuality,
their ability to have normal children, and even their ability to
breathe or walk normally. As one veteran puts it, they are 'on DU
death row, waiting to die.' Whatever other factors there may be,
some of their illnesses are strikingly similar to those of Iraqis
exposed to DU dust. For example, soldiers have also fathered children
without eyes. And, in a group of eight servicemen whose babies lack
eyes seven are known to have been directly exposed to DU dust.
They too have fathered children with stunted arms, and rare
abnormalities classically associated with radiation damage. They
too seem prone to cancer and leukemia. Tellingly, so are EU soldiers
who served as peacekeepers in the Balkans, where DU was also used.
Indeed their leukemia rate has been so high that several EU governments
have protested at the use of DU.
The Vital Evidence Despite all that evidence of the harm done by
DU, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly claimed
that as it emits only 'low level' radiation DU is harmless.
Award-winning scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell who has led UN medical
commissions, has studied 'low-level' radiation for 30 years. 2 She
has found that uranium oxide particles have more than enough power
to harm cells, and describes their pulses of radiation as hitting
surrounding cells 'like flashes of lightning' again and again in a
single second.[2] Like many scientists worldwide who have studied
this type of radiation, she has found that such 'lightning strikes'
can damage DNA and cause cell mutations which lead to cancer.
Moreover, these particles can be taken up by body fluids and travel
through the body, damaging more than one organ. To compound all
that, Dr. Bertell has found that this particular type of radiation
can cause the body's communication systems to break down, leading
to malfunctions in many vital organs of the body and to many medical
problems. A striking fact, since many veterans of the first Gulf
war suffer from innumerable, seemingly unrelated, ailments.
In addition, recent research by Eric Wright, Professor of Experimental
Haematology at Dundee University, and others, have shown two ways
in which such radiation can do far more damage than has been thought.
The first is that a cell which seems unharmed by radiation can
produce cells with diverse mutations several cell generations later.
(And mutations are at the root of cancer and birth defects.) This
'radiation-induced genomic instability' is compounded by 'the
bystander effect' by which cells mutate in unison with others which
have been damaged by radiation-rather as birds swoop and turn in
unison. Put together, these two mechanisms can greatly increase the
damage done by a single source of radiation, such as a DU particle.
Moreover, it is now clear that there are marked genetic differences
in the way individuals respond to radiation-with some being far
more likely to develop cancer than others. So the fact that some
veterans of the first Gulf war seem relatively unharmed by their
exposure to DU in no way proves that DU did not damage others.
The Price of Truth That the evidence from Iraq and from our troops,
and the research findings of such experts, have been ignored may
be no accident. A US report, leaked in late 1995, allegedly says,
'The potential for health effects from DU exposure is real; however
it must be viewed in perspective... the financial implications of
long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be
excessive.'[3] Clearly, with hundreds of thousands gravely ill in
Iraq and at least a quarter of a million UK and US troops seriously
ill, huge disability claims might be made not only against the
governments of Britain and America if the harm done by DU were
acknowledged. There might also be huge claims against companies
making DU weapons and some of their directors are said to be extremely
close to the White House. How close they are to Downing Street is
a matter for speculation, but arms sales makes a considerable
contribution to British trade. So the massive whitewashing of DU
over the past 12 years, and the way that governments have failed
to test returning troops, seemed to disbelieve them, and washed
their hands of them, may be purely to save money.
The possibility that financial considerations have led the governments
of Britain and America to cynically avoid taking responsibility for
the harm they have done not only to the people of Iraq but to their
own troops may seem outlandish. Yet DU weapons weren't used by the
other side and no other explanation fits the evidence. For, in the
days before Britain and America first used DU in war its hazards
were no secret.[4] One American study in 1990 said DU was 'linked
to cancer when exposures are internal, [and to] chemical toxicity-causing
kidney damage'. While another openly warned that exposure to these
particles under battlefield conditions could lead to cancers of the
lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, neuro-cognitive
disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.[5] A Culture of
Denial In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU
weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed
them as 'weapons of mass destruction' 'incompatible with international
humanitarian and human rights law.' Since then, following leukemia
in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan
(where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons
to be banned.
Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their
denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more
troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in
the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no
coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which
84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the
lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear
Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying,
'The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about
the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.' He
concluded, 'uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation,
and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible
contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human
life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing
disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God
and to all generations who follow.' Not what the authorities wanted
to hear and his research was suddenly blocked.
During 12 years of ever-growing British whitewash the authorities
have abolished military hospitals, where there could have been
specialized research on the effects of DU and where expertise in
treating DU victims could have built up. And, not content with the
insult of suggesting the gravely disabling symptoms of Gulf veterans
are imaginary they have refused full pensions to many. For, despite
all the evidence to the contrary, the current House of Commons
briefing paper on DU hazards says 'it is judged that any radiation
effects from possible exposures are extremely unlikely to be a
contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced
by some Gulf war veterans.' Note how over a quarter of a million
sick and dying US and UK vets are called 'some.' The Way Ahead
Britain and America not only used DU in this year's Iraq war, they
dramatically increased its use-from a minimum of 320 tons in the
previous war to at minimum of 1500 tons in this one. And this time
the use of DU wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely
been in the previous Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles,
large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities.
This means that Iraq's cities have been blanketed in lethal
particles-any one of which can cause cancer or deform a child. In
addition, the use of DU in huge bombs which throw the deadly particles
higher and wider in huge plumes of smoke means that billions of
deadly particles have been carried high into the air-again and again
and again as the bombs rained down-ready to be swept worldwide by
the winds.
The Royal Society has suggested the solution is massive decontamination
in Iraq. That could only scratch the surface. For decontamination
is hugely expensive and, though it may reduce the risks in some of
the worst areas, it cannot fully remove them. For DU is too widespread
on land and water. How do you clean up every nook and cranny of a
city the size of Baghdad? How can they decontaminate a whole country
in which microscopic particles, which cannot be detected with a
normal geiger counter, are spread from border to border? And how
can they clean up all the countries downwind of Iraq-and, indeed,
the world?
So there are only two things we can do to mitigate this crime against
humanity. The first is to provide the best possible medical care
for the people of Iraq, for our returning troops and for those who
served in the last Gulf war and, through that, minimize their
suffering. The second is to relegate war, and the production and
sale of weapons, to the scrap heap of history-along with slavery
and genocide. Then, and only then, will this crime against humanity
be expunged, and the tragic deaths from this war truly bring freedom
to the people of Iraq, and of the world.
References [1] The Lancet volume 351, issue 9103, 28 February 1998.
[2] Rosalie Bertell's book Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War
was reviewed in Caduceus issue 51, page 28.
[3] TAB L_Research Report Summaries [4] The secret official memorandum
to Brigadier General L.R. Groves from Drs Conant, Compton and Urey
of War Department Manhattan district dated October 1943 is available
at the website.
[5] TAB L_Research Report Summaries Further Information The Low
Level Radiation Campaign hopes to be able to arrange a limited
number of private urine tests for those returning from the latest
Gulf war. It can be contacted at: The Knoll, Montpelier Park,
Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5LW. 01597 824771. Web: LLRC.org.
--------------------------------- James Denver writes and broadcasts
internationally on science and technology.
Dennis Kyne Support the Truth www.denniskyne.com
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo!
Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CybhMB/SOnJAA/xGEGAA/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/
*****************************************************************
48 Rocky Mountain News: Feds play coy on Flats compensation plan
Officials refuse to go on record about aid for sickened workers
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
May 27, 2005
The head of a program to compensate nuclear weapons workers
sickened on the job held a press conference Thursday - but
refused to speak on the record.
Shelby Hallmark, director of the division of the Department of
Labor that has taken over a troubled section of the compensation
program from the Department of Energy, would speak only if his
name was not used.
The same rule applied to Labor's solicitor, Howard Radzely, who
also was on the conference call about the program, which has
left thousands of sick Rocky Flats workers waiting years for
help.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao did speak on the record, but
referred questions about specifics of the program to Hallmark
and Radzely.
Federal officials often speak anonymously, even when addressing
the programs they run. The Rocky Mountain News and another news
outlet asked Hallmark and Radzely to go on the record, but Labor
spokeswoman Stephanie Cathcart refused to allow it.
Labor now runs both parts of the program that pays up to
$250,000 in compensation to workers at Rocky Flats and other
nuclear weapons plants who were sickened and sometimes died as a
result of exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals on the job.
So far, $1 billion has been paid out.
Nationwide, 47,000 sick workers have applied to the original
Labor program and 30,000 to the Department of Energy program.
Congress shifted DOE's part to Labor last year after the Energy
Department spent $95 million on paperwork while compensating
only 31 workers. DOE had no federal funding for paying workers
and instead sent them to workers compensation programs.
Since Labor has taken over the DOE's part of the program, it has
paid 430 claims. More than $3.8 million has been paid on 31
cases at Rocky Flats. Another 56 approvals are pending, out of
2,044 applications from Flats workers, Cathcart said.
Chao used the press conference to announce the publication of
regulations for the former Energy program, on the last day
before she would have missed a congressional deadline. But the
rules were still not on the agency's Web site by the end of the
work day.
Richard Miller of the watchdog group Government Accountability
Project said the Labor Department was still negotiating the
rules with budget officials at day's end.
Miller said the draft rules could bar hundreds, if not
thousands, of workers from collecting under the second part of
the program.
Progress on claims
430 claims have been paid since the Labor Department took over
the Department of Energy's part of the compensation program.
$3.8 million has been paid on 31 cases at Rocky Flats.
56 more approvals are pending out of 2,044 applications from
Flats workers.
SITE MAP PHOTO REPRINTS CORRECTIONS 2005 © The E.W. Scripps
*****************************************************************
49 DenverPost.com: Feds say Flats' workers claims will be expedited
Article Launched: 05/27/2005 02:38:16 AM
By Kim McGuire Denver Post Staff Writer
The Department of Labor will begin processing thousands of
claims filed by sick nuclear workers next week, including those
employed at Rocky Flats, officials said Thursday.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said the claims will be expedited as
the result of recent completion of new regulations that
form the
framework of a new workers' compensation program.
That program, known as Part E of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, provides medical
benefits and compensation to workers who were exposed to toxic
chemicals while working at federal facilities.
The program replaces another formerly managed by the Department
of Energy.
Last year, Congress stripped that department of its authority to
manage compensation and benefits programs after nuclear workers
said it wasn't processing claims quickly enough.
During the four years the DOE ran its program, it paid only 31
of the 25,000 claims filed.
With the Department of Labor at the helm of the new program,
more than $53 million has been paid to about 340 survivors in
the past eight months.
While labor officials were unable to say how many Rocky Flats
workers have been paid under the new program, many continue to
grow
increasingly frustrated as claims are either denied or delayed.
Staff writer Kim McGuire can be reached at 303-820-1240 or .
All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
50 Guardian Unlimited: Sick Weapons Workers to Be Compensated
[UP]
Friday May 27, 2005 9:31 PM
By HILARY ROXE
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Tens of thousands of former nuclear weapons
workers exposed to radiation and other industrial toxins at
government facilities can soon start filing for compensation.
The Labor Department's compensation program is one of two
designed to pay workers who got sick while helping to build Cold
War-era bombs or clean up the waste left behind.
``We are totally committed to ensuring that workers who are
eligible for this program receive compensation as quickly as
possible,'' Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao said before the rules
were released late Thursday night.
Earlier this year, the Labor Department began giving lump-sum
checks of $125,000 to survivors of workers who died from
job-related illnesses. So far, it has paid more than $53 million
for 430 claims.
But living workers had to wait for officials to develop a payout
formula that accounts for permanent impairments and lost wages.
Payouts in the new program are capped at $250,000, but
compensation to workers who were paid through another program is
not. The Labor Department will start processing claims within a
week, Chao said.
Most of the people covered by the program worked at facilities
in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Washington.
Critics point to several problems, including how impairments are
measured and the burden of proof required for claimants.
Congress concluded in a report on the law that the American
Medical Association Guides might not list all illnesses caused
by exposure to toxic substances, including certain mental
impairments. But the new rules say people whose illnesses can't
be assessed through the AMA Guides won't qualify for impairment
payments.
People may lose compensation ``because of a bureaucratic
determination that their illness doesn't fall into a particular
book that the Department of Labor is using,'' said Richard
Miller, a policy analyst for the Government Accountability
Project, a Washington-based watchdog group.
In their claims, workers must prove that they came in contact
with toxins while on the job at government facilities. But
Miller said the Energy Department didn't always monitor toxic
exposure, and ``in the absence of monitoring records, workers
are facing an insurmountable burden of proof.''
Congress last year gave the Labor Department authority over the
revamped compensation program after lawmakers criticized how the
Energy Department was managing it.
---
On the Net:
Labor Department: http://www.dol.gov
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
51 KRT Wire: Making sense of MOX: experts' opinions differ
| 05/27/2005 |
BY BRUCE HENDERSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
ROCK HILL, S.C. - (KRT) - How can well-versed people have
opposite views of MOX? Physicist-advocate Edwin Lyman and Duke
Power's MOX project manager, Steve Nesbit, explain:
It's all about protecting the public, says Lyman, a Ph.D.
physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
Lyman, 40, believes the nuclear industry and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission cut too many safety corners.
MOX, he says, poses unexamined safety and security risks.
Security exemptions the NRC granted Duke to conduct the MOX
tests, he believes, court disaster. But he's more worried about
use of MOX in Russia, the U.S. partner in the MOX program,
because reactors in that country aren't built to U.S. safety
standards.
"If you don't do it right," Lyman said, "you're going to end up
either helping create a mess, helping bin Laden or somebody get
a bomb, or you're going to discredit the whole industry."
A career Duke employee, Nesbit says he's never doubted the
safety of nuclear energy.
His confidence, the 46-year-old said, comes from his master's
degree in nuclear engineering and from knowing the people who
run nuclear plants and the regulators who police them.
"There are decades of experience safely using MOX fuel, both in
power reactors and test programs," Nesbit said. "On top of that,
we've done fairly detailed analyses of normal operation and
postulated accidents, and those show that we can use it safely."
Nesbit has a personal stake in MOX's safety. He lives with his
wife and three children within 10 miles of Duke's McGuire plant,
which sits on the shore of Lake Norman and is expected to start
using MOX in about 2011.
© 2005, The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.).
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
*****************************************************************
52 Deseret: Bishop uses defense bill to try to bar N-waste from Utah
[deseretnews.com]
Friday, May 27, 2005
He also inserts words to try to preserve the Test and Training
Range
By Leigh Dethman Deseret Morning News
Rob Bishop has managed to insert language into a major defense
bill that could both block nuclear waste from the state and
preserve the Utah Test and Training Range.
