*****************************************************************
06/23/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.144
*****************************************************************
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 Mos News: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel for Bushehr Power Plant in
2 Las Vegas SUN: Blix: Iran Years Away From Nuke Weapons
3 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas Open Talks to Pursue Cooperation
4 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Complains About Bush Meeting
5 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Effect of kind words
6 Korea Herald: U.S. gives N. Korea 50,000 tons of food aid
7 Xinhua: DPRK presents prerequisite to denuclearization of Korean Pen
8 Korea Times: Hu May Visit NK Early Next Month
9 Korea Times: [Times Forum] A Moment to Seize With North Korea
10 US: "Buster the Friendly Nuke" Can Help You Organize Against New
11 US: Many Stories, One Vision for a Nuclear Free World Conference
12 US: Las Vegas SUN: Senate Wraps Up Energy Bill Talks
13 US: Public Citizen: Nuclear Industry to Receive More Than $10 Billio
14 US: Deseret news: Wind could become major Utah power source
15 US: Deseret news: Duo praise defense bill
16 [PR] Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, UN, Torture,
17 Drifting Toward The Apocalypse - Postmortem on the NPT Review by
18 Guardian Unlimited: G8 Foreign Ministers to Focus on Mideast
NUCLEAR REACTORS
19 US: Susquehanna's fish are victims of nuclear power
20 US: [NukeNet] Bush Pushes For More Nuke Plants While Study: World
21 US: NRC: NRC, Virginia Company to Discuss Results of Inspection
22 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC: No fine over lost fuel
23 US: Deseret News: Bush turns focus back to nuclear power
24 US: St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Nuclear industry stands to get help fro
25 US: Las Vegas RJ: Bush adds nuclear pitch to energy bill campaign
26 US: APP.COM: TOPIC OF THE DAY: Oyster Creek relicensing
27 US: Guardian Unlimited: Vermont Nuclear Plant Will Not Face Fine
NUCLEAR SECURITY
28 [NukeNet] Russia: Intruders Targeted Nuclear Site
29 Daily Yomiuri: Data leak shows need for virus crackdown
30 US: FCW: Experts highlight nuke-detection flaws
31 satribune.com: Nine Nuclear Scientists Slip Out of Pakistan
32 Las Vegas SUN: Secret Data From Japan Nuke Plants on Web
NUCLEAR SAFETY
33 US: SBCS: Study: Perchlorate contamination, cleanup not under federa
34 RIA Novosti: Vladivostok port: radiation level returns to normal aft
35 Yokwe: CCP Hearing Scheduled for July
36 US: Times-News: Spending bill could expand those eligible for fallou
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
37 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY files for cask permit
38 US: Las Vegas SUN: Report: Perchlorate cleanup needs tracking
39 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear storage request made
40 US: Rutland Herald: NRC won't fine Entergy over lost fuel rod pieces
41 US: Valley Advocate: Dumping on Vermont
42 US: Concord Journal: Cost of Starmet cleanup $3M more than expected
43 US: Deseret news: Reid isn't backing plan to block Utah N-waste
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
44 Alert: Oppose Nuclear Weapons Funding -- Support the Feinstein
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Mos News: Russia to Deliver Nuclear Fuel for Bushehr Power Plant in Few Months
— Iranian Official - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
Busher Nuclear Power Plant / Photo from dw-world.de
Created: 23.06.2005 12:30 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:57 MSK
MosNews
The first delivery of Russian nuclear fuel for Iran’s first
nuclear power reactor in the southwestern Iranian city of
Bushehr will take place within months, a senior Iranian atomic
energy official was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying.
The 1,000 MW reactor is 84 percent complete and commissioning
will start by the end of 2006, Asadollah Saboury, the Atomic
Energy Organization’s vice president said during a visit by
journalists to the plant, construction of which first started in
the 1970s.
“The fuel is in Russia and ready to be transported, and it will
be delivered soon but the exact date will remain confidential,”
he added. Asked when the fuel will arrive in Iran, he replied:
“God Willing, in a few months!”
Iran and Russia signed a landmark fuel accord earlier this year,
paving the way for the firing up of the station in southern
Iran, a project the United States claims is being used as a
guise for weapons development.
According to the deal, which capped an 800-million-dollar
contract to build and bring the Bushehr plant on line, Russia,
which has been facing mounting U.S. pressure to halt nuclear
cooperation with Iran, will provide the reactor, the first of
what Iran hopes will be up to 20 similar reactors, with the
necessary nuclear fuel on condition that Iran sends back spent
fuel.
Saboury asserted the arrangement left no room for Iran diverting
the fuel to military purposes.
“Bushehr is entirely under the supervision of the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency). The fuel will be verified
before it is sent to Iran and the IAEA inspectors will be here
to open the seals,” he said.
Washington, backed by Israel, has repeatedly claimed that the
Islamic Republic is covertly trying to build atomic weapons,
charges Tehran denies.
Russian diplomats say the United States has been trying to halt
Moscow’s cooperation with Iran’s nuclear ambitions “on a daily
basis” - but Russia is set to build a second reactor at Bushehr
along with plants at other locations.
Iran’s nuclear program is crucial for the country to meet
increased energy demands from a burgeoning population. The
country is also going to obtain the technology for producing
fuel.
Under a deal between Tehran and the European Union, trying to
persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program, the Islamic
republic agreed to suspend all activities related to uranium
enrichment. Yet it asserts it will never give up its plans to
develop a full nuclear fuel cycle, and warned that the
suspension would not last much longer.
Asked how long it would take Iran to start making enriched
uranium once the suspension was lifted, Saboury said:
“Considering the existing situation, I can tell you (it would
be) very few years. It is not in the range of months.”
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
2 Las Vegas SUN: Blix: Iran Years Away From Nuke Weapons
Today: June 23, 2005 at 11:50:29 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Former chief U.N. weapons inspector
Hans Blix said Thursday it would take many years for Iran to
achieve the capability to produce highly enriched uranium needed
for an atomic bomb.
Blix also dismissed worries about a new nuclear reactor being
built in Iran, saying it was not suitable to produce
weapons-grade material.
"They have many years to go before they will be able to produce
highly enriched uranium for a bomb and I believe there is plenty
of room for negotiations," Blix said in an interview with
Swedish Radio.
The U.S. has accused Iran of trying to make nuclear arms, but
Tehran says its nuclear program is for generating energy.
Blix dismissed worries about a nuclear reactor Russia is
building in the Iranian city of Bushehr, which the United States
fears could help Tehran develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian state television on Thursday quoted Asabollah Sabori,
deputy head of Iran's nuclear agency, as saying the Bushehr
reactor will become fully operational by end of 2006.
U.S. officials have said they accept for now Russian assurances
that no enrichment or reprocessing will take place, and that any
spent fuel rods will be returned to Russia.
"These type of reactors are not very suitable to produce
plutonium. It is possible, but it is very difficult," Blix said.
"The way to go normally is to build a research reactor. The
Iranians have such plans for a 40-megawatt reactor and to use
heavy water, which has led to some suspicions.
"But these plans are very much in their infancy and the West is
not particularly worried and maybe (can) count on being able to
talk the Iranians out of it."
Iran suspended all uranium enrichment-related activities in
November to avoid having its nuclear program referred to the
U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. France, Britain
and Germany have been offering economic incentives in hopes of
persuading Iran to put a permanent halt to enrichment.
However, Iran has always said its suspension is temporary and it
will never abandon enrichment.
Blix, a former Swedish foreign minister, said in 2003 he
believed Iraq had destroyed most of its weapons of mass
destruction years before, but kept up the appearance that it had
them to deter a military attack.
He now heads a Stockholm-based independent commission on weapons
of mass destruction.
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas Open Talks to Pursue Cooperation
[UP]
Thursday June 23, 2005 6:46 AM
AP Photo TOK204
By BURT HERMAN
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North and South Korea hashed out
details of family reunions and military contacts across their
Cold War border during reconciliation talks Thursday. The U.S.
announced a 50,000-ton food donation for the impoverished North
amid efforts to coax it back to nuclear disarmament talks.
The North's delegation to the Cabinet-level talks between the
two Koreas in Seoul also planned a rare meeting with South
Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun. That follows a South Korean
minister's meeting last week in Pyonyang with the North's
reclusive leader Kim Jong Il - who raised hopes of a
breakthrough in his nuclear standoff with the international
community.
Kim said last week that the North could return to international
disarmament talks as soon as next month if the communist nation
gets appropriate respect from the United States. It has been a
year since those talks last convened June 23, 2004, with the
North refusing to return citing ``hostile'' U.S. policies.
The timing for the meeting with Roh was uncertain. A North
Korean delegation last met a South Korean leader at the
presidential Blue House in September 2001.
Lower-level officials were trying to negotiate a joint statement
for this week's inter-Korean by Thursday's scheduled end of
meetings, said the South's Unification Ministry spokesman Kim
Hong-je.
That would indicate smoother talks than previous rounds that
were extended by wrangling over the statement. The warm
atmosphere was emphasized Thursday when the two sides sat
intermixed at luncheon tables.
``The two sides are working to set dates for proposals for
inter-Korean contacts the South made,'' the spokesman said.
South Korea has proposed that Seoul and Pyongyang resume
military talks next month. It also requested that family
reunions at the North's Diamond Mountain resort restart in
August, and that relatives unable to make the trip be allowed to
see each other via the Internet.
As the talks opened Wednesday, South Korean Unification Minister
Chung Dong-young urged the North to make good on Kim's pledge
and rejoin the nuclear negotiations in July. The North has
insisted at earlier negotiations with the South that the nuclear
issue can only be resolved with Washington.
North Korea has repeated at the Seoul talks that it wouldn't
need any nuclear weapons if Washington would drop its allegedly
hostile policies toward the North.
``If the United States treats the North in a friendly manner, we
will possess not one nuclear weapon,'' the North's delegation
was quoted as saying by Kim Chun-shick, a spokesman for the
South's side.
On Wednesday, the U.S. government said it will provide 50,000
tons of food to North Korea in a humanitarian decision that it
said was unrelated to efforts to convince Pyongyang to abandon
its nuclear weapons program.
The main U.S. envoy on the issue said he would be interested in
meeting the North's reclusive leader - labeled a ``tyrant'' by
President Bush.
``I'm more than willing to meet Chairman Kim Jong Il and hope to
meet him,'' U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill
said in a message posted Wednesday on a Web site run by the U.S.
Embassy in Seoul.
The Cabinet-level talks in Seoul are the highest regular contact
between the North and South, and this week's session is the 15th
since a landmark 2000 summit between their leaders. Contacts
resumed last month after the North severed them for 10 months in
anger over mass defections of its citizens to the South.
Both sides have used the talks to foster economic ties and
arrange reunions of families separated by the Korean border.
However, the South has said any larger economic initiatives will
have to wait until the nuclear issue is resolved.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Complains About Bush Meeting
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday June 23, 2005 11:46 AM
AP Photo TOK204
By BURT HERMAN
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea condemned President Bush
for meeting a prominent defector detained as a child in a prison
camp, saying Thursday the move chilled the atmosphere for a
return to nuclear disarmament talks.
Meanwhile, a high-ranking North Korean delegation in Seoul held
a rare meeting with South Korea's president as the two sides
discussed family reunions and military contacts across their
Cold War border. The talks between the divided Koreas are
running alongside efforts to coax the North back to arms
negotiations.
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun urged North Korea's leader
Kim Jong Il to seek a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue
as soon as possible during his talks with North Korean chief
Cabinet counselor Kwon Ho Ung, Roh's spokesman told Yonhap news
agency.
The two sides scheduled a closing session Thursday evening,
indicating they had neared completion of their talks and reached
agreement on a joint statement.
Bush met last week at the White House with Kang Chol Hwan, a
defector now working as a journalist in the South and author of
``The Aquariums of Pyongyang,'' detailing his life in a North
Korean prison where he was incarcerated as a child with his
family.
Referring to Kang as ``human trash,'' the North's official
Korean Central News Agency said Washington's calls for improved
human rights in the communist nation show it ``has yet to come
up with a firm position that it would recognize and respect (the
North) as a negotiating partner.''
``It cannot be interpreted as anything other than a move pouring
cold water'' on efforts to resume the nuclear talks, KCNA wrote
in a commentary.
Just last week, the North's reclusive Kim held a surprise
meeting with a visiting South Korean envoy that raised hopes of
the country's return to the talks it has boycotted for a year.
The talks last convened one year ago. The North has refused to
return, citing ``hostile'' U.S. policies.
The U.S. government said Wednesday it would provide 50,000 tons
of food to North Korea in a humanitarian decision unrelated to
efforts to convince Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons
program.
At this week's talks between the two Koreas, South Korea has
proposed that the sides resume military talks next month. It
also requested that family reunions at the North's Diamond
Mountain resort restart in August, and that relatives unable to
make the trip be allowed to see each other via the Internet.
As the talks opened Wednesday, South Korean Unification Minister
Chung Dong-young urged the North to make good on Kim's pledge
and rejoin the nuclear negotiations in July. The North has
insisted at earlier negotiations with the South that the nuclear
issue can only be resolved with Washington.
North Korea repeated at the Seoul talks that it wouldn't need
any nuclear weapons if Washington would drop its allegedly
hostile policies toward the North.
The North was expected to push the South to meet a request for
150,000 tons of fertilizer. South Korea has already sent 200,000
tons to the North this year to help support its agriculture,
which fails to provide enough food for its people.
The Cabinet-level talks in Seoul are the highest regular contact
between the North and South, and this week's session is the 15th
since a landmark 2000 summit between their leaders. Contacts
resumed last month after the North severed them for 10 months in
anger over mass defections of its citizens to the South.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
5 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Effect of kind words
The vicissitude of inter-Korean relations over the past six
decades has produced a rich glossary of descriptions used
between the two opposing sides and their allies. For some time
in the depth of the Cold War, South and North Koreans called
each other "puppets." Times have changed and the South's foreign
minister is now asking allies to avoid certain derogatory
definitions about the North in order to create a mood conducive
to constructive negotiations.
Minister Ban Ki-moon reported from Brussels that U.S. Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice responded favorably to his request
that U.S. officials refrain from labeling North Korea as one of
the "outposts of tyranny" in consideration of Pyongyang's
expressed wish that Washington show respect for the communist
regime if it wants the resumption of the six-way nuclear talks.
Ban made the request as some senior U.S. officials continued to
use the term patented by Rice even after President Bush called
the North Korean supreme leader "Mr. Kim Jong-il" in a
significant departure from his usual choice of words such as
"dictator" and "tyrant."
In addition to the exercise of verbal nicety, Washington
announced it would ship 50,000 tons of grain to the North in
humanitarian aid. This followed Kim Jong-il's conditional offer
of compromise on the nuclear issue in his talks with Seoul's
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young. In the meeting, Kim fixed
the honorific of "His Excellency" in referring to President Bush.
After the fruitless passage of an entire administration term,
Washington officials seem to be coming to the realization that
their tough words to the North did not help at all in pursuing
the objective of nonproliferation. It will be reassuring if
their recent gestures indicate a shift in the U.S. approach
toward North Korea, if not yet with a genuine respect, then at
least with enhanced understanding of the uniqueness of the
situation on the peninsula.
2005.06.24
*****************************************************************
6 Korea Herald: U.S. gives N. Korea 50,000 tons of food aid
(angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee
2005.06.24
The United States sent out new signals toward North Korea by
pledging 50,000 tons of food aid and a comment by its top
negotiator to the six-party talks, Christoper Hill, that he
wishes to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to try to resolve
the tense nuclear standoff.
And, Hill's boss, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice took note
of South Korean government concerns that provocative rhetoric
against the North is counter-productive at a time when Pyongyang
is hinting it will return to the six-party talks.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Hill, until recently the
ambassador to South Korea, made his comments about Kim Jong-il
in responding to a letter posted by a Korean citizen on the U.S.
Embassy Web site.
"I will willingly meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il,
and I wish to meet with Kim," he wrote in reply. This is the
first time a high-ranking member of the George W. Bush
administration has publicly expressed such a sentiment.
Praising the recent positive developments in inter-Korean
relations, which include Cabinet-level meetings that resumed
this week in Seoul after a year-long break, Hill said he wished
North Korea would agree to return to the talks in July and that
solving the nuclear issue was an immense benefit for the two
Koreas and the United States.
Effectively moving toward breaking the year-long freeze in the
six-party talks, Kim Jong-il personally told visiting South
Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young last week that the
communist state would return to the disarmament talks next month
providing Washington changes its attitude.
South Korea has since taken swift diplomatic action abroad,
explaining to the United States and China the meaning behind
Kim's remarks and urging full support.
Officials here were cautious about Hill's expressed readiness
to meet Kim, saying his comments were more of an expression of a
fundamental intention to quickly solve the nuclear standoff.
"Assistant Secretary of State Hill's remarks show Washington's
will to negotiate with the North but it is only a principle, a
level of position of the United States in regard to North
Korea's nuclear problem," a government source said.
In Washington, the State Department announced on Wednesday it
will provide 50,000 metric tons of food to North Korea in a move
that was strictly on humanitarian grounds.
State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said, ""The United States
will be donating, in response to the WFP (World Food Program)
appeal, 50,000 metric tons of agricultural commodities for North
Korea."
Despite the denial that the gift was related to the six-party
talks, it is likely to provide more encouragement for the
impoverished state to return to the talks and open the ay to
receiving more aid, analysts said.
In Brussels, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon met Rice on Wednesday
on the sidelines of a conference dealing with Iraq's
reconstruction efforts, and sought a more cautious approach from
Washington in its comments about North Korea at this critical
time.
Rice reportedly responded she would bear in mind South Korea's
concerns that provocative Washington remarks against the North
can complicate efforts to bring it back to the negotiating table.
Earlier this week, U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula
Dobriansky on two different occasions described North Korea as
one of the "outposts of tyranny," a phrase first used by
President Bush months ago which sparked immediate anger in North
Korea.
Responding to Ban's emphasis that Seoul and Washington and
other parties must create an atmosphere for the North to return
to the talks, Rice explained that various opinions are expressed
in the United States since it has a large government.
But she reportedly added that the most important views
concerning North Korea were the opinions of President Bush and
herself.
In another development, Chinese President Hu Jintao will likely
visit North Korea as early as next month to add pressure and get
a specific date from North Korea for its return to the
six-nation talks, Yonhap News Agency reported.
Quoting unidentified diplomatic sources from South Korea and
Japan, the report said Hu's trip will encourage North Korea to
announce its timetable to return to the stalled six-way
negotiations in late July.
*****************************************************************
7 Xinhua: DPRK presents prerequisite to denuclearization of Korean Peninsula
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-23 20:03:02
PYONGYANG, June 23 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Thursday again turned down US
demands to "scrap the nuclear program first," and listed the
elimination of US nuclear threats against it and US willingness
to co-exist peacefully with it as prerequisites to the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The DPRK's Rodong Sinmun newspaper in a commentary rejected
the persistent US demands for Pyongyang to scrap its nuclear
program first, stressing that the prerequisite to
denuclearization is for the US to discard its nuclear threat to
the DPRK and switch over to peaceful co-existence.
The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula entails turning
the entire area, including the north and the south, into a
nuclear-free zone and eventually removing the danger of a
nuclear war from the peninsula, the commentary said.
The newspaper criticized the US as misleading public opinion
bycreating the impression that the denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula means that the DPRK would first have to scrap
it's nuclear program immediately.
"If the Korean Peninsula is to be turned into a nuclear-free
zone, a peace zone, the US nuclear threat to the DPRK must be
eliminated, first of all," it said.
"The danger of a nuclear war cannot be dispelled from the
Korean Peninsula and its denuclearization also cannot be
achieved when the United States refuses to recognize the system
of the DPRK and show the willingness to co-exist with it," the
commentary explained.
"It is a consistent stand of the DPRK government to
terminate the US nuclear threat and realize the denuclearization
of the Korean Peninsula. There will be no change in its
principled stand in the future," it added. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Korea Times: Hu May Visit NK Early Next Month
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
SEOUL (Yonhap) _ Chinese President Hu Jintao is likely to visit
North Korea in early July and win a date from
North Korea to rejoin stalled international talks on
Pyongyang's nuclear program, South Korean and Japanese sources
said Thursday.
The diplomatic sources, whose identities are being withheld by
Yonhap News Agency on request, said Hu's trip will encourage
North Korea to announce its timetable to return to the stalled
six-way negotiations in late July.
``Hu's trip to Pyongyang is to come under the premise that he
will get a specific North Korean commitment for its return to
the nuclear talks,¡¯¡¯ one of the two sources told Yonhap.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, in a rare meeting with visiting
South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young in Pyongyang
last week, already said his country could rejoin the nuclear
dialogue table as early as July if Washington shows it respect
as a dialogue partner.
Should Hu return from his Pyongyang trip with a firm date that
puts the multilateral talks back on track, it could be viewed as
a considerable victory for him in the international arena, the
sources said.
China, as host to three rounds of the six-nation talks which
ended without a breakthrough, has been under pressure from the
United States and other dialogue partners to do more to get
Pyongyang back to the negotiating table.
During his visit to China in April, 2004, Kim Jong-il invited
Hu to Pyongyang, which the Chinese leader accepted. The North's
prime minister, Pak Pong-ju, renewed the invitation when he
visited Beijing in February.
06-23-2005 17:22
*****************************************************************
9 Korea Times: [Times Forum] A Moment to Seize With North Korea
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion
By Donald Gregg and Don Oberdorfer
Washington Post News Service
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's remarkable statements to a
South Korean envoy last Friday present a rare opportunity to
move promptly toward ending the dangerous nuclear proliferation
crisis in Northeast Asia. The Bush administration should seize
the moment.
The reclusive leader told South Korea's minister of unification,
Chung Dong Young, that he is willing to return to the six-nation
talks on his nuclear weapons program if the United States
"recognizes and respects" his country. More than that, according
to Chung, he raised the prospect of reversing his burgeoning
nuclear program, rejoining the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
which he abandoned two years ago, and welcoming back U.N.
nuclear inspectors in return for a credible security guarantee.
The U.S. national interest as well as the interests of our Asian
partners in the talks _ all of whom favor much greater U.S.
engagement with North Korea _ call for a positive response from
Washington. This would be particularly welcome in Seoul, which
both of us visited last week.
For starters, we suggest that President Bush, after touching
base with our Asian partners _ South Korea, China, Japan and
Russia _ communicate directly with Kim Jong-il to follow up on
his remarks. He might consider offering to send Assistant
Secretary of State Chris Hill and Ambassador Joseph DeTrani to
Pyongyang to prepare for a visit to Kim by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice. The purpose would be to explore the policies
behind Kim's words to determine whether practical arrangements
can be made, subject to approval by our partners in the
six-nation talks, to end the dangerous North Korean nuclear
program.
In efforts to reassure North Korea, the United States has
repeatedly declared that it recognizes North Korean sovereignty,
has no hostile intent and is willing to arrange security
guarantees and move toward normal relations with Pyongyang once
the nuclear issue is resolved. Kim's remarks present a golden
opportunity to take the U.S. offers to the one and only person
in North Korea who has the power of decision.
According to those who have met him personally in the past _
including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi _ Kim is more flexible than anyone else in his
government. That is not surprising, since he sets the line and
others must follow.
As we well know, this is not the first time that Kim has sought
engagement rather than hostility with President Bush, whom he
discussed Friday in surprisingly positive terms. During a visit
we made to Pyongyang in November 2002 following a
nuclear-related trip by Assistant Secretary of State James
Kelly, we were given a written personal message from Kim to Bush
declaring, "If the United States recognizes our sovereignty and
assures non-aggression, it is our view that we should be able to
find a way to resolve the nuclear issue in compliance with the
demands of a new century." Further, he declared, "If the United
States makes a bold decision, we will respond accordingly."
We took the message to senior officials at the White House and
State Department and urged the administration to follow up on
Kim's initiative, which we have not made public until now. Then
deep in secret planning and a campaign of public persuasion for
the invasion of Iraq, the administration spurned engagement with
North Korea. Kim moved within weeks to expel the inspectors from
the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, withdraw from the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and reopen the plutonium-producing
facilities that had been shut down since 1994 under an agreement
negotiated with the Clinton administration.
Now the North Koreans are believed to have produced the raw
material for at least a half-dozen nuclear weapons and many
believe their claim to have fabricated the weapons themselves.
Early this year North Korea declared that it has become "a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state" and that it is working to
produce still more atomic arms, all in response to U.S.
hostility.
Kim's statements Friday may be a sign that he is uncomfortable
with persistent pressure from the United States and his Asian
neighbors to return to the six-nation talks, which he left a
year ago. He may also be feeling the pinch of deepening food
shortages in his country.
By reversing his nuclear program in return for the guarantees he
seeks, Kim could avert stronger measures being discussed in
Washington and other capitals to force the issue. These
measures, in our judgment, promise only greater confrontation
and growing danger on all sides.
By visiting Pyongyang and engaging Kim, Rice would not be
condoning North Korea's human rights practices. The State
Department has made clear that human rights is an issue to be
resolved in negotiations on establishing full U.S. relations,
not in talks on the nuclear question. If she responds to Kim's
latest statements with a well-prepared visit and successful
negotiations, Rice will have earned her spurs as America's chief
diplomat.
Gregg, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, is president of
the Korea Society. Oberdorfer, a former diplomatic correspondent
for the Washington Post, is journalist-in-residence at Johns
Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies.
06-23-2005 16:15
*****************************************************************
10 "Buster the Friendly Nuke" Can Help You Organize Against New
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:17:01 -0500 (CDT)
Want to use a little entertainment to enlist your friends in FCNLs
campaign to oppose new nuclear weapons?
You can view our new, fun animated cartoon about opposing new nuclear
weapons by clicking on the link below. Like it? Then send it to 10 of
your friends and ask them to write their senators to cut funds for the
nuclear bunker buster. The cartoon can be viewed on the Friends
Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) web site at:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/OTEMEUSQDN/
(Requires Flash Player, available at
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/BIAFEUSQDO/)
The Senate will vote on whether to cut funds for the bunker buster
bomb very soon perhaps the week of July 11. We need to get as many
emails as possible to senators telling them to oppose the nuclear
bunker buster. You can use FCNLs web site to write your senators
at http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/BLZCEUSQDP/
---------
A bunker buster nuclear bomb could kill over a million people,
according to a government-sponsored report by the National Academy of
Sciences. See http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/LAREEUSQDQ/ for
more information.
---------
GET 10 FRIENDS INVOLVED in opposing new nuclear weapons!
Since youve most likely already written your members of Congress
about the bunker buster, now its time to get others to take action.
You can send them this cartoon to get them interested, at the same time
suggesting that they write their senators to oppose the nuclear
bunker buster.
The cartoon illustrates through irony the foolishness of trying to
develop a more usable nuclear weapon. In fact the nuclear bunker
buster would be 70 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on
Hiroshima and would burrow only a few yards underground. It would spew
a large cloud of radioactive fallout into the air which could kill
millions of people.
Forward this email to 10 of your friends today urging them to write
their senators expressing opposition to new nuclear weapons. Dont
forget to put your name in the subject line of your email.
VISIT WITH YOUR SENATORS when they are home from July 2 to July 10:
Your senators will probably be back in your state for the Independence
Day recess. This is a good time to request a meeting with your senator
to discuss your opposition to the nuclear bunker buster bomb. For
information on how to set up a meeting with your senators, go to:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/LPMSEUSQDR/
More information on the Friends Committee on National Legislation and
our nuclear disarmament program
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/LHCGEUSQDS/
Read FCNLs fact sheet on the bunker buster
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/DXMFEUSQDT/
See a scientific animation from the Union of Concerned Scientists about
why the nuclear bunker buster is an impractical weapon:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/ASCSEUSQDU/
_______________________________________
The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign,
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/KICCEUSQDV/
Contact Congress and the Administration:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/DGTKEUSQDW/
Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign
bumper stickers and yard signs:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/ELWFEUSQDX/
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/LYZBEUSQDY/
Contribute to FCNL:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/ILSEEUSQDZ/
Subscribe or update your information to this list:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/GJAAEUSQEA/ To unsubscribe
from this list, please see the end of this message.
Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/LVMWEUSQEB/
________________________________________
Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/EQOBEUSPZC/OGXXEUSQEC/
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330
We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored.
---
If you no longer wish to receive mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/fconl/lmx/u/?jobid=56992184.
*****************************************************************
11 Many Stories, One Vision for a Nuclear Free World Conference
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:53:52 -0700
Im writing to let you know of a Pax Christi USA and Nevada Desert
Experience national conference and public witness that is taking place this
August 4-7, 2005, in Las Vegas, Nevada. The conference, Many Stories, One
Vision for a Nuclear-Free World,will bring people from across the country
together to remember the victims of the worlds first nuclear attacks in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to challenge the dangerous moves being made by
the current administration toward new nuclear weapons production and testing.
Were hoping that, if you have the capacity, you might be able to help
promote this event by circulating the blurb below (or an edited version of
the blurb below) to your email list or Web site. Were hoping to bring
together as many activists and concerned citizens as possible to
commemorate the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to
challenge U.S. military policy as it relates to increased nuclear weapons
production and testing.
If you have any questions, or would like more information, dont hesitate to
contact me. I can be reached by email at
mike@paxchristiusa.org, or by phone at
814-453-4955, ext. 228. Thanks for your time, and many blessings on your work.
Sincerely,
Michael Jones
Communications Associate
Pax Christi USA
www.paxchristiusa.org
Many Stories, One Vision for a Nuclear Free World: August 4-7, 2005 in Las
Vegas, NV
August 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Urged on by the Hibukasha the survivors of the
first nuclear attacks the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have called for
A Year of Remembrance and Action for a Nuclear Weapons Free World. To
honor this call, Pax Christi USA and the Nevada Desert Experience have
joined together to sponsor Many Stories, One Vision for a Nuclear Free
World,a national conference and public witness at the University of
Nevada-Las Vegas and the Nevada Test Site, from August 4-7, 2005. As we
mark this anniversary, we come together to not only remember the victims of
the worlds first nuclear attacks, but to challenge the dangerous moves made
by the Bush administration toward new nuclear weapons production and
testing. We invite you to join in this important and timely gathering of
peacemakers from across a broad spectrum of interfaith, ecumenical and
secular activists committed to stopping renewed nuclear weapons testing,
and challenge directly the global U.S. militarism that today drives our
nation's policies.
Featured speakers at the conference include Dave Robinson, Executive
Director of Pax Christi USA; Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Director of The Shalom
Center; Janet Chisholm, Coordinator of Nonviolence Training for the
Fellowship of Reconciliation; Bishop Steven Charleston, Native American
Episcopal Bishop and Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School; Frida Berrigan,
Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute; and Fr. John Dear,
S.J., a Jesuit priest and author of more than 20 books on peace and
justice. Workshop presentations during the conference will be led by
representatives from Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation, Citizen Alert, the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research, the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, and Western States Legal
Foundation, among others. Topics covered will include International Law
and the Military,Nuclear Weapons and the Environment: National and Global
Impacts,Nuclear Weapons and the University,Indigenous Life and Lands
Poisoned by Nuclear Weapons,and many more.
Together, during this weekend when we remember the massive devastation
wrought by the first nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we join
with millions of people throughout the world to call for an end to nuclear
war and nuclear proliferation, and to shed light on the dangerous full
scope of U.S. nuclear weapons policy today. For more information on the
Many Stories, One Vision for a Nuclear Free Worldconference and witness,
including a downloadable registration form, please visit
www.paxchristiusa.org. You can also contact
Pax Christi USA by phone at 814-453-4955, ext. 221 to request more
information.
*****************************************************************
12 Las Vegas SUN: Senate Wraps Up Energy Bill Talks
Today: June 23, 2005 at 10:45:19 PDT
By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
0622dv-bushenergy The Senate began wrapping up consideration of
an energy bill Thursday that focuses on cleaner fossil fuels,
reneweable energy and conservation but avoids some of the most
divisive issues, including President Bush's call for oil
drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge.
In the short term, it would do nothing to force down high
gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce
America's growing reliance on foreign oil.
Senate leaders said they anticipated the bill could come to a
vote before the day was out. Senators signaled their desire to
move swiftly on the legislation, voting 92-4 to limit further
debate to only a handful of amendments.
The legislation would provide $18 billion in energy tax
incentives, much of them aimed at getting people to use less
energy or promoting renewable sources such as wind and solar
power. It also calls for doubling the use of corn-based ethanol,
a boon to farmers, and provides a system of loan guarantees to
help introduce new clean coal technology and the next generation
of nuclear power reactors.
The Senate measure differs markedly from legislation passed by
the House in April.
Assuming the bill will pass, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has
predicted tough negotiations with the House over some of the
major differences, including the amount and distribution of tax
incentives and whether to include liability protection from
environmental lawsuits for the makers of the gasoline additive
MTBE.
The MTBE provision, which is in the House-passed bill, was
blamed for Congress' failure to pass an energy bill two years
ago. The House also would provide only about $8 billion in tax
breaks, most of it for traditional fossil energy industries and
electric utilities.
The Senate bill avoids other contentious issues, including
proposed oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge - which is in the House bill - and provisions that would
significantly increase the fuel economy of automobiles and sport
utility vehicles.