The Utah Republican added language to the National
Defense Authorization Act that designates 100,000 acres of
Utah's west desert as wilderness — a feat Bishop has not been
able to accomplish throughout his term.
The House on Wednesday approved the $491 billion bill,
which sets Defense Department policy and plans spending for next
year. The Senate is expected to vote next month on its own
defense bill.
Also in the bill, House Republicans abandoned their
effort to curb the role of women in combat zones after running
into opposition from the Pentagon and lawmakers from both
parties.
Bishop successfully inserted language to the House bill
that would designate the Cedar Mountains as a wilderness area.
If the Senate agrees, the wilderness designation could block the
Skull Valley Band of Goshutes from transporting spent nuclear
fuel rods through the Cedar Mountains, near the Utah Test and
Training Range.
With 12,574 miles of airspace, the Utah Test and Training
Range is the Defense Department's largest test range. On that
land, F-16 pilots from Hill Air Force Base can train in
air-to-air combat in a place that mirrors where U.S. troops are
fighting today.
"The Utah Test and Training Range is the most important
training area that we have in the nation," Bishop said. "This
would ensure that dedicated air space . . . will always be
protected so that the Utah Test and Training Range will always
be useful for the military."
The proposed Private Fuel Storage nuclear-waste facility
would hold up to 4,000 casks filled with spent nuclear fuel.
Utah leaders have exhausted nearly every option in blocking the
waste facility.
Bishop's wilderness provision will most likely not make
it through the Senate, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said last month.
"There are a variety of senators who opposed it for a
variety of reasons," he said.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, introduced language to the
House bill that would prevent the Defense Department from
destroying records and data on military personnel's exposure to
radioactive fallout from past nuclear weapons tests.
"Atmospheric testing was a dark period in our history for
many Americans and questions about long-term cancer risks are
unanswered," Matheson said in a statement. "We should do
whatever we can to preserve the limited records from that time
so that they'll be available for scientific study."
The bill permits the Pentagon to spend billions on
military supplies, including armored vehicles, night vision
devices and jammers to defend against roadside bombs.
It also allows the Army to increase its ranks by 10,000
and the Marine Corps to grow by 1,000. The measure also would
allow 3.1 percent pay increases for military personnel.
The bill also requires the Defense Department to issue a
report to Congress on women in combat by the end of March and to
give Congress at least 60 days advance notice before opening or
closing jobs to women.
Bishop also inserted language into the bill that would
pump millions of dollars into military interests in Utah. The
Utah Air National Guard's 169th intelligence squadron would
receive $7 million worth of new equipment for monitoring radio
signals and $5.2 million for a new satellite antenna and
software.
Contributing: Associated Press.
E-mail: ldethman@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
53 LTVNEWS.COM: Where To Bury Waste Product From Canada's Nuclear Reactors?
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario -
LTVNEWS Staff
LTVNews.com
Thursday, May 26 2005, 8:53PM
The federal government is looking for a safe place to dispose of
the waste product from Canada's nuclear reactors.
A number of options are available, with burying the waste in
specially designed underground caverns, topping the list.
Earlier this week Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization
an interim report proposing a 24.4 billion dollar plan to bury
waste deep in the Cambrian Shield which mostly lies under Quebec
and Northern Ontario.
Kincardine, Ontario, 160 kilometers north of London, has signed
a 30-year deal with Ontario Power Generation to house its low
level nuclear waste in a 1-billion dollar underground facility.
The town will receive 35-million dollars.
©2003-2005 LTVNEWS.COM Ltd. All rights reserved. Privacy
Policy.
*****************************************************************
54 ICT: Policy debate: Power plants on Navajo land, Part 2
[2005/05/27]
Posted: May 27, 2005
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
Four Corners' silent killers
Part two
SHIPROCK, N.M. - Four Corners power plants and coal mines on the
Navajo Nation are some of the dirtiest power plants in the U.S.
and among the nation's top 50 power plants for mercury
emissions, reports show.
''Mercury from power plants is harming our children,'' said Dr.
John Fogarty. ''New evidence from the Centers for Disease
Control indicates that 30,000 women in New Mexico may have
elevated levels of mercury in their blood.''
Fogarty has served as a family physician on the Navajo Nation
for six years and, as a faculty member at the University of New
Mexico's Masters of Public Health program, teaches courses on
human rights and health care.
Fogarty joins Navajos pressing for health studies correlating
their diseases to existing power plants and coal mines. They say
the long-overdue studies should be completed before knowingly
exposing Navajo communities to more air pollutants from new
coal-fired power plants, such as the Navajo Nation's proposed
Desert Rock power plant in San Juan County.
''Children, developing fetuses and pregnant women are at
particular risk, as mercury affects the developing brain and
nervous system. We know that mercury causes children to have
birth defects, reduced intelligence and learning disabilities,''
Fogarty told Indian Country Today.
Navajos point out that few studies have taken into
consideration the combined health risks of the toxins released
by power plants, coal mines, uranium tailings, and oil and gas
discharges and river dumping in the Four Corners area.
Navajos in the Four Corners area - where the states of Arizona,
New Mexico, Colorado and Utah meet - have a high death rate from
pulmonary disease and cancer from working without protection in
U.S. uranium mines during the Cold War.
Oil and gas companies on the Navajo Nation in New Mexico and
Utah are often cited and fined by the Environmental Protection
Agency for excessive toxic dumping.
The EPA also cited the city of Farmington for dumping excessive
amounts of aluminum, chlorine and other harmful substances into
the San Juan River, which flows through the Navajo Nation
beginning near Shiprock, N.M. The EPA settlement in 2003
included a $5.5 million cost to the city for new waste
facilities.
Enei Begaye, Navajo, is water campaigner for the national
action coalition Indigenous Environmental Network and among
those pointing out that the Navajo Nation's air, land and water
are already being poisoned by corporate polluters.
Begaye said Navajo community members have consistently said
they are opposed to yet another power plant in their back yards
and that they are not being heard.
''Coal-fired power plants, no matter what the technology, are
among the worst polluters of our land, air and water: not to
mention the large amounts of water that are needed simply to run
the plant,'' Begaye told ICT.
''If our tribes are serious about building a secure financial
future, investing in renewable energy is the way we should be
moving. If we are serious about protecting our future
generations we should be aggressively safeguarding our lands and
waters.
''This Desert Rock power plant is yet another step towards
turning the Four Corners area into a cheap energy battery for
the large cities of the Southwest, while the land, water, air
and the Navajo people suffer,'' Begaye said.
Fogarty confirmed that Navajos living around existing power
plants and coal mines, on and around the Navajo Nation and
concentrated in a 50-mile radius of the border town of
Farmington, N.M., are suffering from the emissions.
''We know that emissions from power plants are associated with
an increase in premature death and higher mortality rates.
People living around coal plants experience more asthma attacks,
respiratory problems, heart attacks and strokes.
''Based on my clinical experience working in Navajo
communities, the Navajo people have higher rates of pulmonary
disease than the general population in America. Navajo people
definitely have much higher rates of lung cancer, but also
appear to have increased rates of pulmonary fibrosis [scarring
of the lungs].''
Four Corners power plants currently emit 35,100 tons of sulfur
dioxide and 45,200 tons of nitrogen oxide each year. On the
Navajo Nation, San Juan Generating Station ejects 14,500 tons of
sulfur dioxide and 25,500 tons of nitrogen oxide in the air each
year. And the proposed Desert Rock would put out 3,400 tons of
the two substances each.