Domenici called the legislation "a new American policy ... for
domestic growth" and said its passage would "fulfill a
long-standing need for an American energy policy."
In recent weeks with crude oil prices at a record high and
gasoline costing well over $2 a gallon at the pump, Bush has
repeatedly called on Congress to give him an energy bill before
August. Given the expected tough negotiations remaining with the
House, most senators believe that target is unlikely to be met.
For more than four years Congress has tried to enact energy
legislation. Twice both the House and Senate passed separate
energy bills, but were unable to agree on a final version.
Among the provisions in the Senate bill are:
- A requirement that refiners use 8 billion gallons of ethanol
in gasoline, about double current production, by 2012.
-Approval for an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources, a
move critics said could be a prelude to drilling in areas now
off limits.
-A provision on climate change that endorses Bush's policies of
limiting action to voluntary measures and focuses on development
of new technologies to reduce heat-trapping emissions.
-Federal reliability requirements and standards for electricity
grids.
-Clear authority for federal regulators to override state
opposition in the siting of liquefied natural gas import
terminals.
----
On the Net:
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
http://energy.senate.gov/public
White House Council of Environmental Quality:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq
*****************************************************************
13 Public Citizen: Nuclear Industry to Receive More Than $10 Billion in Tax Breaks
and Subsidies in Senate Energy Bill
June 22, 2005
Public Citizen Says Nuclear Power Doesnt Deserve More Taxpayer
Handouts; 50-Year-Old Industry Should Stand on Its Own
WASHINGTON, D.C. In a new cost analysis of the Senate energy
bill, Public Citizen today said that the nuclear industry would
stand to gain more than $10.1 billion in subsidies and tax
breaks, as well as unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and
other incentives.
The government should not be promoting the construction of new
reactors, which will only add to the nuclear waste and security
problems while costing taxpayers billions, said Wenonah Hauter,
director of Public Citizens energy program. The nuclear
industry is demanding cradle-to-grave subsidies, and the Senate
energy bill is an attempt to give it to them.
The $10.1 billion includes $5.7 billion in production tax
credits and $4.4 billion in various subsidies, but does not
include the potential costs of loan guarantees or the
Price-Anderson Act, which puts taxpayers on the hook for
potentially billions in cleanup costs in the event of a major
accident or terrorist attack on a reactor.
The production tax credits equal 1.8 cents for each
kilowatt-hour of electricity from new reactors (up to 6,000
megawatts) during the first eight years of operation costing
$5.7 billion through 2025, according to the Energy Information
Administration. However, only $278 million through 2016 is
counted in the $18 billion in tax breaks in the bill, because
most of the nuclear credits would be claimed after 2016. This
means that the true cost of all the tax breaks, including those
for non-nuclear industries, is more than $24 billion.
Separately, the loan guarantees in the Senate bill could prove
extremely costly to taxpayers. According to the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), the risk of loan default by industry would
be very high well above 50 percent leaving the public to
pay as much as 80 percent of the cost of building a reactor.
This provision authorizes such sums as are necessary, but if
Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees
covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially
cost taxpayers $6 billion (assuming a 50 percent default rate
and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as the CBO has
estimated).
Other subsidies for the nuclear industry in the Senate energy
bill include:
+ Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, extending the
industrys liability cap to cover new nuclear power plants built
in the next 20 years, which means in the event of an accident or
attack, taxpayers would be liable for the remainder of the cost,
estimated to be $600 billion for a single serious accident (2004
dollars).
+ Authorization of more than $432 million over three years for
nuclear energy research and development, including the
Department of Energys Nuclear Power 2010 program to build new
nuclear plants, and its Generation IV program to develop new
reactor designs. Half the cost of applications for new reactors
would be paid for by taxpayers, estimated to be as much as $87
million per reactor.
+ Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to
FY2015 and such sums as are necessary from FY2016 to FY2021
for a nuclear plant in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen
could be a clean fuel of the future, but using nuclear power to
produce it negates the benefits.
Existing reactors have been heavily subsidized for decades,
receiving 56 percent of the federal energy supply research and
development funding between 1948 and 1998, capped insurance
rates and limited liability in the case of an accident, and
billions in taxpayer bailouts in the 1980s.
Despite a pro-nuclear push by the Bush administration and some
members of Congress, nuclear power is not an acceptable option
for the future, said Hauter. We have been there, done that
and it has been a failure. After more than 50 years, the
problems of nuclear power are far from solved. In fact, they are
more widely recognized than ever.
In March, e-mails were released indicating that government
scientists falsified data related to water infiltration and
climate modeling for the proposed Yucca Mountain waste dump
site; investigations are still ongoing. Also, recent reports by
the National Academy of Sciences and the Government
Accountability Office pointed out security vulnerabilities of
the highly radioactive waste stored at reactor sites. The energy
bill contains no requirements for improving security at these
sites.
Nuclear power has made headlines this year as proponents attempt
to convince a wary public that nuclear energy can solve the
global warming problem. Last week, nearly 300 environmental and
public interest organizations sent a letter to Congress flatly
rejecting nuclear energy as an acceptable or necessary
solution to combat rising temperatures on the planet because it
is an expensive, dangerous and polluting technology.
We urge the Senate to remove these unjustifiable subsidies, tax
breaks and loan guarantees from the energy bill, Hauter said.
After 50 years, the nuclear industry should stand on its own.
Instead of endless subsidies to nuclear companies, Congress
should dedicate funds to harness the promise of energy
efficiency and renewable technologies, such as wind and solar
energy.
Last month, Public Citizen released a new fact sheet series
outlining the five fatal flaws of nuclear power: cost, waste,
safety, security and proliferation (to read them, click here.
For more information about the subsidies and other incentives in
the Senate energy bill, For a copy of the statement opposing
nuclear power,
Yesterday, the Senate added Sen. Chuck Hagels climate change
amendment, which authorizes additional financial assistance
through 2010, including direct loans, loan guarantees, a line of
credit and production incentive payments, that could include new
nuclear power plants.
###
*****************************************************************
14 Deseret news: Wind could become major Utah power source
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, June 23, 2005
More people interested in developing wind energy
By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News
Within 20 years, the wind rustling across Utah's landscape may
not be simply the lonely voice of nature. It may be a power
source, turning turbines that could contribute 741 megawatts to
the electrical grid, according to the U.S. Interior Department.
That would be nearly three times the amount of
electricity presently generated by the breath of Mother Nature
in this state, according to the "Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on
BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States."
The report was released Tuesday by the Bureau of Land
Management.
The Utah contribution pales in comparison with the 30,801
megawatts projected for 11 Western states.
One megawatt is enough electricity to supply 240 to 300
households for a year, according to the report.
A programmatic study differs from a site-specific
examination because it looks at the overall impacts. When a
project is proposed for a particular area, the larger study can
be consulted.
"Our quality of life and our economic security are
dependent on a stable and affordable supply" of abundant energy,
Rebecca Watson, assistant secretary of the Interior Department
for land and minerals management, said during a telephone press
conference.
Interest in wind energy is picking up, she said.
"In the last 4 1/2 years, we've issued 74 permits" to
develop the resource, she said.
She contrasted that with the record of the Bill Clinton
presidency.
Over eight years, she said, "They issued only 13 wind
permits."
A chart in the document shows non-BLM land in Utah hosts
turbines generating 162 megawatts, while BLM holdings are
responsible for 98 megawatts. In 20 years, the totals are
projected to jump to 485 megawatts and 256 megawatts,
respectively.
Utah BLM land doesn't have any actual production of wind
power today, said Ray Brady, BLM group manager for land and
realty.
Apparently, the chart indicates places where production
would be possible by the end of the year.
"We have two authorized rights of way in Utah," he said.
"These are (for) site testing and monitoring. We have one
pending application in Utah."
Most of the new development would happen in California
and Nevada, Watson said. The impact statement, a massive
document posted on the Internet at
windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm, examines the
environmental, social and economic impacts of developing wind
energy.
The statement will allow "the expedited permitting of
wind energy in these 11 Western states," Watson said.
An appendix marks these Utah areas in dark blue, meaning
they have "high wind resource" potential: spots in the vicinity
of Castle Valley, near Moab; a broken arc from Trout Creek to a
region west of Kanosh; scattered sites around Milford; a stretch
about 30 miles northwest of Mexican Hat; places north and west
of Price; east of Salina, and west and south of Hanksville; a
few sites in western Box Elder County, and a series of areas
west of Ivans, Washington County.
These scattered localities amount to 12,700 acres in Utah
where wind potential might be developed, she said. The
calculations take into account factors such as wilderness areas
or wilderness study areas where projects could not be built, as
well as the availability of transmission lines.
"That's something you can't forget," Watson said.
"There's a very important need for transmission lines to deliver
wind energy to the customer."
Many sites with "good, strong winds" won't be useful
because of the lack of power lines, she said.
The BLM manages more than 20 million acres of land with
high potential for wind power generation, she said, "But because
of the lack of transmission, it drops down to 200,000 acres."
That's why California has such a large proportion of the
potential for development, she added. The transmission
facilities are already there.
She said other areas of the country also have strong
potential for wind energy developments.
"The northeast part of the United States has very high
wind resources," Watson said.
Private companies have expressed interest in developing
those resources. An energy bill pending before Congress seeks
authority to permit alternative energy in other areas, including
wind, wave and current power.
"Right now, there is no one federal agency that has
authority to permit renewable energy in the Outer Continental
Shelf," she said.
The programmatic statement will allow the BLM to amend 52
land-use plans covering areas throughout the West. With the
agency, the assistant secretary said, "Nothing happens on public
land unless the land-use plan permits it."
She said there are pros and cons about the development.
"There are wildlife impacts," such as avoiding harm to
bird migration routes. "You have impacts from the construction
activities that can raise dust and get into the water, you have
the visual impacts from the turbines," she said.
On the plus side, she added, "Of course, this is a
renewable resource. It's a clean resource and it's domestic."
Agency officials will have to look at the question of
whether a proposed turbine is in an appropriate place, and will
need to use the best management practices to reduce, eliminate
or minimize impacts, she said.
Improved technology is reducing the number of turbines
required to generate a given amount of power, Watson said.
"Wind power is growing rapidly," she added. "The Wind
Energy Association is hoping to grow it to be about 6 percent of
the nation's total energy supply by about 2020."
That is about three times the present proportion.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
15 Deseret news: Duo praise defense bill
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Bishop, Matheson tout funds Utah is to receive
By Jerry D. Spangler and Leigh Dethman Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Utah-based defense and aerospace contractors could
fare pretty well under provisions of a defense appropriations
bill passed earlier this week by the House and now awaiting
Senate action.
['Photo'] ['']
Deseret Morning News graphic
Reps. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Jim Matheson, D-Utah,
hailed the passage of the legislation, which includes a 3.1
percent pay increase for military personnel, $1.2 billion for
protective field gear and $230 million for enhanced insurance
and death benefits.
"First and foremost, this legislation is about supporting
our troops on the ground, from providing for more body armor to
raising military pay," Matheson said.
But the defense bill is also about bringing home the
bacon, and both Bishop and Matheson were touting the millions
that would be coming to Utah if the bill is approved by the
Senate.
Bishop helped secure $7 million to upgrade the Senior
Scout system, a program solely supported by the 169th
Intelligence Squadron of the Utah National Guard.
The Senior Scout system is a collection of intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance equipment that provides
capabilities to exploit, "geo-locate" and report signals of
interest to air and ground unit commanders. The onboard
electronic system can be loaded into the back of a C-130
military transport.
The Utah Air National Guard doesn't have any C-130s in
its fleet, said Lt. Col. Bill Siddoway, commander of the 169th.
"We have to thumb a ride every time we deploy," which is
about once every three months for a 30-day deployment, Siddoway
said.
However, the Senior Scout system can be deployed with the
linguists and analysts of the 169th Intelligence Squadron, and
the system can be installed on any premodified aircraft within
24 hours, according to the National Guard Bureau.
The bill also includes $5.2 million for a new satellite
antenna and software to provide "reach-back" capability as part
of the Senior Scout system.
This capability allows remote operator workstations, live
audio and digital data distribution and storage to members of
the 169th.
Siddoway said the 169th's Senior Scout system is "the
only one in the Air Force," and the funding from the Defense
bill will fund much-needed upgrades.
The bill also included $5 million for the Science and
Engineering Lab Data Integration (SELDI) to assist in accessing
information regarding maintenance overhaul operations. This
program directly benefits the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill
Air Force Base.
Bishop also inserted language that instructs the
Department of Defense and NASA to look into the benefits of a
shuttle-based flight system into space, as opposed to other
systems that are not as proven or capable.
"ATK-Thiokol believes this study will vindicate the
shuttle system for which they build boosters, as opposed to
other more expensive, less capable heavy lift boosters," Scott
Parker, Bishop's spokesman, said.
"This could end up having a substantial impact for one of
our large, local private employers in Utah and for our space
program in general."
Bishop also sought $10 million for research and
development of the next generation engine for the cruise missile.
Late last year, the Russians, who have been working with
India on testing a new cutting-edge weapons system, bragged that
"we have broken the U.S. monopoly on the use of long-range
conventional cruise missiles," Parker said.
"The United States developed and, until recently, had an
edge over any rivals in this important precision high-tech
weapons system," he said. "For the better part of the last
century, it has been technology which has helped give the U.S.
superiority over potential foes. We are now having to play
"catch-up," and this amendment was needed to help close the
distance."
The money requested by Bishop would accelerate the
development of an advanced supersonic cruise missile engine
through the Air Force Research Laboratory, Propulsion Division,
Turbine Engine Directorate.
Once the engine is fully qualified as combat ready,
companies like Ogden's Williams International can begin work on
follow-up systems and possibly a next generation cruise missile.
Williams International builds the majority of the turbo-fan
engines for cruise missiles today.
"Cruise missiles of various configurations have proven to
be precision weapons of choice by battle planners in recent
conflicts," Parker said. "Given emerging threats and recent
announcements by Russia of their having developed a highly
advanced and supersonic cruise missile design, the U.S. Air
Force and Navy must initiate our next generation of supersonic
advanced cruise missile and engines to meet these emerging
threats."
Parker added that supersonic delivery of weapons with new
advanced conventional warheads will greatly improve depth of
penetration to reach buried and reinforced targets. "Currently
we do not have this engine capability," he said.
Matheson requested $1.5 million for Ceramatec's pain
therapy system, which may provide a better alternative for
treating soldiers' chronic pain, and $2 million for EDO's Common
Depth Sounder, a navigation system that can be installed on
surface ships and submarines.
Also included in the bill at Matheson's request is $1.5
million for a solar cell production facility in St. George, a
high-tech manufacturing plant that creates solar arrays used in
defense and NASA satellites, and $1 million for Artiss' research
into an anti-motion sickness computer display, a drug-free
device that may reduce motion sickness for soldiers in the field.
"These Utah firms and Utah employees have developed a
number of innovative products that contribute to our national
defense and I am pleased this funding will support that effort,"
said Matheson.
Among the other projects, all requested by Bishop:
• $5.6 million for research and development of new
casting technologies utilizing copper.
• Restoring 75 percent of the proposed cuts to the
Ballistic Missile Defense program, which will help ATK-Thiokol.
• $800,000 designated for design of a missile silo
consolidation/military construction project for HAFB.
• A long-term procurement agreement for the C-17
aircraft. Salt Lake City companies make parts and sub-assemblies
for the aircraft.
• $3 million toward the design and construction of a new
beryllium processing plant. Beryllium, a metal of strategic
military importance, is mined only in the United States at
Brush-Wellman mines in Millard County, Utah.
E-mail: spang@desnews.com; ldethman@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
16 [PR] Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, UN, Torture,
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:20:21 -0500 (CDT)
The Progressive Response 22 June 2005 Vol. 9, No. 13
Editor: John Gershman
The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the International
Relations Center (IRC, formerly Interhemispheric Resource Center,
online at www.irc-online.org) as part of its Foreign Policy in Focus
(FPIF) project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without Walls," is an international
network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the U.S. a more
responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen movements
and agendas." FPIF is a joint project of the International Relations
Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. We encourage responses to
the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and
Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our
network, please consider visiting the FPIF website at
http://www.fpif.org/, or email to share your
thoughts with us.
John Gershman, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with
the International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org)
and codirector of FPIF. He can be contacted at .
**** We Count on Your Support ****
Dear Friends,
We'd like to call your attention to the "new look" for the Progressive
Response. We're upgrading the way you interact with us, and how your
personal information is stored in our systems. This represents the
first in a series of changes we'll be making to our website and
electronic products. More will be coming over the next few months and
we hope it makes reading the PR as well as accessing our materials on
the website a more enjoyable experience. As always, we appreciate your
reactions, suggestions, and comments. As you might expect, making these
changes as well as making our material available continues to be
expensive, and we ask those who are able to make a contribution to
support FPIF's work. You can donate online at
https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm or send a check to
Foreign Policy In Focus c/o IRC, PO Box 2178, Silver City, NM
88062-2178. Thanks for your support.
Updates and Out-Takes
Undermining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: It Didn't Start With
the Bush Administration | Stephen Zunes
Breaking the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) Stalemate: Japan
Could Help | Anthony DiFilippo
H.R. 2745: An IED for the UN | Col. Daniel Smith (Ret.)
Torture Convention Needs Refining | Ben Saul
When Wearing White Is Not Chic, And Collaboration Is Not Cool | Patrick
Bond, Dennis Brutus, and Virginia Setshedi
Silence in the Face of Truth: The Downing Street Memo | Dante Zappala
New Syria looks, acts like old Syria | Ronald Bruce St John
Letters and Comments
French Vote Not a Vote Against the European Union
U.S. Should Unconditionally Withdraw from Iraq
I. Updates and Out-Takes
Undermining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: It Didn't Start With
the Bush Administration
By Stephen Zunes
Blame for the failure of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty review
conference has correctly been placed on the Bush administration. Yet
the roots of this serious setback were planted long ago: in the
failures of administrations from both parties throughout the postwar
period to take arms control, let alone disarmament, seriously, and
their penchant for viewing the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a tool of
strategic advantage. This FPIF Special Report lays out the historical
context of the current impasse.
Stephen Zunes is a professor at the University of San Francisco, and
Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at
www.fpif.org).
See complete special report online at
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0506undermine.html
Breaking the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) Stalemate: Japan
Could Help
By Anthony DiFilippo
Fresh thinking is needed following the failure of the NPT review
conference. A disarmament and Japan expert outlines what's needed to
revive the process and focuses on the key role of Japan.
Anthony DiFilippo is Professor of Sociology at Lincoln University in
Pennsylvania, USA. His most recent book is The Challenges of the
U.S.-Japan Military Arrangement: Competing Security Transitions in a
Changing International Environment, M.E. Sharpe, 2002.
See complete commentary online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0506npt.html
H.R. 2745: An IED for the UN
By Col. Daniel Smith (Ret.)
Heres a partial snapshot of current global humanitarian crises:
Genocide in Darfur leaves an estimated 180,000 dead and more than two
million homeless.
Renewed ethnic violence in Cote dIvoire threatens to reignite civil
war.
With elections planned for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and
Haiti, more peacekeepers are needed in both countries. Yet donors have
pledged less than three quarters of the $255 million required to hold
and protect the DRC election while China has vetoed a one year
extension of the Haiti peacekeeping mission.
Meanwhile, citizens in 23 countries favor expansion of the UN Security
Council (an institution that could play a critical role in effectively
responding to such crises) and allowing the Council to override the
veto of one of the five permanent members.
Into this swirl of needs and proposals, however, Representative Henry
Hyde (R-IL), Chairman of the House International Relations Committee,
has thrown H.R. 2745, "The United Nations Reform Act of 2005," the
equivalent of a legislative IED (improvised explosive device) that,
should it become law, would not reform the UN (as the title of the
proposed legislation proclaims) but would severely maim if not kill it.
In this policy report, analyst Dan Smith provides a comprehensive
assessment of the Hyde legislation, which provides a a recipe for
renewed massive U.S. payment arrears and increased micromanagement that
could destroy the UN.
Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus
(online at www.fpif.org), a retired U.S. Army colonel, and a senior
fellow on military affairs at the Friends Committee on National
Legislation.
See complete discussion paper online at
http://presentdanger.irc-online.org/papers/0506hyde.html
Torture Convention Needs Refining
By Ben Saul
The torture scandal rocking the U.S. and British militaries in the war
on terror is shocking because of the serious breaches of international
law involved. But it also exposes serious flaws and ambiguities in the
international legal framework prohibiting and criminalizing torture.
In the first place, in defining terrorism, the Convention against
Torture does not list individual acts of torture, but merely provides a
general definition. Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of
severe pain or suffering, by a public official, for one of four
purposes: to obtain information or a confession, to punish, to
intimidate or coerce, or to discriminate against a person.
The failure of the convention to name and shame specific acts as
torture allows unscrupulous government lawyers to claim that certain
acts are merely aggressive, but permissible, interrogation techniques.
The struggle against terrorism will be won by meticulous and
time-honored police work, not by cutting corners through torture.
Terrorism does not demand that we torture to defend ourselves. To the
contrary, the threat of terrorism is a reminder of the importance of
protecting human dignity, even of terrorists. Reforming flaws in the
Torture Convention is one small but necessary step in that direction.
Ben Saul is a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of New
South Wales and the director of the Bills of Rights Project at the
Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. This is a slightly revised
version of a presentation first broadcast on ABC Radio Nationals
Perspective and published by Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org).
See complete commentary online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0506torture.html
When Wearing White Is Not Chic, And Collaboration Is Not Cool
By Patrick Bond, Dennis Brutus, and Virginia Setshedi
The authors, all based in South Africa, argue that many of the
NGO-dominated anti-poverty coalitions such as Make Poverty History,
Live 8, and the Global Call to Action to End Poverty remain unmoored
from grassroots social movement struggles, increasing the possibility
that such campaigns will serve to legitimate Northern-dominated aid,
trade, and development policy agendas. Without the coherence provided
by organic struggles fought by mass democratic movements across the
Global South (including in Northern ghettoes), the construction of a
top-down campaign against poverty is both unrealistic and subject to
early cooption.
Orienting so much activity toward the already watered-down UN
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) could draw away activist energy and
resources in many Third World countries, from organic struggles and
organizational imperatives. If GCAP is successful, we foresee a tsunami
of distraction, flooding out the diverse local struggles that could
insteadif nurtured carefullysupport a genuinely bottom-up,
internationally linked, networked fight against injustice.
Patrick Bond is based at the Centre for Civil Society at the University
of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban (http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/) and a frequent
contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org); Dennis Brutus is
a poet and professor emeritus at University of Pittsburgh, and works
with Jubilee South Africa and the Centre for Economic Justice; and
Virginia Setshedi is a Soweto-based anti-privatization activist
employed at the Freedom of Expression Institute
(http://www.fxi.org.za/).
See complete report online at http://www.fpif.org/papers/0506white.html
Silence in the Face of Truth: The Downing Street Memo
By Dante Zappala
My brother Sherwood Baker was a noble and committed soldier. He
courageously deployed with his National Guard unit to Iraq in 2004.
For the last six weeks of his life, Sherwoods mission was to provide
convoy security for the Iraq Survey Group. He was killed in action,
providing site security for the group that was looking for weapons of
mass destruction. Mounting evidence indicates that the weapons
non-existence wasnt a mistake. It was a ruse.
The clouds surrounding Sherwoods death became even darker recently
when I read the contents of a memo from the upper echelons of the
British government. The memo reiterates the fact that our
administration had every intention of invading Iraq in the summer of
2002. The White House needed only to sell the idea to the American
people.
Dante Zappala is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (online at
www.fpif.org) and a member of Gold Star Families for Peace (online at
www.gsfp.org) as well as Military Families Speak Out (online at
www.mfso.org). He lives in Philadelphia.
See complete commentary online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0506silence.html
New Syria Looks, Acts Like Old Syria
By Ronald Bruce St John
The recently concluded Tenth Regional Congress of the Syrian Baath
Party marks a watershed in the presidency of Bashar al-Asad. When faced
with a make-or-break opportunity to promote desperately needed
socio-economic and political reforms, he focused instead on
consolidating his own power within the sclerotic Baath Party. This
could prove his last chance to contain mounting internal and external
pressures for meaningful reform in Syria.
Ronald Bruce St John, an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus
(www.fpif.org), has published widely on foreign policy issues. Author
of Libya and the United States: Two Centuries of Strife (Penn Press,
2002), his latest book, Revolution, Reform and Regionalism in Southeast
Asia: Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, will be published by Routledge in
October 2005.
See complete commentary online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0506newsyria.html
II. Letters and Comments
French Vote Not a Vote Against the European Union
Re: After the Debacle and Before the By Norman Birnbaum
(http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0506euroconst.html)
I do not believe that the recent vote was against the European Union.
It was instead a vote to go a little slow. The French and Europeans are
worried about a unipolar world that is led by an interventionist U.S.
Foreign Policy. Perhaps more than a vote for nationalism, this was a
vote on the economy. I agree with Mark Leonard in a Foreign Policy
Association posting, that the EU is here to stay, but French leadership
may not be brought into question.
- Bill Weightman
U.S. Should Unconditionally Withdraw from Iraq
Re: Finding the Way Forward: A Negotiated Settlement in Iraq by Gareth
Porter (http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0503forward.html)
Porter neglects the impact of the U.S. government's desire to control
Iraqi oil and privatize the Iraqi economy as well as the desire to
maintain permanent bases. Any demand by anti-war people for a
negotiated settlement should insist that the U.S. not place any
conditions regarding the Iraqi economy, relations with Israel, leave
behind military advisers, etc.
- ned hanauer
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a
new kind of think tank-one serving citizen movements and advancing a
fresh, internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we
make our FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need
financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly,
FPIF depends on you and other individual donors to sustain our
bare-bones budget. Click on
https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF
online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or
through the mail.
***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****
We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful,
so let us know how we're doing, via email to .
Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free
to cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any
duplicate copies you may receive.
To manage your subscription to the Progressive Response:
http://www.irc-online.org/lists/
To unsubscribe:
http://www.irc-online.org/lists/unsubscribe?action=unsubscribe&mailing=48&id=20415&email=rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu
*****************************************************************
17 Drifting Toward The Apocalypse - Postmortem on the NPT Review by
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:16:49 +1000
DRIFTING TOWARD THE APOCALYPSE - A POSTMORTEM ON THE NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE MAY 2-27 2005
Every year, and sometimes more than once a year (as this year), the
United Nations headquarters in New York hosts meetings in which
representatives of every government on the planet talk, lobby, count
numbers, wheel and deal, and vote or consense on matters that have a
reasonably direct effect on whether civilisation or human beings and
most other living things will still be in business a few decades down
the track.
With its impeccable sense of priorities and of what interests the
public, the Australian media almost completely ignores these
get-togethers, preferring to focus on really important things like
what Nicole Kidman or Angelina Jolie might be wearing, or on the
behaviours of football teams.
It has just happened again, as from 2-27 May, representatives of
literally every nation on earth with the exceptions of India.
Pakistan, Israel and the DPRK met to discuss the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) is the main reason why, instead of between 20 and a dozen
nuclear powers, there are only the US, Russia, China, the UK, France,
and the 'nuclear - capable' Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
The month - long meeting of diplomats and foreign ministers from
every country except India Pakistan and Israel (Non-NPT signatories),
momentous as it was, attracted minimal media coverage, with just one
or two items on ABC radio news and SBS, and some articles in the
Sydney Morning Herald by Richard Butler and Broinowski, though it
continued to attract significant coverage for the entire month from
global media such as the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, and
Guardian as well as generating a number of 'background' pieces,
notably an excellent ABC 'background briefing' and a Sydney Morning
Herald peice.
Globally, the NPT review was a major lobbying objective for NGOs
worldwide, with global letter-writing and Parliamentary campaigns
happening for the previous six months, and over 2000 NGOs represented
at the conference itself. Of these the major ones would have been
Abolition2000, the Mayors for Peace, and the Parliamentary Network
for Nuclear Disarmament (PNND) as well as WILPF and IPPNW.
This piece has been written not from New York itself, where I would
love to have been, but from the numerous analyses and blow by blow
accounts posted on reaching critical Will News in review, by Rebecca
Johnson, and Felicity Hill as well as the account written by Senator
Doug Roche at the end of it all.
In addition I have gone a number of times now, through almost every
working paper and every statement made during the proceedings. The
soporific effect of prolonged immersion in diplo-speak should not be
underestimated.
While by the time this somewhat belated review of the review comes
out, most people will have cast the review conference as an
unequivocal failure, precipitated by the bloody-mindedness mainly of
the United States and to a lesser extent by that if Iran and Egypt
(though I am not so sure that I agree with this), there were in fact
many hopeful aspects to what took place, not least - for one who has
endeavoured to actually read what was submitted - in the many
thoughtful and careful working papers submitted by nations and groups
of nations from the EU to Australia and Japan to the NAM, the NAC, to
Nigeria.
So Why Bother about the NPT Anyway?
So just what IS important about the NPT? What is it anyway and why
should people worldwide care what happens to it?
The NPT was negotiated between 1967 and 1970, entering into force in
1970, at a time when there was widespread concern not only as to the
possibility that nuclear war between the US and Russia might really
mean the end of civilisation and human beings, but that there would
shortly be as many as a dozen and then up to 20, nations possessing
nuclear weapons.
The NPT represents in essence, a kind of bargain in which nations
that do not have nuclear weapons agree not to try to develop them,
and in return for this, under article VI of the treaty, those nations
that already have nuclear weapons agree to negotiate to eliminate
their nuclear arsenals. In fact, the NPT has ALWAYS, since its entry
into force in 1970, been equally about the elimination of the
nuclear arsenals of established nuclear powers, and about the
prevention of any more nations obtaining nuclear weapons.
The obligation to eliminate nuclear arsenals was unanimously
reaffirmed in 1996 by the International Court of Justice, and also by
both the 1995 NPT review and extension conference and by the Year
2000 NPT review conference, which adopted a final declaration
according to which participants (excluding India, Pakistan and Israel
who are not NPT signatories and now the DPRK which has withdrawn from
the NPT) - agreed to the total and unequivocal elimination of their
nuclear arsenals.
Any agreement or final declaration that went back on those
commitments would have been indeed a disaster for global nuclear
disarmament (and would have been resisted tooth and nail by the
overwhelming majority of governments). Progress, or a productive 2005
NPT review was defined as going forward and not backwards, on those
commitments.
While the text of the NPT is a kind of balanced bargain, the NPT has
always been bedevilled by two fatal weaknesses, one in the treaty
itself, and the other in the failure of the nuclear weapons states to
simply abide by their clearly spelled out treaty obligations.
The weakness in the treaty itself has been that while preventing the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, it has also sought to promote the
spread of 'peaceful' nuclear power and nuclear technology. In fact,
as is now being belatedly realised, 'peaceful' nuclear technology can
all to readily be adapted to weapons-related purposes.
The other fatal weakness could never have been prevented, though it
might have been foreseen, by those who framed the treaty, and that
has been the blatant refusal of the established nuclear weapons
states to abide by their clear obligations under article VI to
negotiate to eliminate their massive nuclear arsenals, compounded by
their denial that this is even an issue.
In spite of the fact that the NPT entered into force over 35 years
ago, there remain just under 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence,
with some 2-3,000 warheads in each of the two largest nuclear weapons
states (US and Russia) on launch-on-warning (LoW) status, able to
create a planet-wide catastrophe roughly equivalent to the impact of
a fair-sized asteroid, with a number of billions of immediate
casualties followed by global darkess and cold and sub-zero
temperatures at the equator.
This fact gets to be a political issue roughly once a year when the
UN General Assembly has its First Committee on security issues, in
which the assembled governments of the world ritually blast the
nuclear weapons states for their lack of progress on article VI.
However, it is becoming clear that the Nonproliferation issues so
assiduously (and selectively) being fanned by the Bush
administration, cannot themselves progress without progress in turn,
on article VI by the nuclear weapons states.
Stark warnings have been issued by both Kofi Annan and by Mohammed
El Baradei, to the effect that it literally beggars credibility to
say that the nuclear weapons states can lecture the world on the
virtues of nonproliferation, while themselves refusing to abide by
their obligation to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals as per
Article VI
Kofi Annan emphasised the need for a balanced approach to fulfilment
of the requirements of the NPT, saying in the opening address to the
conference:
"Excellencies,
I have no doubt that we will hear many truths about this conference.
Some will stress the need to prevent proliferation to the most volatile
Regions. Others will argue that we must make compliance with, and
enforcement of, the NPT universal.
Some will say that the spread of nuclear fuel cycle technology poses
an unacceptable proliferation threat. Others will counter that access
to peaceful uses of nuclear technology must not be compromised.
Some will paint proliferation as a grave threat. Others will argue that
existing nuclear arsenals are a deadly danger.
But I challenge each of you to recognise all these truths. I
challenge you to accept that disarmament, non-proliferation and the
right to peaceful uses are all vital. I challenge you to agree that
they are all too important to be held hostage to the politics of the
past. And I challenge you to acknowledge that they all impose
responsibilities on all States."
Annan concluded:
"Our world will not come close to this vision if you accept only some
of the truths that will be uttered during this conference. As
custodians of the NPT, you must come to terms with all the nuclear
dangers that threaten humanity."