The EPA released a complete report of chemical toxins for the
year 2000, showing Four Corners power plants, and the coalmines,
which feed those, topped the list in New Mexico's dirtiest power
plants.
(Continued in part three: Navajo Nation plans to control power
plant emissions on tribal lands)
© 1998 - 2005 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
55 PE.com: Senate passes perchlorate evaluation bill
| Inland Southern California | Inland News
09:41 AM PDT on Friday, May 27, 2005
The Press-Enterprise
The state Senate on Thursday narrowly approved a bill that would
require California to re-assess its public health goal for
perchlorate in drinking water supplies if new evidence emerges.
In April, state officials announced a health goal of 6 parts per
billion for perchlorate in drinking water. Water agencies use
the health goal to determine whether water is safe to drink.
The state re-evaluates public health goals every five years.
Perchlorate is a rocket-fuel chemical that has been detected in
more than 350 public wells in the state, including several in
the Inland area. In sufficient amounts, scientists say, the
chemical interferes with thyroid functions.
Environmental groups have criticized the 6-parts-per-billion
health goal as too high. Supporters of the legislation by state
Sen. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, said the state should be able to
quickly lower the health goal if new information becomes
available.
Major business groups and other opponents said the bill would
force the state to lower the public health goal based on any
future study, regardless of its scientific credibility.
Reach Jim Miller at (916) 445-9973 or
jmiller@pe.comMore
2005, The Press-Enterprise Company
*****************************************************************
56 Pahrump Valley Times: YUCCA MOUNTAIN Commercial use of railroad possible
May 27, 2005
PVT
Commercial use of a new rail line from Caliente to the proposed
Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository will generate new business
opportunities and employment for Nye, Esmeralda, and Lincoln
counties, according to a recent study by the Nye County
Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities.
Nye County prepared the report as part of ongoing research to
the U.S. Department of Energy's proposed 'Nevada Rail' line
between Caliente and Yucca Mountain.
The rail line is proposed to transport nuclear waste and spent
nuclear fuel for long-term storage. Commercial freight
operations would share the tracks on the line but would
otherwise be completely separate from any nuclear waste rail
shipments.
The study team interviewed business development officials from
the three counties, as well as existing shippers along the
proposed line that could be served by a commercial freight rail
operation.
From the interviews, the study team forecast that a commercial
freight rail operation could carry between 660,000 tons and 3.5
million tons of freight per year - freight that could be shipped
more economically by rail than by truck.
The higher figure assumed the development of a coal-fired power
generation plant at Pioche, north of Caliente.
The tonnage figures represent potential annual transportation
cost savings of between $18.4 million and $97.4 million. It
estimates that between 424 and 2,239 new jobs would be created
as a result of the economies offered by commercial freight
operations.
The commercial rail operation itself would generate between
eight and 14 new jobs in the areas of train operations,
maintenance, and rail service administration.
The study also predicted that diverting freight from truck to
rail would reduce congestion, road maintenance and accidents,
and suggested that these savings be the subject of a subsequent
analysis.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
57 AU ABC: Mining company in talks on Kakadu uranium.
27/05/2005. ABC News Online
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The Northern Territory Government says French mining uranium
company Areva is talking to traditional owners about the future
of the Koongarra uranium deposit in Kakadu National Park.
A five-year moratorium on negotiations over mining at Koongarra
expired last month and Territory Mines Minister Kon Vatskalis
has confirmed Areva recently lodged an application for an
exploration licence.
Mr Vatskalis says Areva is now negotiating with traditional
owners of Koongarra and it is up to them to decide whether
mining will be allowed.
"They have to actually go to the federal ministers and the
federal ministers have to make a decision and then we're a long
way away down the track," he said.
"But the reality is they haven't applied for mining, they've
applied for an exploration licence."
The Northern Land Council's Chief Executive Norman Fry says the
Council will discuss the issue with traditional owners and the
company, as required by the Land Rights Act.
Under the Act, the consent of traditional owners, the NLC, and
the Commonwealth Government is required.
*****************************************************************
58 Scotsman.com News: 'Clean-up' that will transform Dounreay
Sat 28 May 2005
JOHN ROSS
HAZARDOUS liquid nuclear waste is to be mixed with cement and
turned into solid blocks at a ÂŁ100 million plant that will
transform the Dounreay nuclear complex.
It will be combined with two other facilities needed to manage
different types of waste from the site clean-up, saving ÂŁ200
million on previous plans for separate plants.
The move follows a decision by the UK Atomic Energy Authority
(UKAEA) to solidify liquid waste from the reprocessing of fast
reactor fuel using cement instead of glass.
It has been approved by groups consulted on how to deal with the
waste, although UKAEA has been criticised for starting the
process before the consultation was completed.
Fuel irradiated in Dounreay's Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) was
reprocessed until 1996 to separate the waste from the re-usable
plutonium and uranium. The waste was in the form of raffinate,
an acidic liquid.
About 200 cubic metres - half of Dounreay's radioactive waste
hazard - is stored in underground tanks and its conversion to a
form suitable for long-term storage or disposal as solid
intermediate-level waste is a priority.
It will be transferred to the new plant to be mixed with cement
and set inside 500-litre drums stored above ground pending a
national policy on long-term management of intermediate-level
waste.
Subject to permission, construction of the plant will start in
2007 and the first batch of waste will be treated in 2012.
Norman Harrison, UKAEA director at Dounreay, said: "Cementation
is a tried and trusted technology for conditioning
intermediate-level waste at Dounreay and carries fewer health
and environmental risks than vitrification [storage in glass].
Innovation in our thinking means we can now reduce the largest
single hazard at Dounreay on an earlier timescale and at
substantially lower cost to the taxpayer."
Simon Middlemas, UKAEA's new-build manager at Dounreay, said:
"This plant will convert the hazard to a form that makes it
passively safe for long-term storage or disposal." [
*****************************************************************
59 News & Star: Thorp leak lasted three months
Published on 27/05/2005
AN INVESTIGATION into the leak that closed Sellafield’s Thorp
plant has found nuclear fuel was seeping from a fractured pipe
for three months before it was detected.
British Nuclear Group has ordered improved testing and
maintenance of instruments that should have warned fuel was
going missing.
Operating practices throughout the Thorp reprocessing plant will
be reviewed.
And engineering checks have been ordered across Sellafield to
spot stress-induced metal fatigue, which is believed to have
caused the pipe to fail.
Barry Snelson, managing director at Sellafield, said: “The
investigation has been extremely thorough and has identified the
root causes of the event.
“I will personally be ensuring that recommendations are
implemented not just in Thorp but across Sellafield.”
He said he was disappointed that the leak, discovered by a CCTV
camera on April 19, had not been found sooner.
Mr Snelson added: “I shall be taking action to ensure that any
complacency with respect to acting upon plant information is
addressed.
“The maintenance of safety and environmental integrity remain
our absolute priority.”
Eighty-three cubic metres of highly-radioactive nuclear fuel
escaped.
All of it was trapped in a steel-lined concrete cell, designed
to contain leaks.
But the incident still forced the closure of Thorp and cast
doubt on its future.
It was classed as level three on the International Nuclear Event
Scale.
The internal investigation found that the pipe probably
fractured in mid-January and may have started to fail in August
2004.