Annan had drawn much of his inspiration from the High Level Panel on
Challenges and Change, which warned that:
"111. But the nuclear non-proliferation regime is now at risk because
of lack of compliance with existing commitments, withdrawal or
threats of withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons to escape those commitments, a changing international
security environment and the diffusion of technology. We are
approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation
regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of
proliferation."
The High Level Panel also warned that:
"119. Despite the end of the cold war, nuclear-weapon States earn
only a mixed grade in fulfilling their disarmament commitments. While
the United States and the Russian Federation have dismantled roughly
half of their nuclear weapons, committed to large reductions in
deployed strategic warheads and eliminated most of their
non-strategic nuclear weapons, such progress has been overshadowed by
recent reversals. In 2000, the nuclear-weapon States committed to 13
practical steps towards nuclear disarmament, which were all but
renounced by them at the 2004 meeting of the Preparatory Committee
for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."
The 'all but renounced' noted by the High Level Panel was to flower
into a refusal by the US even to hear of those agreements so
painfully and with such difficulty arrived at, a refusal that was the
single thing that did most to vitiate the review conference.
The urgency of the Situation
A number of governments made statements concerning the urgency, or
the renewed urgency, of the situation with respect to nuclear weapons.
Thus, according to the NAM group:
"The Non-Aligned Movement States parties to the Treaty remain alarmed
by the threat to humanity posed by the continued existence of nuclear
weapons. They are convinced that disarmament and arms control,
particularly in the nuclear field, are essential for the prevention
of dangers of nuclear war and the strengthening of international
peace and security, as well as for the economic and social
advancement of all peoples."
And:
"28. The States parties reaffirm that nuclear weapons pose the
greatest danger to mankind and to the survival of civilization.
Halting and reversing the nuclear arms race in all its aspects is
essential in order to avert the danger of war involving nuclear
weapons. The goal is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In
the task of achieving nuclear disarmament, all States parties bear
responsibility, in particular those nuclear-weapon States possessing
the most important nuclear arsenals. The States parties remain
alarmed by the threat posed by the continued existence of nuclear
weapons and convinced that nuclear disarmament is essential for the
prevention of dangers of nuclear war and the strengthening of
international peace and security, as well as for the economic and
social advancement of all peoples."
The Algerians, identifying themselves with the NAM group, stated that:
"La prolifération est une menace à la paix et à la sécurité
internationales. En revanche, la possession d'armes de destruction
massive est une menace réelle et permanente pour l'existence même de
l'humanité."
(Proliferation is a threat to peace and international security. The
proliferation of weapons off mass destruction is a real and permanent
danger to the very existence of humanity).
While the Philippines noted that:
"All these developments and challenges contribute to the erosion of
the effectiveness and credibility of the treaty and could change the
destiny of humanity"
According to Nigeria:
"2. The Conference notes with regret that weapons of mass
destruction, especially nuclear weapons, continue to pose the
greatest danger to mankind and the survival of human civilization,
more than 15 years after the end of Cold War. The need to implement
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation measures, therefore,
continues to be a major challenge in the maintenance of international
peace and
security."
The Holy See noted that:
"Nuclear weapons assault life on the planet, they assault the planet
itself, and in so doing they assault the process of the continuing
development of the planet. The preservation of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty demands an unequivocal commitment to genuine nuclear
disarmament."
The final declaration of the Conference of Nuclear Weapons-Free
Zones, held in Tlatelolco Mexico immediately prior to the NOT Review,
and representing some 110 nations, stated in its opening paragraphs,
submitted to the NPT Review Conference as a 'Note Verbale':
"Convinced that the existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a threat
to the survival of humanity and that the only real guarantee against
their use or threat of use is their total elimination as a way to
achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world;Š"
The Nuclear Weapons Free Zones conference final declatation continued:
"1. We reaffirm that the continued existence of nuclear weapons
constitutes a threat to all humanity and that their use would have
catastrophic consequences for life on Earth. Therefore, we believe in
the need to move toward the priority objective of nuclear disarmament
and to achieve the total elimination and prohibition of nuclear
weapons.
2. We are convinced that reaching the objective of permanently
eliminating and prohibiting nuclear weapons requires firm political
will from all States, particularly those States that possess nuclear
weapons."
A declaration signed by 110 governments doesn't get much more blunt
than this, completely unreported in Australian media.
According to Iran:
"Nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to mankind and to the
survival of civilization".
And:
"Today our world remains more than ever alarmed by the threat posed
by the continued existence of nuclear weapons and is convinced that
nuclear disarmament is essential for the prevention of the dangers of
nuclear war."
(Are these the statements of a country that is in fact about to
acquire nuclear weapons?)
The sense of urgency even made it as far as the draft report of the
Chairman of Subsidiary Body 1, which stated that:
"The conference remains alarmed by the continued threat to humanity
posed by the existence of nuclear weapons , reaffirms the need to
make every effort to avert the danger to all mankind of nuclear war
and nuclear terrorism and to take measures to safeguard the security
of peoples"
Some Progress? - What Progress?
It is true that some progress has been made from the insane heights
of overkill possessed by the US and Russia back in the 1980s, when
each side had roughly 30,000 warheads each, (currently there is just
under 30,000 warheads total) . An accidental launch such as nearly
took place in Russia in September 1983 would have lobbed 15,000 land-
based ICBM warheads at the US and its allies, roughly 30 times the
megattonage required to destroy every significant US and NATO city.
The SALT and START agreements of the 1980s have chipped away at that
monstrous capacity, so that now each of the two largest nuclear
powers have just about 2000 warheads on LoW status, and under the
Moscow Treaty, the plan is to go down to just 2,200-1700
'operational' warheads by midnight, Dec 31, 2012. However, there is
no obligation to destroy warheads under the Moscow Treaty, no
verification mechanism, and the treaty itself ceases to exist at
midnight 2012. As the detailed START framework is already being
phased out, as of a second past midnight 2012, there will be NO
framework limiting US and Russian nuclear warheads.
In addition, both Russia and the US are making it clear in various
ways that they do in fact intend to go on relying on nuclear weapons
as an important component in their security policies for the
foreseeable future. Though the US Congress has thankfully nixed
funding for the proposed 'bunker buster' warhead, US nuclear policies
continue to foresee continued warhead development, and continued
upgrades for existing warheads, and are clear that there is a
continuing role for strategic warheads, even at reduced numbers.
Russia has embarked on a program to develop manoeuvrable hypersonic
warhead delivery systems and is deploying the relatively new Topol-m
missile in both silo-based and mobile truck-mounted modes. In
addition, Russia has developed since 1993, the 'perimeter' or 'dead-
hand' 'doomsday machine', a mechanism to ensure the incineration of
the US (or any other potential enemy), should the Kremlin be
destroyed.
In this context, as well as that of the rejection by the US of both
the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, (CTBT) which would forbid further
nuclear weapons testing, and its rejection also of a verifiable
fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT), which would forbid the
creation of weapons material, the signs coming out of the nuclear
weapons states are equivalent to a parent with a fag in its mouth
waving a pack of cigarettes and lecturing about the evils of smoking
- even if it has gone from ten packs a day to five.
The Year 2000 Review
The Year 2000 NPT review produced a final declaration, (though it
nearly failed - still it did manage to do so) - that contained a
'roadmap' to the elimination of nuclear weapons known as the '13
points'.
Without listing them in their entirety, these included:
--The importance and urgency of signatures and ratification's for the CTBT
--A verifiable fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT)
--An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to
accomplish the elimination of their nuclear arsenals
--Further reductions in the arsenals of the NWS
--Reductions in the operating status of nuclear weapons
--Diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies.
It cannot be overemphasised just how important the passage of this
final document was seen as, by the nations and peoples of the world.
Here was a sensible, rational, blueprint for the total elimination of
nuclear weapons. Here was a way forward which, if truly implemented,
would lead the world away from the possibility of an accidental (or
otherwise) apocalypse.
That is not the way it has turned out.
The US, at the two preparatory conferences leading up to the May2-27
NPT review conference, made it quite clear that it wanted in effect,
to repudiate the entire final declaration of the Year 2000 review
conference.
In that sense, one can almost say that the year 2005 review
conference may have been 'doomed' from the start. Still, flexibility
and a cooperative approach by all concerned might possibly have
allowed a conclusion to be arrived at.
There were in fact a number of possibilities open when the NPT review
conference opened in 2 May 2005, with the speech from secretary -
general Kofi Annan that made it very clear just how urgent, and how
potentially catastrophic the situation was and is, with a graphic
'what if' of a terrorist attack on a single city.
Significantly, Annan urged that nuclear weapons operating status be
lowered, the single action that would do most to protect the world
from an accidental apocalypse, and a prominent recommendation of the
High-Level Panel on Challenges and Change, as well as the centre of a
global appeal signed by 44 nobel prizewinners, and endorsed by the
Australian Senate and coordinated by this author.
However in spite of Annans (and El Baradei's ) warnings at the outset
of the conference, and in spite of a number of excellent
presentations from the New Zealand government, members of the New
Agenda Coalition, and Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned movement,
the NPT review failed even to agree on an agenda for the first
fifteen days that it sat.
While desperate negotiations took place behind the scenes over the
matter of the agenda, country after country got up and made a
statement to the 'general debate'
Some of these statements were soporific, some apocalyptic and some
were helpful.
What is notable to someone who has gone through all of these
statements is that - notwithstanding the ritualistic aspect of so
many of these statements - most of them exhibited a high degree of
goodwill, a strong wish that the conference be successful, a sense of
urgency, and often, excellent ideas for a way forward that if
implemented, would indeed have led to a nuclear free world.
There were a number of approaches put by nations and groups of
nations that were helpful, thoughtful, detailed, and deserved to
succeed.
Of these, the main ones were the approach of the New Agenda
Coalition, as expressed in the working papers of New Zealand
especially to Main Committee 1, that of the Non- Aligned movement,
(marred in my view by its insistence on the 'peaceful l use' of
nuclear energy and by a perhaps little too one- sided obsession with
Israel) (Certainly an issue to be sure), and the approach of
Australia and Japan, expressed in the Joint Australia-japan working
paper and in the 21 points put by Japan in its opening statement.
Helpful contributions were also made by the EU, Sweden, South
Africa, Canada, Indonesia and the Philippines, as well as by some of
the francophone countries.
The Australian ministerial statement, as it had been in previous
preparatory and review conferences, was, in the soporific category.
Its good points were placed in such a manner as to attract the
minimum of attention.
While Australia's contributions to the main committees further on in
the conference were significant, and Australia the joint
Australia/Japan working paper was certainly in the 'helpful'
category, the Downer speech did not give the call for leadership and
for helpfulness on the part of the US, that the hour called for.
Australia needs to be much more forthright with its great and
powerful allies when those great and powerful allies behaviour is
less helpful to the rest of the world than it should be.
Significant points of the Australia/Japan paper were:
--Universalisation of the NPT, including a plea to states not to
take actions that would defeat the aims and objects of the treaty.
"--5. In accordance with article VI of the Treaty and pursuant to
paragraphs 3 and 4 (c) of the 1995 decision on "Principles and
Objectives" and the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference,
the Conference agrees that all States parties should take further
practical measures towards the goal of nuclear disarmament."
---Transparent and irreversible reductions in nuclear armaments by the NWS
--Reductions in operating status of nuclear weapons systems
--A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies
--Early entry into force of the CTBT
--Negotiation of a fissile material cutoff treaty. (FMCT)
Australia's and Japans insistence on the CTBT, and on real measures
to proceed toward the elimination of nuclear weapons even if in an
unspectacular way clearly differentiated it from the US in spite of
Downers and the departments efforts to make it look as if there were
not a gap, and to blame the Iranians.
Recent statements by Australian UN representative Peter Tesch that
the UN nuclear disarmament agenda is overly emphasising nuclear
disarmament have in my view, undermined the constructive approach of
the Australia/Japan working paper. A balanced approach that
prioritises both disarmament and nonproliferation is essential.
The NAC and NAM also offered productive ways forward.
NAM
The NAM offering made by Malaysia, in fact had much in common with
NAC and with the Australia/Japan approach. Much would be gained if
the three main 'helpful' parties (Australia/Japan, NAC and NAM) plus
the EU, had managed to cooperate more closely with each other instead
of, as has happened time after time, not supporting each others often
highly complimentary and not at all mutually exclusive approaches to
this utterly vital problem.
That said, I must repeat the caveat that in my view, the NAM approach
is far too friendly to the failed and dangerous technology of nuclear
energy.
Helpful aspects of the NAM approach included:
--Universalisation and early ratification of the CTBT
--The need for the nuclear weapons states to fully comply with their
article VI obligations including the 13 practical steps as agreed in
2000 and 1995
--Full implementation of the Year 2000 NPT review conference decision
to accomplish the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear
arsenals
--Compliance with the 1996 ICJ advisory decision on the legality of
nuclear weapons
--A fissile material cutoff treaty (Not named as such)
--establishment of nuclear weapons free zones throughout the world
--Universalisation of the NPT
--resolution of all issues relating to the withdrawal of the DPRK from the NPT.
In addition to all this, much prominence was given to the issue of
Israel. While there is no doubt that the existence of the Israeli
nuclear arsenal is a real issue, and that in making so much of the
purported Iranian nuclear arsenal while ignoring that of Israel, of
whose existence there is really no doubt, and whose size is somewhere
between 100 and 300 warheads - as large as that of the UK and larger
than some estimates of the Chinese arsenal - the US is displaying a
monstrous double standard. Still, the NAM focus on Israel (the Israel
material takes roughly 30% of the NAM paper, but Israel has less than
1% of the worlds nuclear weapons) - seems as disproportionate as the
US protection of that country. Neither obsession is helpful or
healthy.
Nonetheless, NAMs advocacy of the universalisation of both CTBT and
NPT, of progress and implementation of the 13 points, and of an FMCT
give it much common ground with Australia/Japan, NAC, and the EU.
The other very helpful working paper submitted by NAM (Malaysia,
Timor-Leste, Yemen, Costa-Rica, Bolivia and Nicaragua), was entitled
"Follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of
Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons:
Legal, technical and political elements required for the
establishment and maintenance of a nuclear weapon-free world"
This paper, written in a more discursive style, was of a much wider
appeal than the NAM paper itself, seeming to bridge the NAM/NAC
divide. It was as its title suggested, a follow-up to the 1996 ICJ
advisory decision, that again, reiterated the 13 steps and set out a
path to a nuclear - free future via a nuclear weapons convention.
NAC
The New Agenda approach again, in many ways overlapped with the
AST/Japan, and NAM approaches.
Significant elements were:
--India, Pakistan and Israel to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states.
--Early entry into force of the CTBT
--Reactivation of the CD (Conference on Disarmament) in Geneva.
--Removal of the role of nuclear weapons in military and security
doctrines in the NWS
--Concrete agreed measures to reduce the operational status of
nuclear weapons systems
--Reductions on nuclear weapons systems (EG under the Moscow Treaty)
to be irreversible, transparent, and verifiable (which the Moscow
Treaty does not provide for).
--Elimination of non-strategic nuclear weapons.
The New Agenda paper, which in previous years has been detailed and
comprehensive, was surprisingly spare in comparison with the detailed
NAM paper, suggesting that a much more 'minimalist' approach had been
adopted, an approach that it had in common with the Australia/Japan
approach. It was noteworthy to see the renewed attention given in
the NAC paper however, to nuclear weapons operating status.
The EU
To some extent, the role previously taken by the NAC has been taken
by the EU, though the consensus position of the EU is much less
clearly defined than that of either NAC, NAM, or for that matter
Aust/Japan.
The EU approach included:
--That the NPT is an 'irreplaceable multilateral instrument' for
maintaining and reinforcing peace, stability and security.
--Nothing should endanger the integrity of the NPT
--The EU attaches the utmost importance to the universal application of the NPT
--The EU notes with concern that 106 nations still have not put into
force the additional protocol to the NPT.
--The EU notes with appreciation the confidence - building measures
between India and Pakistan
--The EU notes the recommendation of the UN High Level Panel on
nuclear weapons operating status and urges practical measures to
reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war.
--The EU encourages all states to participate in the proliferation
security initiative
--The EU 'welcomes' the entry into force of the Moscow treaty, (But
notes that irreversibility, transparency and verifiability - none of
which describe the Moscow Treaty - are vital).
--The EU remains committed to the 1995 review conferences decision on
the middle east
--The EU attaches the utmost importance to the entry into force of
the CTBT at the earliest possible date
--The negotiation through the CD, of a fissile material cutoff treaty.
China:
Of the nuclear weapons states, China may perhaps be viewed as the
most helpful, or perhaps the least unhelpful, though whether Chinas
presentations can any more be taken at face value than say, those of
Iran - is perhaps open to question by some.
I would argue that - as in the case of Iran - the official statements
together with the 'body language' of countries and governments DO
count for something. Surely it is not entirely a smokescreen when
China alone of the NWS, tries to set out a path - not a dissimilar
path from that pointed to by Australia and the EU in fact - for
achieving the elimination of nuclear arsenals.
The US by contrast, unlike China and unlike Iran, (not to mention
NAM, NAC the EU, Australia and Canada) has made NO contribution to a
'path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.'
China's ambassador Zhang Wan expressed Chinas attitude to nuclear weapons thus:
"To take effective measures to promote nuclear disarmament is one of
the goals set by NPT. China has always advocated that all
nuclear-weapon states should explicitly commit themselves to
destroying nuclear weapons in a complete and thorough manner;
lowering the role of nuclear weapons in national security policy. The
two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals should earnestly
implement the treaty they have concluded to reduce their nuclear
weapons and further reduce their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and
irreversible manner, thus creating a favorable condition for the
ultimate, complete and thorough nuclear disarmament."
In its working paper for main committee 1 China said that:
"5. The goal of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of
nuclear weapons should be achieved at an early date and an
international legal instrument for this purpose should be concluded,
thus realising a world free of nuclear weapons." (A nuclear weapons
Convention?)
Familiar elements in the Chinese nuke weapons elimination formula included:
--The early entry into force and ratification of the CTBT. (However,
China itself has signed but not yet ratified the CTBT)
--The negotiation of an FMCT in the committee on Disarmament in Geneva
--Resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue via the six - party talks
--Verifiable, irreversible, and legally binding reductions (none of
these are satisfied by the Moscow Treaty) - in the nuclear arsenals
of the US and Russia.
--Prevention of the weaponisation of, and of an arms race in, outer space.
--Abandonment of the policy of nuclear deterrence.
--Abandonment of the targeting of specific countries in the US
Nuclear Posture review
--Abandonment of the development of 'low-yield' nuclear weapons
--Universality of the NPT.
China was understandably critical of many US policies, including the
deployment of a 'Star-Wars' ABM system, and above all of the 'double
standard' that the US seemed to hold in asking others to forgo
nuclear weapons while actively resisting having the elimination of
its own nuclear arsenal up for discussion, and refusing even to
acknowledge commitments in this area that it had already made.
China noted that:
"6. Double standards on nuclear non-proliferation must be discarded.
It is essential to ensure the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
nature of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. Š"
The NAC, NAM, EU, Chinese, and Aust/Japan approaches have in common
the following vital aspects:
--A clear commitment to the total and unequivocal elimination of
nuclear arsenals as per Year 2000 and 1995 NPT review conferences.
--The reduction in the operating status of nuclear weapons systems
--Reduction in the role played by nuclear weapons in security policies
--Universalisation of the NPT
--Universalisation, and early entry into force, of the CTBT
--Negotiation of a fissile material cutoff treaty.
The United States has agreed to a non-verifiable FMCT, stresses the
Proliferation Security Initiative (also prioritized by the EU and
Australia but not at all by NAM), and rejected even mention of
previous conference commitments, and in particular any reference to
the total and unequivocal elimination of its nuclear arsenal or to
the CTBT.
This impasse took the first ten days of the review conference.
The Agenda Deadlock
What constituted the stumbling - block, and held up proceedings for
about 10 days, was the referencing of the final declarations of the
Year 2000 review, and the one country that absolutely refused to
countenance that referencing was the United States. And what finally
happened was a face-saving compromise and a bit of a backdown by the
US, faced, really with opposition from quite literally every other
government in the world.
The compromise was provided, as happens in this kind of situation, by
an asterisk in the agenda that led to a statement by the conference
chairperson Brasilian ambassador Duarte, in which he said that the
current conference would take place in the light of decisions arrived
at by previous conferences.
That statement read:
Statement by the President in connection with the adoption of the
agenda (item 16)
"It is understood that the review will be conducted in the light of
the decisions and the resolutions of previous Conferences, and allow
for discussion of any issue raised by States Parties."
This statement from President Duarte was immediately supplemented by
a statement from Malaysia as spokesperson for the nonaligned movement
that read:
"1. The Non-Aligned States Parties to the NPT welcome the adoption of
the Agenda of the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT.
The agenda establishes the framework for conducting the review of the
operation of the Treaty in accordance with article VIII, paragraph 3
of the Treaty, the decisions and the resolution of previous
Conferences, in particular the 1995 Review and Extension Conference
and the decision of the 2000 Review Conference to adopt by consensus
its Final Document.
2. The Non-Aligned States Parties to the NPT reaffirm their
commitment to Implement - in good faith - their obligations under the
Treaty as well as all the Commitments agreed upon by consensus in the
1995 and 2000 Review Conferences.
The Non-Aligned States Parties to the NPT urge all States Parties to
implement their obligations and commitments in the same spirit.
3. The Non-Aligned States Parties to the NPT also reaffirm their
commitment to ensure the successful outcome of this Review Conference.
4. The Non-Aligned States Parties to the NPT request that this
present statement be circulated as an official document of this
Review Conference."
In making this statement, Malaysia and the Non Aligned movement had,
I believe, expressed the will of the entire conference and indeed of
the world as a whole.
There is, I believe an all but universal consensus that for the US
(or any other nuclear weapon state) to refuse to abide by, and to
turn its back on, agreements arrived at by previous conferences and
signed on to by the whole world, is unacceptable. Australia's own
attitude was certainly that the hard -won agreements of 1995 and year
2000 were not to be set aside, and that policy was expressed
repeatedly in pre - NPT forums, and was I believe, kept to, at the
conference itself.
Australia's foreign minister put Australia's stand perhaps a little
more gently than he should have, but he did nonetheless put it,
saying that:
"Australia believes that progress on nuclear disarmament is a core
NPT obligation, vital to the treatys political strength and vitality.
We acknowledge progress in reducing nuclear arsenals but expect
further steps by the nuclear weapon states."
While according to Australia's ambassador Mike Smith in our paper to
Main Committee-1
"We expect the nuclear weapons states to pursue NPT nuclear
disarmament commitments vigorously and with determination",
However, Downer continued by saying that Australia did not accept
that progress on Nonproliferation should be contingent on progress in
disarmament by the nuclear weapon states, or that movement on
disarmament should be a precondition for improvements to the NPT
regime, a stand that is all well and good, but which needs to
recognise the other side of the coin namely that progress on
Nonproliferation is going to be difficult or even impossible in the
absence of progress on disarmament.
It is often said that there were three nations that 'wrecked' the
year 2005 NPT review conference, but really, the supposed 'wrecking'
activities of Iran and Egypt, were inconsequential compared to those
of the US.
It was the US that consistently opposed any effort to do the one
thing necessary to proceed toward nuclear disarmament, namely to
implement the decisions of previous NPT review conferences. And
without the role of the US, Egypts insistence on paying attention to
the nuclear arsenal of Israel would not have caused a problem, as the
asked - for attention would have BEEN paid as it should have been.
Similarly, while Iran may or may not have been duplicitous in its
approach to the conference, Irans bloodymindedness would not have
been able to wreck the conference without US intransigence.
Iran's working papers and statements to the NPT review are not what
one might expect from a country about to equip itself with nuclear
weapons.
Whereas the DPRK, who clearly are embarked on the nuclear weapons
path and whose capabilities have in my view been underplayed, were
notable by their absence, and while the contributions of the US were
characterised by defensiveness and truculence, Iran made a large
number of contributions along lines very similar to those made by the
NAM, with whom it wished to be associated. The Iranian statements and
papers to be sure, were strongly defensive of Iran's 'peaceful
nuclear fuel cycle, something with which I believe most anti nuclear
activists would have a distinct problem. However, this was something
that Iran, regrettably, shared with both the NAC and NAM groupings.
Still, I cannot help wondering if this passionate denunciation of
nuclear weapons is 'protesting too much', and thus a smokescreen, or,
possibly, exactly what it seems to be - a denunciation of nuclear
weapons:
"4. The Islamic Republic of Iran has fulfilled its obligations under
all provisions of the Treaty. Iran's position to denounce the nuclear
option, as a matter of principle, and place its peaceful nuclear
facilities under the full scope-safeguards agreement is a clear
manifestation of our commitment to a strong Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Iran considers the acquiring,
development and use of nuclear weapons inhuman, immoral, illegal and
against its very basic principles. They have no place in Iran's
defence doctrine, not only because of our commitment to our
contractual obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, but in fact because of a sober strategic
calculation. They do not add to Iran's security nor do they help rid
the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, which is in Iran's
supreme interests."
While Iran spent much time and space in its presentation denouncing
the US (who in turn spent much time and space denouncing Iran), it
has to be said that many of Irans criticisms of the US were basically
true, and would have been shared by many at that conference.
At the same time, the Iranian suggestions for a way forward to a
nuclear - free world could, coming from any other country, be viewed
as helpful and constructive.
Why, in that case, might they not be viewed as helpful and
constructive coming from Iran?
US statements and working papers at the conference and in Main
Committee1 consistently emphasise the sins of countries other than
the US (especially Iran) (Mirroring in this way the contributions of
Iran), while denying that there are any real Article VI issues, a
denial that did much to compound the determination of other nations
not to allow those very issues to be stricken from the record.
The result was that, while the conference was finally able to proceed
to a committee stage, in which it broke into three 'main committees',
which in turn were supposed to bring reccommendations to a drafting
committee which was to produce a final declaration, progress in each
of the committees came to a fullstop, stopped dead by first of all,
the refusal of the US to agree to any reference to either the 13
points, to a commitment to the total and unequivocal elimination of
nuclear arsenals, or to the CTBT or to a verifiable FMCT.
In spite of this fact, a number of draft papers produced by the
chairs of Main Committee-1, and Subsidiary Body one nonetheless
contained measures that, were they ever to be implemented, would have
resulted in a nuclear-weapons-free world.
So was it a complete disaster?
It could have been worse. Far worse than the complete failure to
agree on anything would have been an actual agreement to a final
declaration that would have gone backwards on the existing final
declarations of 1995 and 2000.
This did not happen.
Those final declarations still stand, and the nations of the world
continue to be committed to the total and unequivocal elimination of
the worlds nuclear arsenals. A final declaration that did NOT have
that prominently referenced would be worse than no final declaration
at all.
Could we have hoped for better?
Yes we could, but commonsense has not prevailed. But a better outcome
would, again, have depended on a more cooperative and less
bloodyminded attitude on the part of the US. It was said (by a US
newspaper) that, while John Bolton was never there at the UN, his
spirit in fact, pervaded the entire US performance. We could
possibly, have arrived at an agreement that in return for backing US
counterproliferation goals - goals that are after all shared by most
nations - we got Article VI progress, maybe on, say, operating
status. It did not happen.
Finally, a vast number of working papers, by nations and groups of
nations, were created for the NPT review conference. Some were
clearly written months prior to the conference, some on the spot.
Many of these including the New Agenda paper, the Non Aligned
movement paper from Malaysia and Timor Leste, and the Japan-Australia
working paper, were thoughtful and genuinely helpful contributions to
a way forward to a nuclear - weapons- free world.
Operating status of nuclear weapons was mentioned more prominently
than previously as an issue, and lowered operating status was an
important priority in presentations from the Secretary - General,
Australia, New Zealand (on behalf of New Agenda) Japan, the
Philippines, Indonesia, and Sweden, and made it into the draft of the
paper from subsidiary body 1 on article VI.
It was also strongly supported from outside the NPT review in a
declaration signed by 44 nobel prizewinners and a large number of
parliamentarians and NGOs, and endorsed by the European Parliament
and the Australian Senate, and in press - conferences held apropos of
the review by Ted Turner, Gorbachev, and Mc Namara.
What might have been a good outcome?
The Arms Control Association and the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, together with a group of retired ambassadors and
high officials including Madeleine Albright, Alexei Arbatov, Senator
Doug Roche, and Robert Macnamara, produced a statement immediately
before the review conference in which they set out criteria for a
successful conference.
These criteria included:
"1.Agree to establish more effective controls on technologies that
can be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons.
2.Expand the ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to
inspect and monitor compliance with nonproliferation rules and
standards through existing authority and the Additional Protocol, to
which all states should adhere.
3.Conduct vigorous diplomacy to halt uranium-enrichment and other
sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities in Iran and dismantle North
Korea's nuclear weapons Capacity, as well as diplomacy designed to
address the underlying regional security problems in Northeast Asia,
South Asia, and the Middle East,which would facilitate
nonproliferation and disarmament efforts in those regions.
4.Accelerate implementation of the nuclear-weapon states' disarmament
obligations and commitments, including further reducing the alert
status and size of their nuclear stockpiles, permanently barring
nuclear test explosions and the production of fissile materials for
weapons, refraining from development of new nuclear weapons,and
reaffirming existing assurances to NPT non-nuclear-weapon states that
they will not be subjected to nuclear attack.These steps would reduce
the risk of nuclear war and the allure of nuclear weapons.
5.Secure all nuclear-weapons-usable material to the highest standards
to prevent access by terrorists or other states by expanding programs
to secure and eliminate these materials, halting the use of highly
enriched uranium in civilian reactors, and strengthening national and
international export controls and material security measures as
required by UN Resolution 1540.
6.Clarify that no state may withdraw from the treaty and escape
responsibility for prior violations of the treaty or retain access to
controlled materials and equipment acquired for "peaceful purposes."
".....The success of the conference should be judged by the ability
of the parties to agree on specific, additional steps that will
strengthen the treaty regime. The security of the international
community demands no less."
Had the conference agreed to do these things, or even to do some of
these things, it would have achieved a real advance on the 13 points
of 2005 and truly fulfilled its mandate as a review conference. This
would have, truly, been success or at least progress.. None of this
happened.
Strangely, a mysterious paper that was circulated in NGO and
diplomatic circles and reported by Rebecca Johnston, also may have
been an attempt at a way forward that would have been productive.
This mysterious draft final declaration managed to contain in itself
passages such as:
"1.3 recall the commitments to pursue effective measures and make
systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI including
the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to
accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals."
and:
2.2 building upon the decisions taken at the 1995 and 2000 Review
Conferences, urge further progress by the nuclear-weapon States in
reducing and eliminating their non-strategic and strategic nuclear
arsenals"
and even:
"2.1 recognise the importance of the Moscow Treaty and seek sustained
efforts to implement it; The Conference welcomes the adoption by the
General Assembly and subsequent opening for signature of the CTBT in
New York in September of 1996 and notes that 175 states have signed
it and 121 of them have ratified including 33 of the 44 whose
ratification are necessary for entry into force have deposited their
instruments of ratification. The Conference calls on all states to
ratify the treaty, and particularly on those 11 states whose
ratifications are necessary for entry into force of the CTBT and to
spare no effort to ensure its swift entry into force. The Conference
underlines the existing moratorium on nuclear weapons test explosions
and any other nuclear explosions must be maintained pending the
treaty's entry into force. The Conference stresses that such
moratoria cannot serve as a substitute for CTBT ratification."
Could this have been a way forward? its insistence on the
ratification of the CTBT, and on the adherence to the total and
unequivocal elimination of nuclear arsenals as per the Year 2000 13
points, while highly praiseworthy, would have run up against the rock
of US intransigence and thereby lies the rub:
Yes, progress could have been made at this conference.
Progress would have, by definition, consisted of an advance or at
bare minimum a reaffirmation, of the program contained in the 13
points.
Less than that is by definition regress not progress.
In the absence of any agreement at this NPT review, at least the 13
points and the decisions of the 1995 and 2000 review conferences
still stand.
Yet it was precisely the attempt by the US to overturn those
agreements, and the refusal of the rest of the world to accept that
overturn, that led the conference into impasse, an impasse that is
still preferable to capitulation to demands to go back on the
agreements so painfully arrived at in 2000.
Statements made in Closing
As the NPT review conference closed without a result, a large number
of delegations made statements including that of Iran, Canada, Japan,
Malaysia, and NZ.
Iran's closing statement blamed the US for the failure of the
conference, and was not responded to by the US.
The New Zealand one read in part:
Mr President
My delegation is particularly minded at this moment of the words of
the United Nations Secretary-General when he addressed us on the
opening day of this Conference four very long weeks ago. Mr Annan
said, and I quote: "I firmly believe that our generation can build a
world of ever-expanding development, security and human rightsŠ.But I
am equally aware that such a world could be put irrevocably beyond
our reach by a nuclear catastrophe in one of our great cities"
In the circumstances in which this Conference finds itself, that
ambition and that dire prospect require our reflection and urgent
collective attention.
The disappointment in this hall that the Review Conference has been
beset from the outset by unresolved procedural decisions, by issues
over the status of agreed outcomes of previous Conferences, and by
inefficiencies in the Preparatory process, is palpable. That our
rules of procedure are not being harnessed fully for facilitating our
work also needs urgent examination.