Had the leak been detected in January, the report says, the
quantity of liquid released could have been “significantly
reduced”.
Investigators believe the pipe failed because it fed a suspended
tank, subjecting it to high levels of stress.
Thorp is the only installation in Sellafield where this
arrangement applies.
British Nuclear Group has started a clean-up operation, which is
expected to take another four weeks.
The Government’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is also
investigating the leak.
Mr Snelson said he was confident that Thorp could reopen.
But Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive
Environment, believes Thorp should stay closed for good.
He said: “If you look at what business is left for Thorp,
there is a small amount of overseas fuel to reprocess and fuel
from British Energy’s advanced gas-cooled reactors, which BNFL
told us is an uneconomic proposition.
“Reopening Thorp makes absolutely no sense to us.
“It was supposed to be an asset on the books of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority but it is going to be a total
liability.”
*****************************************************************
60 The State: SRS named finalist for new n
05/27/2
Aiken site among six in running for nations first nuclear
energy facility in 30 years
By LAUREN MARKOE
Washington Bureau
The Savannah River Site is among six finalists that could be
home to one of the first two nuclear power plants built in the
United States in nearly 30 years.
NuStart Energy the consortium of energy companies that wants
to build the plants will announce its final choices in
September, and the plants could begin operations in 2015.
There is no better time for a renaissance in nuclear power in
this country than today, deputy secretary of energy Clay Sell
said in Washington at a press conference to unveil details of
plans to build the new plants.
And there is no better place than SRS, say South Carolina
nuclear power boosters.
We want this power generated here, said Fred Humes, director
the Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield
Counties.
If you want to grow, and youre going to need power, why dont
we do it in this isolated and secure site at Savannah River?
SRS, built in the 1950s to produce the key components of the
United States nuclear arsenal, is now a nuclear storage and
research facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Aiken and competing communities have until Aug. 15 to present
proposals to NuStart.
General Electric and the Westinghouse Electric Co. each would
build a plant, estimated to cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion
apiece.
Westinghouse Electric is a separate company from Westinghouse
Savannah River Co., which operates SRS.
NuStart president Marilyn Kray estimated each new plant would
mean 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs for the chosen community,
and 250 to 400 permanent jobs.
NuStart and the federal government are touting nuclear power as
an answer to the nations burgeoning energy needs, the growing
problem of greenhouse gases, and Americans heavy reliance on
oil.
The Bush administration has agreed to offset some of the startup
costs for new plants and is backing streamlined plant licensing
historically a drawn-out process.
The 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States today
supply 20 percent of electricity produced. But those plants will
be obsolete in a few decades.
Opponents of nuclear power, in South Carolina and across the
nation, say that if building a new nuclear plant were a good
economic investment, government subsidies wouldnt be necessary.
What worries them most, though, is the seeming lack of solid
plans to dispose of the waste created by nuclear reactors. The
federal high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada is years behind on its construction schedule.
I have the same fears Ive had throughout my entire life about
nuclear power, said Dell Isham, director of the S.C. chapter of
the Sierra Club.
What do you do with the waste? We have to safeguard it from all
other living organisms for 10,000 years. Thats a crucial and
moral issue we havent seemed much concerned about in the last
decade or so.
James Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst with Greenpeace, said the
consortium should worry about how nuclear plants make the nation
more vulnerable to terrorism.
Did the people in that room sleep through 9/11? he asked.
But Mal McKibben, executive director of Aiken-based Citizens for
Nuclear Technology Awareness, said security is one of the things
that distinguishes SRS from its five competitors.
SRS is 310 square miles, McKibben said, and a reactor would sit
about five miles inside its gates.
You have all these wonderful guns and gates and guards and
high-tech security equipment. You dont have to worry about
terrorists or any other goofy people trying to blow it up.
Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com
TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
61 AP Wire: SRS among finalists for one of two new nuclear power plants
| 05/27/2005 |
Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. - The Savannah River Site near Aiken may become
the home of one of the first nuclear power reactors built in
three decades.
Electric power consortium NuStart Energy Development LLC will
decide this fall where it wants to build two nuclear power
plants that could be running by 2015.
The other sites under consideration are the Tennessee Valley
Authority's Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama;
Entergy Nuclear's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson,
Miss.; River Bend Nuclear Station in St. Francisville, La.; and
Constellation Energy's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in
Lusby, Md.; and Entergy's Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in
Scriba, N.Y.
The communities surrounding those sites have until Aug. 15 to
present proposals.
Site selection teams from NuStart would visit the sites this
summer if community leaders invite them.
General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co. each would
build a plant, estimated to cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion
apiece.
"There is no better time for a renaissance in nuclear power in
this country than today," said deputy secretary of energy Clay
Sell.
NuStart and the federal government are touting nuclear power as
an answer to the nation's burgeoning energy needs, the growing
problem of greenhouse gases and Americans' heavy reliance on
oil.
Nuclear power boosters around the Savannah River Site, a former
nuclear weapons complex, see the possibility of a new power
plant as a source of jobs and economic growth. SRS now is a
nuclear storage and research facility owned by the Energy
Department.
NuStart says each plant could bring up to 3,000 construction
jobs and up to 400 permanent positions.
"We want this power generated here," said Fred Humes, director
the Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield
Counties. "If you want to grow, and you're going to need power,
why don't we do it in this isolated and secure site at Savannah
River?"
The United States has 103 operating nuclear plants that supply a
fifth of the nation's electric power. The Bush administration
has agreed to offset some new plant startup costs and wants
plant licensing streamlined.
Nuclear power opponents say if those plants were good
investments they wouldn't need government subsidies. They also
note the nation has yet to come up with a solid plan to dispose
of waste the existing reactors produce.
"What do you do with the waste? We have to safeguard it from all
other living organisms for 10,000 years," said Dell Isham,
director of the South Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club.
"That's a crucial and moral issue we haven't seemed much
concerned about in the last decade or so."
*****************************************************************
62 New Mexican: Lab's UC partisans express relief
Fri May 27, 2005 3:17 pm
LOS ALAMOS -- Whether at China Moon restaurant, the local YMCA or
Starbuck's, people in Los Alamos let loose a sigh of relief
Thursday at the news that the Board of Regents at the University
of California voted to compete for the management contract at Los
Alamos National Laboratory.
The university has operated the nuclear-weapons facility for the
federal government since the lab was created in 1943 to develop
the first atomic bomb.
"I think people feel more comfortable if we keep the same
contractor," said Pete Valdez, a technician, noting that UC has
treated employees well.
Yet he is not close minded to other possibilities, such as the
Lockheed Martin/University of Texas team also bidding to get the
contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. "If they can keep
the same benefits -- or very comparable to what we've had -- I
don't think I'd mind," Valdez said.
Among younger lab employees, Valdez's point of view was echoed in
random interviews Thursday.
Among older employees nearing retirement, however, pro-UC
sentiments ran deeper because of the threat of losing benefits.
Tadeusz Raven, 29, said he's glad UC decided to go for it. "It
does help the morale at the laboratory," he said.
But does it matter who wins -- UC or Lockheed Martin? "I'm not
sure. I'd have to look at all the proposals," he said. "It's not
going to be the same institution no matter who wins."
For one thing, UC is pairing with Bechtel National, a large
engineering firm. UC will handle the science; Bechtel will
handle the operations.