Let me turn now briefly to several matters of substance.
Mr President, we are frustrated that no practical and concrete means
of addressing our profound proliferation concerns have been developed
and agreed by this Conference.
We are frustrated too that our efforts to build on the practical
steps on nuclear disarmament agreed by consensus in 2000, and to
accelerate their implementation, have reaped comparatively limited
return.
In addition, we would have wished to have more to show for addressing
our deep concerns about the implications for and consequences of
withdrawal from the Treaty.
Mr President, the outcome of this Review Conference needs to be
viewed in the context of the broader malaise and paralysis that
abounds in multilateral disarmament diplomacy under its various
current configurations. Our Treaty will be undermined unless these
circumstances are addressed and rectified. And civil society must be
afforded a greater role.
What we have experienced in the current review process should serve
as an urgent wake-up call of the kind to which the UN
Secretary-General has drawn our attention. It must be channelled in
particular into re-energising our efforts to get down to work in the
Conference on Disarmament."
The Canadians also expressed themselves at the conferences dying gasp:
"Mr President,
Four weeks ago, at the beginning of this Review Conference, Secretary
General Kofi Annan reminded us of the historical reality and the
still present danger of a nuclear weapon explosion. He recalled the
great security benefits that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has
bestowed over 35 years, but warned us against complacency in
underlining the great stress the Treaty was currently under. I fear
that this Review Conference has not risen to the Secretary General's
call.
We have let the pursuit of short-term, parochial interests override
the collective long-term interest in sustaining this Treaty's
authority and integrity. We have seen precious time that might have
been devoted to exchanges on substance and the development of common
ground squandered by procedural brinkmanship. 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. Our community is weakened
by the refusal of the delinquent to be held to account by its peers
and by the defection from that community of a state without suffering
any sanction. We have been hampered, frankly, by a lack of
imagination and will to break with the status quo and adopt new ways
of conducting our business.
Despite the scenes these rooms have witnessed over this month, the
Review Conference must not be reduced to a theatre where we play at
nuclear non-proliferation or disarmament. We cannot afford merely "to
suspend disbelief" in enacting the NPT review process or the curtain
is soon likely to come down on our production.
If there is a silver lining in the otherwise dark cloud of this
Review Conference, it lies in the hope that our leaders and citizens
will be so concerned by its failure that they mobilise behind prompt
remedial action. In that regard, it is important to realise that what
happened here reflects a larger reality. The world is confronting
many of the same disarmament and non-proliferation challenges in
other fora as well. If we want this Treaty's authority to be
sustained, we need to tackle, on an urgent basis, some of these core
challenges and resolve them in ways that generate real-world benefits
for states and their citizens.
To begin with, the NPT States Parties have to demonstrate support
for, and implementation of, political commitments they have
undertaken as part of this Treaty's process. To deny or denigrate the
agreements of the past is to undermine all the political commitments
made in implementation of the Treaty and to cast doubt upon the
credibility of engagements entered into by governments. If
governments simply ignore or discard commitments whenever they prove
inconvenient, we will never be able to build an edifice of
international cooperation and confidence in the security realm.
In the field of nuclear disarmament, Canada believes that the
re-activation of multilateral activity is a key priority. The impasse
at the Conference on Disarmament needs to be overcome in short order,
so that crucial NPT-related issues, such as the proposed Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty, can be advanced. If this proves impossible,
we will need to consider taking forward some of its work through
other multilateral institutions. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty's entry into force, the top priority of successive Review
Conferences, cannot be denied to the international community
indefinitely. We will be consulting with other concerned states in
preparation for this September's entry-into-force conference to
ensure that this powerful instrument to counter horizontal and
vertical proliferation is fully activated.
In the realm of nuclear non-proliferation, we will consistently
promote the adoption of the IAEA's Comprehensive Safeguards agreement
and the Additional Protocol as the safeguards standard under the NPT
and as a condition of supply. We will lend practical support to
strengthening national export controls, especially on
proliferation-sensitive technologies, and to international
cooperation on ensuring their effectiveness. This will yield an
environment conducive to encouraging legitimate nuclear trade among
States and putting an end to clandestine supply networks.. We will
support the development of new multilateral nuclear fuel cycle
initiatives that address non-proliferation concerns, while
reinforcing the benefits to all states of the peaceful use of nuclear
energy.
Both nationally and as a member of such groupings as the G8, the IAEA
and the CD, Canada will endeavour to work with like-minded partners
from all regions to come to grips with and overcome the real-world
problems and crises that confront the NPT. It is our hope that other
States Parties will be similarly motivated by the disappointing
showing of this Conference and will join in a collective effort to
ensure that we can continue to avoid the apocalyptic fate that the
Secretary General reminded us is ever latent in the nuclear threat.
We believe this is a Treaty worth fighting for and we are not
prepared to stand idly by while its crucial supports are undermined.
To this end, it remains our belief that the health and implementation
of the Treaty deserve to be the focus of an authoritative meeting for
at least one week each year, empowering States Parties to discuss and
decide on matters more frequently than allowed by the current five
year cycle.
The issues that have divided us here will need to be addressed by our
respective political leaders. One good opportunity to do so
collectively will be provided by the UN Summit to be held in the
fall. In this respect, it is important to realise that solutions to
the problems of disarmament and non-proliferation already exist. What
is needed is simply a matter of working harder on concerting the
political will to implement them. Rather than looking back on where
we have fallen short, we must look ahead to what we can and must
accomplish."
The Japanese expressed 'regret' that the conference had not been
productive, and said there was more need than ever to strive to
strengthen the NPT, foreshadowing their annual UNGA resolution 'A
Path to the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons', jointly with
Australia, and wishing for 'a peaceful and safe world free of nuclear
weapons'.
Malaysia also gave a final address on behalf of the NAM group, in
which it stated that while questions might be raised over the future
of the NPT, the NAM group remained strongly committed to it. However,
'ŠThe lack of balance in implementing the provisions of the NPT
threatens to unravel the NPT regime. We further maintain the need to
universalise the NPT. We continue to believe in the indispensable
need to preserve the decisions and resolutions of the 1995 review and
extension conference and the final document of the 2000 review
conferenceŠ..'
What will Happen now?
In the absence of agreements to the contrary at the conference, the
positions arrived at in 1995 and 2000 review conferences still stand.
What would have been even more of a catastrophe than the non-result
that actually transpired would have been a capitulation to demands to
remove or ignore or negate or marginalise the Year 2000 commitments.
In the short term, many of the issues taken up abortively at the NPT
review will come up again at the end of the year in UNGA first
committee and in the M+5 summit in September. Perhaps progress can be
made on at least some of them, again such as de-alerting/operational
status, or FMCT. Such progress, however modest, would be helpful.
Whether it will be possible to negotiate further strengthening of the
nonproliferation and disarmament regime, and whether it will be
possible to achieve anything better than lopsided
nonproliferation/counterproliferation only measures that do not help
ultimately to progress the world toward the total and unequivocal
elimination of nuclear weapons, at upcoming diplomatic gatherings
such as the M+5 summit in September is hard to predict. It is worth
trying. My guess is that unless the United States comes with more
flexibility than it did at the NPT review, we will just get a re-run
of what took place there with the US essentially thumbing its nose at
the world, or we will succeed to agree only agreements that are
unbalanced and that do not advance the agenda of elimination of
nuclear arsenals so essential for the safety of the world. A new
found cooperativeness by the US would prove me wrong, and I would
prefer to be wrong.
In the longer run, absent progress on Article VI issues by the
established nuclear powers, it is going to be difficult to persuade
countries that they should not proceed down a nuclear path, or at
least keep a nuclear option open.
In the event of a DPRK test, or merely the obvious acquisition by the
DPRK of an expanded nuclear arsenal (as is happening now), it will be
more difficult to persuade the governments of Japan, South Korea, or
Taiwan, a 'screwdrivers turn' away from a nuclear capability of their
own, that they should not turn that screwdriver.
Ultimately, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a larger group of
nations, whether it be the DPRK, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Japan,
Taiwan, the RoK, combined with the maintenance of existing arsenals
in the US, Russia, China, France, Israel, India and Pakistan - will
multiply the probability in any given year, by accident, madness, or
malice, a nuclear weapon may actually be used.
And that is terrible news for the entire planet.
If only in order not to end this missive on a completely negative
note, I can only echo the words of former Canadian Senator Doug
Roche and Kofi Annan:
'The approaching summit of the 60 th anniversary of the U.N. offers a
new opportunity to the 170 world leaders who will attend. If they
fail to act, Annan warned after the Conference ended, "their peoples
will ask how, in today's world, they could not find common ground in
the cause of diminishing the existential threat of nuclear weapons."
Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\DRIFTING_TOWARD_THE_APOCALYPSE.doc"
*****************************************************************
18 Guardian Unlimited: G8 Foreign Ministers to Focus on Mideast
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday June 23, 2005 12:46 PM
AP Photo LON102
By ED JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) - The Middle East peace process, Iran's nuclear
program and tackling opium production in Afghanistan topped the
agenda at a meeting of G8 foreign ministers Thursday, officials
said.
Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will host the daylong
summit in London that brings together his counterparts from the
United States, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany and Italy.
On the sidelines, representatives of the so-called Quartet that
drafted the road map to peace in the Middle East - the United
States, United Nations, European Union and Russia - will discuss
Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West
Bank.
Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah joined the G8 meeting
for talks on how to stem the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan.
That country last year supplied more than 90 percent of the
world's opium, the raw material for heroin, sparking warnings
that Afghanistan was turning into a narco-state just three years
after the fall of the Taliban.
Straw said Thursday the world's leading industrialized nations
had made a long-term commitment to helping Afghanistan recover
from the legacy of Taliban rule.
``We recommitted ourselves and the international community to a
long-term relationship with the people of Afghanistan and its
government as there is still a very great deal to do given the
legacy of the Taliban,'' Straw said following talks with his
counterparts.
In return, the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai would
have to make progress on good governance, building institutions,
tackling corruption and improving human rights, a senior British
official said on condition of anonymity.
Britain is working closely with Karzai's government to tackle
the narcotics problem. A five-point plan developed in the latter
half of 2004 includes promotion of alternative crops for poppy
farmers, eradication and interdiction of heroin labs and storage
facilities.
The plan appears to be failing, however. Earlier this year a
U.S. report said the area in Afghanistan devoted to poppy
cultivation last year set a record of more than 510,000 acres,
more than three times the figure for 2003.
The foreign ministers will also focus on efforts to persuade
Iran to abandon its nuclear program. The clerical regime in
Tehran insists the program is peaceful and has threatened to
resume its suspended uranium-enrichment program.
Uranium enriched to low levels can be used as fuel in nuclear
reactors to generate electricity, but further enrichment makes
it suitable for a nuclear bomb. The United States, and Britain,
France and Germany who are spearheading the diplomatic effort on
behalf of the European Union, don't want Iran to have its own
nuclear fuel cycle.
The Quartet meeting - to be attended by U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, European
Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Russian foreign
minister Sergey Lavrov - comes at a sensitive time.
Israel plans to withdraw from all 21 Jewish settlements on the
Gaza Strip and four of the 120 in the West Bank.
The Quartet hopes the withdrawal will revitalize the stalled
road map, which envisions Israelis and Palestinians living
peacefully side-by-side in separate states.
There are fears, however, that the withdrawal could lead to an
escalation of violence if Palestinians fire at settlers leaving
their homes in the coastal strip or at security forces carrying
out the mass evacuation.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
19 Susquehanna's fish are victims of nuclear power
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:01:26 -0700
AS I SEE IT / ERIC EPSTEIN
Susquehanna's fish are victims of nuclear power
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
There is a loud and growing chorus of nuclear power proponents who refuse to
acknowledge the daily threats to clean air and water produced by the
"peaceful atom." These folks persist in trotting out well-worn canards even
after the Better Business Bureau concluded, "The process currently used to
produce at least some, if not most, of the uranium enriched fuels that are
necessary to power nuclear energy plants emits substantial amounts of
environmentally harmful greenhouse gases."
However, when it comes to water consumption, fish kills, chemical leaks,
thermal inversion and effluent discharges, nuclear power plants are viewed
as a benign monster.
Most Pennsylvanians are unaware of the damage inflicted on the Susquehanna
River by nuclear generating stations. These plants consume millions of
gallons daily to cool their superheated reactor core and perform normal
industrial applications.
Advertisement
Since they began operating in 1974, Three Mile Island-1 and Peach Bottom 2
and 3 have returned water at temperatures in excess of 110 degrees, and
discharged chlorinated water (necessary to minimize bacterial contamination
of turbines) and Clamtrol (chemical agent used to defeat Asiatic clam
infestation) directly into the Susquehanna River. Millions of fish, fish
eggs, shellfish and other organisms are sucked out of the lower Susquehanna
River and killed by nuclear power plants annually.
On July 9, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the Final Phase
II rule implementing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.
The first national standards for reducing fish kills at existing power
plants was the result of over 10 years of litigation by environmentalists
and six states. The regulations must be implemented by Sept. 7.
The problem is that the proposed remediation system is dependent on a
culture of corporate reporting that has failed miserably for over 30 years.
Moreover, Exelon has slashed staffing at TMI and Peach Bottom by 10 to 25
percent over the last five years, and two of the hardest hit departments
have been health physics and environmental monitoring.
A former Peach Bottom nuclear plant employee said he was "sickened" by the
large numbers of sport fish he saw sucked out of the Susquehanna.
"When the water comes in, fish would swim in through tunnels and swim into
wire baskets," the Lancaster County resident stated. "There were hundreds
and hundreds of fish killed each day. Stripers and bass and walleye and
gizzard shad and all kinds of fish. It took a forklift to carry them out."
At Three Mile Island, "if they get that far, they're not going back," said
Pete Ressler, a spokesman for TMI owner Exelon Nuclear. "They are dumped
into a container and disposed of."
For over three decades, nuclear power plants have been the most menacing
predator on the lower Susquehanna River. Finally, nuclear power plants are
compelled to note mortality rates and identify species of aquatic life
affected by water intakes.
ERIC EPSTEIN of Harrisburg is coordinator of EFMR Monitoring Group, which
monitors radiation levels at the Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island nuclear
generating stations, and chairman of Three Mile Island Alert.
» Send This Page | » Print This Page
Copyright 2005 The Patriot-News. Used with permission.
MORE AS I SEE IT
€ Susquehanna's fish are victims of nuclear power
€ Medicaid cuts will strike state's elderly
€ 'Potty parity' would provide a measure of relief at rest rooms
*****************************************************************
20 [NukeNet] Bush Pushes For More Nuke Plants While Study: World
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:01:11 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Bush and industry just don't seem to care- the
real surprise would be if they did care:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Nuclear-Power.html
Bush: U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power Plants
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 22, 2005
Filed at 11:29 a.m. ET
LUSBY, Md. (AP) -- Pushing for the construction of
nuclear power plants, President Bush on Wednesday
pressed Congress to send him an energy bill,
though he acknowledged that even when he signs the
legislation, gasoline prices at the pump won't
fall overnight.
Bush is promoting nuclear power as a way to take
the pressure off fossil fuels -- oil, natural gas
and coal.
''It's time for this country to start building
nuclear power plants again,'' said Bush, who noted
that while the U.S. gets 20 percent of its
electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78
percent of its electricity needs with nuclear
power.
While Bush's speech was focused on energy, he also
spoke about economic concerns like Social
Security, medical liability insurance, education,
permanent tax relief and trade. It was part of a
White House effort to focus on economic security
for Americans as well as national security in the
war on terrorism.
''Listen, I understand parts of our country are
still struggling from the effects of the recession
and the attacks,'' he said, ticking off Americans'
worries about jobs going overseas and the need to
learn new skills, health care costs and retirement
security.
''So even though the numbers are still good, there
are still worries out there in the country,'' Bush
said.
''We're not taking the good numbers for granted --
we're moving aggressively with a pro-growth,
pro-worker set of economic policies that will
enhance economic security in this country.''
Before he spoke, Bush, wearing a white hard hat
and shirt sleeves, walked through the plant's
sweltering turbine building and its control room,
where he thanked workers for ''taking time to
explain all the dials and gauges.'' Executives
from the plant, operated by Constellation Energy
Group Inc., also showed Bush their confidential
plans for building a third reactor onsite -- if
they can get a federal license.
Calvert Cliffs is a candidate for the construction
of the first nuclear energy reactor in the United
States in 30 years. It is one of six sites that a
consortium of nuclear power companies, including
the Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, is
considering as a location for a new type of
advanced reactor.
''The energy bill will help us expand our use of
the one energy source that is completely domestic,
plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly
and able to generate massive amounts of
electricity and that's nuclear power,'' Bush said.
''I look forward to signing that bill and it's
going to be an important part of developing a
national energy strategy,'' he said. ''I
recognize, and you recognize that when I sign that
bill, your gasoline prices aren't going to drop.