Joe Sapir, a scientist who retired from the lab a decade ago, is
in the pack worried about benefits. "I am for UC bidding, and I
hope they get the contract," he said. "My pension and health
insurance are with them, and I want to keep it that way." He
said the university managed the lab well when he was there, but
problems arose under its watch later.
But Sapir predicts Lockheed Martin, which has a sound reputation
for how it manages Sandia National Laboratories, will be tough
competition for UC.
Jan Barnes, who retired from the lab earlier this year, also
considers UC/Bechtel and Lockheed Martin/UT strong options. But
she predicts employees will react differently depending on who
wins. "I feel we're going to lose a lot of talent if UC does not
win it, just out of the fear of the unknown," she said.
Ultimately, though, change is unavoidable. "The government is
putting a lot more money in this than there has ever been
before," she said. In her opinion, the best scenario is for UC
to keep it. "I think UC has provided a good balance of allowing
the research and keeping the other work going as well. I think
that's essential," Barnes said. "We haven't had any worse
security problems than other labs. We just got a bit more
publicity on ours is all."
Matt Filer, a 35-year-old chemist, said: "I think it would be
great if UC won the bid. Most of us don't like a lot of change.
It's really easy for things to be dropped along the way when
things change."
He has heard that Sandia is a tight ship, however, and said he
won't leave if Lockheed Martin/UT wins. "Probably a lot of
people have a wait-and-see attitude, unless you're near
retirement," Filer said.
Owen Marshall, also 35, said he won't be scared off if the
government selects Lockheed Martin. He is employed by the
University of Maryland as a telescope operator at Los Alamos,
and he plans to apply for a job with the lab because he likes
New Mexico. "I think that as far as actual research goes, it
doesn't really matter (which university takes over)," he said.
"I'm watching it with interest, but I'm not too concerned for
myself."
Since Oct. 1, roughly 200 people have indicated they are
considering retirement, with more than half from the weapons and
physics, weapons engineering and manufacturing, and
threat-reduction divisions, lab spokesman James Rickman told The
Associated Press recently.
"Those people are critical to the core mission of the
laboratory," Rickman said. "We're trying to work as an
institution to make sure that we capture and retain the very
critical, sometimes esoteric, knowledge that these people have.
It's absolutely critical to the security and reliability of the
nuclear-weapons stockpile."
Copyright 2004 Santa Fe New Mexican
*****************************************************************
63 SF Chronicle: SAN FRANCISCO / Regents vote to make a bid for Los Alamos
/ Northrop Grumman drops out, leaving field to UC and Texas
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Friday, May 27, 2005
The University of California Regents voted 11-1 Thursday to join
the competition for the next contract to run Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico, the nation's first atomic weapons lab.
"We're off and running!" S. Robert Foley, UC's vice president of
laboratory administration, told The Chronicle after the midday
vote at the regents meeting at UCSF's Laurel Heights campus.
A surprise decision Thursday from would-be bidder Northrop
Grumman not to pursue the contract shrank the field from a
three-way fight to a two-way battle between goliaths. Northrop
Grumman's exit leaves UC with just one competitor, and it's an
intimidating one: a joint team from Lockheed Martin and the
giant University of Texas system.
The outcome of the competition will determine whether UC --
which has run the Los Alamos complex since World War II under
contract to the federal government, until now without
competition -- will relinquish control of the lab after several
years of security, safety and financial scandals.
Thursday's vote authorizes UC officials to work with three
previously announced collaborators, including Bechtel National,
the division of Bechtel Corp. that carries out the firm's U.S.
government contracts, in competing for the next Los Alamos
contract. The contract bid is due at the U.S. Energy Department
on July 19, and the winner is scheduled for selection about Dec.
1.
Northrop Grumman gave no specific reason to explain why it
dropped out of the competition, but a spokeswoman implied that
company officials had reviewed the U.S. Energy Department's
final specifications and concluded they weren't sufficiently
attractive.
"Based upon its evaluation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
request for proposal, Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) has decided
not to pursue the contract," the firm said in a statement. "The
company continues to be committed to helping the U.S. Department
of Energy achieve its overall objectives, but has determined
that it can best provide that support through other key
programs."
Northrop Grumman's unexpected departure was "a business
decision," Juli Ballesteros, spokeswoman for the Los
Angeles-based firm, said in a short phone interview.
The remaining partnership bidding for the contract is a daunting
foe for UC. Lockheed Martin is a legendary aerospace titan that
has been long respected for its management of another nuclear
weapons lab, Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, and
that has many friends and lobbyists inside the Washington
Beltway.
As for Texas, its university system is well respected in some
areas of the sciences and engineering -- and the state's
political clout is enhanced by President Bush's presence in the
White House.
But, UC's Foley stressed, "We have a strong team" for developing
the proposal.
In recent months some UC backers, including Sen. Pete Domenici,
R-N.M., have insinuated that the Department of Energy was
writing the bid specifications in ways that would harm UC's
chances of winning. The final specifications were issued May 19.
Among the more controversial specifications is one that, some UC
backers charge, would undermine pension plans for some Los
Alamos staffers, possibly making lab jobs less attractive to new
employees.
By contrast, one attractive specification offers a maximum
annual reimbursement cap of $79 million, 10 times higher than
UC's typical annual fee for managing the lab in recent years.
But at a press conference Wednesday, UC President Robert C.
Dynes refused to reveal how the $79 million would be split among
UC and its three partners. A Bechtel official also declined to
provide details.
The current Los Alamos contract is held by UC and expires in
September. UC officials expect that the U.S. Energy Department,
however, will extend UC's present contract until sometime in
2006, to provide a smooth transitional period should a new
contractor be named in December.
In contrast to a tumultuous meeting Wednesday, which was
disrupted twice by student protests and police action, the
regents raced through the vote Thursday with minimal comment and
unusual speed, dispensing with the issue in only a few minutes.
Before the vote, the sole extended comments were by Regent
Richard Blum and regents general counsel James Holst. Both
briefly commented on the student protesters' charge Wednesday
that Blum has a conflict of interest in voting on Los Alamos
matters.
Blum is chair and vice chair, respectively, of the two regents
committees that voted Wednesday to recommend that UC join the
competition. Those are the finance committee and the "oversight
of Department of Energy laboratories" committee.
That creates a conflict of interest, protesters said Wednesday,
because Blum is vice chair of the board of directors of URS
Corp. of San Francisco, which, they said, stands to earn $25
million a year as part of a five-year Los Alamos contract.
On Thursday, Blum said, "I didn't even know about this
contract," which was a tiny part of URS' income.
"It would please me if they (URS) weren't there (at Los Alamos),
but I'm not going to tell them what to do," Blum said.
Holst told the regents that in his legal opinion, Blum faced no
conflict of interest in voting. Blum "had no role in the award
of the contract to URS" and, thus, "does not have a
disqualifying financial interest," Holst explained.
Moments later, Blum and all but one of the regents present voted
yes.
Thursday's sole nay vote was cast by Regent Gary D. Novack, vice
president of the Alumni Associations of UC.
He said he worries that "continuing our relationship with the
Los Alamos National Laboratory may defocus UC from its primary
mission of teaching, research and service to the people of
California."
Only one of the students who protested Wednesday returned for
Thursday's meeting -- Will Parrish, a sociology and journalism
major who graduated from UC Santa Cruz in 2004. He was upset by
the regents' speed in racing through the vote as if they were
trying to get unpleasant business out of the way.
"The manner in which this issue was finally decided is
representative of the disappointing attitude the regents have
toward the students," Parrish said afterward. "These people
fundamentally don't have the educational mission of the UC in
mind."
E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.
Page B - 1
©2005 San Francisco Chronicle |
*****************************************************************
64 DOE: DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
FR Doc 05-10630
[Federal Register: May 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 102)]
[Notices] [Page 30709] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27my05-49] [[Page 30709]]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear
Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92- 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of
these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, June 15, 2005; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Marriott Crystal Gateway, 1700 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda L. May, U.S. Department
of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice
and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy
and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities
within the field of basic nuclear science research.
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the
following: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 Reports from Department of
Energy and National Science Foundation Perspectives from
Department of Energy and National Science Foundation Presentation
of the Implementation of the 2002 Long Range Plan Subcommittee
Report Public Comment (10-minute rule) Public Participation: The
meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a
written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before
or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements
regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact
Brenda L. May, 301-903-0536 or Brenda.May@science.doe.gov (e-
mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least
5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be
made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The
Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will
follow the 10-minute rule.
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public
review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information
Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued at Washington, DC on May 23, 2005.
R. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-10630 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
65 Oakland Tribune: UC faces just one challenger in fight for lab
Article Last Updated: 05/27/2005 09:29:11 AM
Regents back Los
Alamos bid; Northrop team out, Lockheed still in
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
SAN FRANCISCO — The fight is on for the dominant scientific voice
on U.S. nuclear weapons as far as 20 years into future.
With a third contender dropping out, two teams of academics and
industrial firms were left Thursday bidding to run Los Alamos
nuclear-weapons lab, which sprawls over New Mexico canyon lands
and high desert almost the size of San Francisco.
The contest pits the nation's largest research university and
largest privately held engineering firm against the nation's
largest defense contractor and second-largest university system.
Beyond Los Alamos itself, with a multitude of defense and
civilian science projects and WMD intelligence analysis, the
stakes include the balance of power inside the U.S.
nuclear-weapons establishment.
The winner will be responsible for maintaining 90 percent of the
U.S. nuclear arsenal kept on alert status and will have the ear
of senior U.S. policy-makers on such matters as the need for
nuclear testing and new or modified nuclear weapons. Regents
governing the University of California voted 11-1 to join Bechtel
National and two nuclear-operations and infrastructure firms in
an effort to remain at the helm of Los Alamos, operated by the
university since 1943.
Regents also agreed Thursday to pay Lawrence Livermore Lab
Director Michael Anastasio $100,000 a year above his current
$357,500 salary if he leads the UC-Bechtel team to win the Los
Alamos contract and becomes director of Los Alamos.
The sole challenger, Lockheed Martin, is teamed up with the
University of Texas and, in an alliance expected to be announced
today, the engineering and nuclear-operations firm CH2M Hill.
A third team led by defense contractor Northrop Grumman never
coalesced, and Northrop dropped out of the competition late
Wednesday, saying it would look for "other future opportunities
with the Department of Energy."
The UC-Bechtel vs. Lockheed-UT matchup presents nuclear-weapons
officials at the U.S. Department of Energy with a clear choice: a
defense contractor of extensive nuclear-weapons experience and
business savvy plus an academic partner versus an academic entity
with more extensive nuclear-weapons experience plus partners
experienced in heavy industry and business.
If the UC-Bechtel team wins, the university would remain the
nation's pre-eminent player in the design and maintenance of U.S.
nuclear arms. Every year, its directors at Los Alamos and
Livermore sign a letter advising the president on whether U.S.
nuclear weapons need testing.
A Lockheed-UT win would give the defense firm a dominant hand in
nuclear-weapons science and engineering for two Western nations,
because Lockheed already operates Sandia weapons engineering labs
in New Mexico and California and is part of a team running
Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment near the town of
Aldermaston.
Nuclear-weapons executives of both UC and Lockheed say they
don't dictate U.S. nuclear policy but rather follow the policy
decisions of the administration in power and Congress.
At various times, weapons executives of both teams have exerted
influence directly on domestic arms-control policies and
indirectly on international policy. In the late 1970s, UC
scientists who led Los Alamos and Livermore labs — Harold Agnew
and the late Roger Batzel — flew to Washington and cautioned
President Carter against entering into a nuclear test-ban
treaty.
It was another 15 years before the Clinton administration
restarted those negotiations. When Clinton forwarded the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification in
1999, directors of all three weapons labs voiced some
misgivings, none stronger than Sandia labs president C. Paul
Robinson, now leading Lockheed's bid for Los Alamos.
"If the United States scrupulously restricts itself to zero
yield (as stipulated in the treaty) while other nations may
conduct experiments up to the threshold of international
detectability, we will be at an intolerable disadvantage,"
Robinson told senators. "I would advise against accepting
limitations that permit such asymmetry."
Likewise, Robinson and former Los Alamos weapons chief Steve
Younger, a UC physicist, have argued in speeches, testimony or
policy papers for a new generation
of tougher, low-yield nuclear
weapons, based on older, tested weapons designs.
"They have ways of being invited to express their personal
opinions," said Hugh Gusterson, an MIT cultural anthropologist
who studies weapons scientists. "They're not allowed to lobby,
but in essence that's what they do."
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.
The Oakland Tribune| Alameda Times-Star| The Argus| The Daily
© 2005 ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
66 California Aggie: Board of Regents to bid for Los Alamos
May 27, 2005
Student protesters argue money, weapons detract from UC’s
mission
By MELISSA B. TADDEI / Aggie Senior Staff Writer
With the endorsement of President Dynes and the Oversight
Committee of the U.S. Department of Energy Laboratories, the UC
Board of Regents voted Thursday at UC San Francisco Laurel
Heights to pursue continued management of the birthplace of the
atomic bomb.
The much anticipated decision of whether to bid for Los
Alamos National Laboratory faced two major sources of
opposition. Some believe the production of nuclear weapons
components conflicts with the UC’s stated educational mission,
and some question the UC’s management competency.
Dynes said in a university press release that the UC has
strong reasons to pursue Los Alamos.
“I believe we should compete for the Los Alamos contract
for three essential reasons: the excellence in science that we
bring to the table, the strength of the management team we have
put together and the contribution this unique combination of
players can make to the nation,” Dynes said.
After teaming up with Bechtel National, BWX Technologies,
Inc. and Washington Group International, the UC and Bechtel
National-led team named Michael Anastasio as the team leader in
the competition preparations for the Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
The regents voted to appoint Anastasio as the director of
LANL, contingent upon the UC’s continued management. A nuclear
physicist with more than 25 years’ experience in national
security and nuclear weapons, Anastasio has led Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory since 2002.
Under the teaming agreement, UC and Bechtel will form a
separate corporate entity to act as prime contractor to manage
the laboratory.
Current Los Alamos employees who do not quit or retire will
be moved to the new corporate structure, Chairman of the Regents
Gerald Parsky said Wednesday. Their benefits and pensions will
“mirror” their current contract to the extent legally
permissible under the DOE’s new requirements.
The university has managed the lab since it was founded in
1943.
The decision fell short of the hopes of approximately 50
students, predominantly from UC Santa Cruz and UC Berkeley, who
urged the regents not to bid during the public comment session
Wednesday.
Following a unanimous vote by the Oversight Committee of the
DOE and the Committee on Finance to endorse bidding for the
labs, students shouted from the audience, “We vote no!”
The regents had to be evacuated, and UCSF police were called
in after the crowd erupted into chants of “We will not be
silenced in the face of UC violence” and “Education not
corporation.” The students carried banners and wore bandanas
stating their message.
The one-and-a-half-minute public statements Wednesday began
calmly with UCB law student Derek Wright, who said that
continued UC management of the lab would enable a new nuclear
arms race.
Several students said that the student body would not remain
silent if the UC aligned itself with Bechtel, which they called
a “war profiteer.”
Several of the regents said that they felt obligated to bid
out of “national responsibility,” the prospect of innovative
scientific projects and because it was favored by tenure-track
faculty and students.
Students, staff and faculty were surveyed last year. Of
students, 72 percent favored bidding. Professors also showed a
preference for bidding. However, lecturers and librarians
opposed continued management.
Among all parties surveyed, the most commonly cited reason
not to bid was that the national-security mission of the labs,
especially its nuclear-weapons stockpile stewardship, conflicts
with the university’s research and public service missions.
The UC’s chances for continued management won an apparent
boost when the Battelle Memorial Institute, which runs five
other DOE labs, decided not to compete in order to focus on its
existing lab contracts.
MELISSA B. TADDEI can be reached at campus@californiaaggie.com.
© 1995 - 2005 by The California Aggie. All
*****************************************************************
67 lamonitor.com: UC votes to stay in the game
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
The University of California Board of Regents readily endorsed
committee recommendations Thursday, formally entering the
competition to manage and operate Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
At the same time, Northrop Grumman officials announced they had
decided not to compete.
The UC board's 11-1 vote ended any doubts that the university
would find the new ground rules unacceptable for continuing
their relationship with LANL.
Since the competition was announced on April 1, 2003, by former
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, UC officials maintained they
would prepare for a potential bid as if they intended to
compete, but would not decide until the Department of Energy
established the terms of the competition.
UC President Robert C. Dynes said after the committees voted
that he had met with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman recently in
Washington.
"He satisfied me that his primary interest was in science and
technology and the main driver in the award is science and
technology," he said. "That tipped me over the edge."
Science and technology remain the primary criteria for
evaluating proposals, worth 325 points out of a total of 1,000.
The only change in the evaluation criteria combined key
personnel and oral presentations into a single category which is
given a weight of 250 points.
During the joint committees' two-hour discussion Wednesday,
participating officials and regents put the best possible light
on the power-sharing constraints implicit in the new competition.
Dynes introduced the top officials of the three corporations who
will make up the industrial team of partners, led by Bechtel and
including BWX Technology and the Washington Group International.
A consortium of New Mexico universities would also be involved
in the new contract, should the UC-Bechtel team win. A new
Advanced Studies Institute would be created in which UC would
collaborate with the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State
University and New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
Some questions about the new arrangements could not be answered
because of competitive considerations. Others were not yet
worked out.
It was not clear to officials where the new stand-alone limited
liability corporation would be registered, although California,
New Mexico and Delaware were all said to have relative
advantages.
In a statement released after the vote on Thursday, UC Board of
Regents Chairman Gerald L. Parsky said, "Our historic
relationship with Los Alamos embodies the university's highest
mission of public service, and we believe our decision to
compete vigorously for the new contract represents the best
interests of the nation."
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, acknowledged UC's decision with a
prepared statement.
"We are now assured to have several outstanding bidders for the
LANL contract," he said. "Los Alamos has always been an
outstanding research laboratory, and based on the quality teams
seeking to lead the lab, I have no doubt it will continue to be
a premier lab for decades to come."
Meanwhile, in a statement from company headquarters in McClean,
Va., Northrop Grumman said the company's evaluation of the final
request for proposal had changed their decision.
"The company is currently evaluating other future opportunities
with the Department of Energy and looks forward to applying its
world-class capabilities to meet the agency's specialized
requirements," the announcement stated.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
68 PISJ: What were they thinking? Storing nuke waste at INL
Pocatello Idaho State Journal:
BOISE (AP) - The Idaho congressmen who voted this week for an
Energy Department spending bill that recommends storing highly
radioactive nuclear waste at the Idaho National Laboratory say
they're convinced a 1995 court order prevents that from ever
happening.
But the White House's former nuclear waste czar, Boise attorney
David Leroy, isn't so sure.
"There is a legislative history and policy agreements between
the state and the Department of Energy which would discourage
the use of Idaho for that purpose, but they don't constitute an
insurmountable barrier if Congress chooses to rewrite that
history," said Leroy, a Republican and former Idaho lieutenant
governor who served as the federal government's nuclear waste
negotiator from 1990-1993.
Leroy's attempts to find a willing host for a temporary federal
nuclear waste dump among a handful of interested counties and
Indian tribes failed. In 2002, President Bush approved an Energy
Department recommendation to locate the dump at Yucca Mountain
in Nevada over the objection of state leaders.
Congress has been increasingly frustrated by the legal,
scientific and policy challenges that have delayed the opening
of Yucca Mountain until at least 2010, if ever. Tuesday, the
U.S. House overwhelmingly passed an energy spending bill that
gave the Energy Department money to begin taking ownership of
spent nuclear fuel from 129 commercial reactor sites around the
country and temporarily storing a portion of it at a federally
operated facility by 2006.
The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
The House subcommittee that holds the purse strings to the
agency said in a report included with the bill that the
department should consider the Hanford reservation in Washington
state, the Savannah River complex in South Carolina and the INL
compound in the desert west of Idaho Falls as possible temporary
storage sites for the radioactive waste. Called manager's
reports, such provisions in spending bills don't have the effect
of law but are intended by Congress to be marching orders for
federal agency heads.
Two former Idaho governors, Democrat Cecil Andrews and
Republican Phil Batt, waged a 10-year battle against the federal
government that culminated in an unprecedented 1995 agreement
between the state and Energy Department, requiring the agency to
remove all the Cold War-era nuclear waste stored at the Idaho
site.
The court-approved deal also prohibited the federal government
from shipping spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants to
the Idaho site.
The state's two Republican House members Tuesday voted against
an amendment to strip the interim storage provisions from the
bill and supported the overall $29.7 billion spending package
after being reassured the manager's report would not overturn
the decade-old decree of no new nuclear waste in Idaho.
"The committee's language in no way alters existing law or the
provisions of Idaho's 1995 settlement," said Idaho Rep. Mike
Simpson, who sits on the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee that wrote the bill.
During Tuesday's debate on the House floor, Idaho Rep. C.L.
"Butch" Otter asked the chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. David
Hobson, R-Ohio, "Would the language contained within this report
in any way change existing law or alter the provisions of the
state of Idaho's agreement with the Department of Energy?"
Answered Hobson: "No, it would not."
Leroy, however, said the manager's report in the spending bill
shows the increasing political momentum to find an alternative
to Yucca Mountain that may ultimately steamroll the Idaho pact.
"For the first time you've got somebody truly admitting Yucca is
not going to open 'til 2016 or later, saying every year it slips
is another billion-dollar price tag and saying that interim
storage at a government-run site is essentially mandatory," he
said Thursday. "The history of one set of elected or appointed
officials in any branch of U.S. government absolutely binding
their successors in office to their agreements is not one I
would depend on in this case."
But the White House's former nuclear waste czar, Boise attorney
David Leroy, isn't so sure.">
This document was originally published online on Friday, May 27,
2005
Copyright © 2005 Pocatello Idaho State Journal
P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************