This problem has been long in the making.''
Not since 1973 has an order been placed for a new
reactor. Two events helped end, for a time, any
U.S. interest in reactors beyond those already
under construction: the partial meltdown at Three
Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979
and the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in
the Ukraine.
Even some environmentalists have abandoned their
opposition to nuclear power, arguing it is needed
to address climate change because reactors do not
produce ''greenhouse'' gases as do fossil fuels.
Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing
worries about reactor waste and safety.
Without some government help, no new reactors are
likely to be built before 2025, according to the
Energy Information Agency, the government's energy
statistical agency. Congress is considering loan
guarantees for new-design reactors, and lawmakers
are expected to come up with other tax breaks. But
a Bush proposal to provide ''risk insurance'' to
protect the industry against licensing or legal
delays has attracted little interest on Capitol
Hill.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Risk.html
Study: World at Risk for Major Attack
a.. E-Mail This
b.. Printer-Friendly
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 22, 2005
Filed at 9:58 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The world faces an estimated 50
percent chance of a nuclear, biological, chemical
or radiological attack over the next five years,
according to national security analysts surveyed
for a congressional study released Wednesday.
Using a poll of 85 nonproliferation and national
security experts, the report also estimated the
risk of attack by weapons of mass destruction at
as high as 70 percent over the coming decade.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee surveyed
analysts around the world in late 2004 and early
this year to determine what they thought was the
threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.
The study was commissioned by committee Chairman
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., whose nonproliferation
efforts in Congress have been credited with
helping the states of the former Soviet Union
lessen their stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons.
''The bottom line is this: For the foreseeable
future, the United States and other nations will
face an existential threat from the intersection
of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction,''
Lugar said in a statement.
Committee aides sent out surveys asking
respondents the percentage probability that a
biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological
attack would occur over the next five and 10
years.
''If one compounds these answers, the odds of some
type of WMD attack occurring during the next
decade are extremely high,'' the report said,
using the acronym for weapons of mass destruction.
The study said the risks of biological or chemical
attacks were comparable to or slightly higher than
the risk of a nuclear attack. However, the study
found a ''significantly higher'' risk of a
radiological attack.
It also said:
--Three-fourths of those surveyed said one or two
new countries would acquire nuclear weapons during
the next five years, and as many as five new
countries could have such weapons over the next 10
years.
--Four-fifths of those surveyed said their country
was not spending enough money on nonproliferation
efforts.
--Survey respondents also agreed that
terrorists -- rather than governments -- were more
likely to carry out a nuclear attack.
^----------
On the Net:
http://lugar.senate.gov/press.html CRAC-2:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.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
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: NRC, Virginia Company to Discuss Results of Inspection
News Release - Region I - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-036
June 23, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A.
Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail:
that identified a series of low-level violations for a Virginia
company licensed to use portable nuclear gauges will be
discussed by NRC staff and representatives of the firm on
Wednesday, June 29.
The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to
begin at 1 p.m. at the NRCs Region I Office, 475 Allendale Road,
King of Prussia, Pa. There will be an opportunity for members of
the public to ask questions of NRC staff before the session is
adjourned.
On April 4, 5 and 6, an NRC inspector traveled to several branch
offices in Virginia operated by CTI Consultants, Inc., based in
Ruckersville, Va. In addition, the inspector visited several
field sites in Virginia where CTI had nuclear gauges in use.
(Nuclear gauges contain radioactive material and are used for
such industrial purposes as measuring soil density.)
Based on these inspections, the NRC has identified a number of
Severity Level IV violations on the part of CTI, including: a
failure to perform an annual audit of its radiation safety
program; a failure to perform leak tests on some of its nuclear
gauges; a failure to properly label and secure nuclear gauges
during transportation; and a failure to ensure all employees
received the required training. Severity Level IV is the lowest
of the four levels used to capture the significance of cited
violations.
The June 29 meeting was scheduled because of the number of
violations and because several violations were repeats of
earlier infractions. The violations were described in a Notice
of Violation sent to the company on May 25.
At the meeting, NRC staff and CTI representatives will discuss
the results of the inspection and corrective actions either
already undertaken or planned by the company to preclude a
recurrence of violations.
Last revised Thursday, June 23, 2005
*****************************************************************
22 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC: No fine over lost fuel
June 23, 2005 Brattleboro, VT
By CAROLYN LORIé Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced on
Wednesday that it will not fine Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee
for losing track of two fuel rod segments for several months in
2004.
Although plant officials were cited for violating NRC
regulations, the federal agency chose not to levy a fine for
several reasons, including the fact that the rods never left the
spent fuel pool.
"The bottom line for us is that there were no safety
consequences to the public or to the workers at the plant," said
Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman for Region I.
The NRC could have imposed a civil penalty of as much as
$60,000.
Other factors in the decision to not fine the corporation
included the company's response to the matter and the fact that
it did not have any serious violations in the past two years.
Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., disagreed with the NRC's decision and
criticized the federal regulator for not taking stronger action.
"I read with concern the NRC's justification for eliminating all
penalties on the basis of action by the licensee to locate the
material," said Jeffords in a press release. "The NRC should not
send the message to licensees that simply acting to recover fuel
rods discovered missing only upon an NRC-ordered inspection is
sufficient to overcome years of poor materials accounting."
The segments in question were about the diameter of a pencil
and approximately 9 and 17 inches respectively. They were placed
in a canister in the spent fuel pool in 1979, after they broke
off from a faulty rod.
On April 20, 2004, David Pelton, the NRC resident inspector at
Vermont Yankee, ordered the canister opened. It was empty.
After searching the fuel pool with a video camera, reviewing
records and interviewing current and former personnel, plant
officials found the missing segments in another specially
constructed container in the fuel pool in July 2004.
Announcement of the missing fuel thrust Vermont Yankee into the
national spotlight, as it was only the second time that spent
fuel at a nuclear plant was lost.
The other instance occurred at Millstone nuclear power station
in Connecticut in 2000. Plant officials there were unable to
account for two fuel rods. Although the fuel was never found, in
2002, the NRC closed the case, stating that the fuel had most
likely shipped to a low-level waste site in Barnwell, South
Carolina.
The NRC fined Millstone's owner, Northeast Utilities, $288,000
for failure to adequately account for the material and failure
to report the problem in a timely manner.
Since the incident at Vermont Yankee, a third instance of fuel
missing from a nuclear power plant was announced in July 2004.
Officials at the Humboldt Bay plant, which closed in 1976, in
California reported that they could not account for three
18-inch fuel rod segments. The matter remains unresolved.
Shortly after Vermont Yankee officials announced the fuel was
missing, the anti-nuclear group the New England Coalition filed
a petition with the NRC, calling for the plant to shut down
until all the nuclear material could be accounted for.
"We don't think there has been a complete accounting of the
fuel," said Peter Alexander, executive director of the
coalition. "The NRC seems to be following its pattern of giving
every possible break to the licensee. And what we'd like to know
is when they are going to start giving confidence to the public
that they are doing their job."
In a letter dated June 22 to Jay Thayer, site vice president of
Vermont Yankee, the federal regulator warns that although a fine
was not levied this time, "similar violations in the future
could result in a civil penalty."
Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said the company
has since revised policies and procedures for keeping track of
spent fuel records.
He also said that Entergy should be credited for resolving the
matter.
"The missing segments were really a documentation issue that
occurred many years ago and it was corrected under Entergy,"
said Williams.
The Lousiana-based corporation purchased the plant in July,
2002 from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp., a consortium of New
England public utilities companies.
Entergy covered the costs of searching for the fuel but,
according to Williams, whether it will try to recoup those funds
from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp. "remains an open question."
Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc.,
*****************************************************************
23 Deseret News: Bush turns focus back to nuclear power
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, June 23, 2005
By Ken Herman Cox News Service
WASHINGTON —President Bush's effort to sharpen
the focus of his endangered second-term agenda turned Wednesday
to the stalled energy bill and the role of nuclear power in
achieving greater energy independence.
In a speech at Calvert Cliffs nuclear Power Plant in
Lusby, Md., Bush repeated his call for federal incentives to
jump start construction of nuclear power plants.
"Some Americans remember the problems that the nuclear
plants had back in the 1970s. We all remember those days," Bush
said. "That frightened a lot of folks."
nuclear plants are now "far safer," he said.
The speech touched on other issues as well and his
message remained what it's been for months: All is well, and it
will be better if Congress toes the administration's line on the
economy, energy, Social Security, Iraq and other initiatives of
a president who polls show is losing popular support.
Wednesday's speech, as well as the upcoming events, are
part of an effort that White House spokesman Scott McClellan
said is targeted at letting Bush "really focus" on the economy
and fighting terrorism.
This effort is to include an Oval Office meeting Friday
with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Ja'afari, and a Tuesday
speech marking the first anniversary of returning sovereignty to
post-Saddam Iraq.
In Maryland, Bush hit on both priorities, using the
nuclear plant as a backdrop for his long-standing message
linking energy independence to economic security.
"The problem is, there's been a lot of debate and a lot
of politics, but no results," he said, cheerleading the energy
debate but tamping down expectations.
"I hope you recognize that when I sign that bill your
gasoline prices aren't going to drop," Bush said, reiterating
his stance that long-term solutions involve new technology and
increasing the use of some older technologies.
He called nuclear power "one of America's safest sources
of energy" but acknowledged the public image problems it faces
in some quarters.
In fact, it has been more than 30 years since a new order
for a reactor has been placed in this country. U.S. interest in
reactors was dampened by the partial meltdown at Three Mile
Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the 1986
explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine.
"Advances in science and engineering and plant design
have made nuclear plants far safer, far safer than ever before,"
Bush said.
Bush's rosy appraisal of nuclear power drew immediate
challenge from Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.
"Not only is nuclear energy dangerous, it is
prohibitively expensive," Pope said. "The huge safety risks
associated with nuclear facilities make them impossible to
insure, which is why the industry wants taxpayers to pay all
liability costs."
The Bush plan to spur construction of nuclear plants
includes protection against lawsuits and licensing hassles.
"You don't want to go out and build a plant, spend all
the money and have the license jerked at the last minute," Bush
said. "Nobody's going to spend money if that's the case."
His plan, announced earlier this year, calls for federal
risk insurance for the first four plants to protect against
litigation and "bureaucratic obstacles."
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
24 St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Nuclear industry stands to get help from taxpayers
STLtoday:
By Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
06/22/2005
President George W. Bush tours the control room of the Cavert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant on Wednesday.
(Dennis Brack/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON - With the president leading the cheers, the nuclear
industry is poised to receive a bounty of incentives from
Congress that could subsidize construction of new nuclear
reactors in central Illinois and several other locations.
President George W. Bush on Wednesday became the first president
in 26 years to visit a nuclear plant, declaring near Washington
that the nation needs nuclear power.
Speaking as the Senate neared a vote on legislation spelling out
a new energy policy, Bush referred to nuclear power as "the one
energy source that is completely domestic, plentiful in
quantity, environmentally friendly and able to generate massive
amounts of electricity."
The president offered his endorsement while touring the Calvert
Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland, 50 miles southeast of
Washington, one of the plants that could receive incentives to
expand from the new energy bill.
A vote was expected in the Senate today on an amendment to
remove loan guarantees for nuclear power and other energy
sources, but it's not expected to pass.
The Senate bill would place taxpayers squarely behind resuming
new construction of nuclear plants for the first time in 30
years with tax credits that could reach $6 billion if fully used
by the industry.
The legislation would authorize $2.7 billion for research and
development over the next five years, similar to provisions in a
bill already passed by the House. An additional $1.25 billion
would be allocated for a nuclear reactor in Idaho that would try
to generate hydrogen fuel.
The nuclear industry could have received even more subsidies
under an amendment Wednesday to curb global warming. But after
several hours of debate, the amendment, sponsored by Sens. John
McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., was defeated.
Meanwhile, the Senate legislation - as well as the House bill -
would renew the half-century-old Price-Anderson Act limiting the
liability of nuclear power plants in the event of an accident.
The provisions have generated a debate that the nuclear industry
appears set to win in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute in
Washington, said the provisions amount to "kick-starting the
first of the new orders of new nuclear power plants that we
would be starting later this decade. We're talking about limited
incentives for a limited period of time for a limited number of
plants."
But Keith Ashdown, an energy analyst with the nonprofit
Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington, argued that the
government should not be risking a bounty of tax dollars on an
industry "that cannot exist in the private market without huge
handouts from Uncle Sam."
"We pay for nuclear research and development," he said. "We're
starting to pay for siting plants. We're backing loans to build
the facilities. We're paying for the production of energy. Then
we pay for the decommissioning of plants. There's no other
industry that's completely subsidized from cradle to grave."
In his speech at the plant, Bush argued that government help for
nuclear power is essential.
"It makes sense for the long-term economic security of our
country to expand nuclear power, and on the other hand, say to
those who are risking capital, 'Here's some help, here's some
ways we can provide incentive for you to move for with the
construction of plants.'"
Not since Jimmy Carter visited Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania
after a near meltdown in 1979 had a president toured a nuclear
plant. Clad in a white hard hat, Bush looked at a plan by
Baltimore-based Constellation Energy to build a new reactor
along Chesapeake Bay.
The Maryland plant is one of several being examined by the
nuclear industry in a two-track effort to resume building at
nuclear plants.
Last month, NuStart Energy Development, a consortium of nuclear
companies that includes Illinois-based Exelon Corp., put the
Calvert Cliffs site on a list of six existing plants from which
it intends to choose two for nuclear expansion.
Meanwhile, three nuclear companies are proceeding on their own
under a streamlined permitting process:
Exelon is seeking a so-called early site permit for construction
at its Clinton, Ill., nuclear plant, 22 miles south of
Bloomington.
Richmond, Va.-based Dominion Corp. has asked for a siting permit
for new construction at its plant at Mineral, Va.
Entergy Corp. is seeking early approval for expanding generation
at its Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, Miss.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
*****************************************************************
25 Las Vegas RJ: Bush adds nuclear pitch to energy bill campaign
Thursday, June 23, 2005
REVIEW-JOURNAL WIRE SERVICES
LUSBY, Md. -- Nearly 50 years after President Eisenhower waved a
"neutron wand" ceremonially to fire up the first U.S. atomic
power plant, President Bush sought Wednesday to launch a new
round of plant construction financed in part with federal
dollars.
Bush visited the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, one of
several sites under consideration by industry and government for
a new generation of reactors, to make the case for nuclear power
as an essential element of a diversified energy supply.
"Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy,"
said Bush, the first president to set foot in a nuclear plant
since Jimmy Carter's 1979 emergency trip to Three Mile Island,
Pa., following the partial reactor meltdown that helped bring
the first round of plant-building to a close.
"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power
plants again," Bush said.
On Capitol Hill, the Senate continued work on a sweeping energy
bill, rejecting a measure calling for mandatory limits on
emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush
administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs,
drive industry overseas and run up consumer energy bills.
Bush's nuclear pitch was part of an ongoing bully pulpit
campaign to pressure Congress to pass the energy legislation
containing many of the provisions first proposed by the Bush
White House in 2001. The House has approved a comprehensive
energy bill.
"It's time for Congress to stop the debate, stop the inaction,
and pass an energy bill," Bush said.
The pending bills contain a number of incentives to spur
construction of nuclear plants, including a renewal of federal
risk insurance and tax credits for companies that develop new
reactors. In addition, the Bush administration has launched a $1
billion initiative to help underwrite the cost of licensing
plants.
No new plant projects have been undertaken since the Three Mile
Island incident. The more cumbersome licensing procedures
adopted in its aftermath, along with the financial toll at the
time of double-digit interest rates, caused costs to escalate
and investors to flee.
Bush said the 103 operating nuclear plants generate 20 percent
of the nation's electricity "without producing a single pound of
air pollution or greenhouse gases."
He did not mention the unresolved problem of a permanent
disposal site for nuclear waste, which continues to accumulate.
Bush supports burying the waste at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.
In the Senate, meanwhile, lawmakers soundly defeated the
proposal for mandatory reductions in heat-trapping pollution
that might be warming the Earth. Supporters managed to get five
fewer votes than they did two years ago.
Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major
energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of
greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions
trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing
the measure and six Republicans voted with the Democrats to
support it.
Nevada's senators split on the proposal with Republican John
Ensign voting against a cap, and Democrat Harry Reid voting for
one.
Separately, the Senate agreed to give Washington clear
authority to override states' objections to the location of
liquefied natural gas terminals.
Senators rejected, by 52-45, an amendment to a broad energy
bill that would have allowed governors to veto a federal permit
for such a terminal because of state concerns about safety or
environmental harm. Reid and Ensign again split on that
amendment with Ensign voting to give Washington the authority
and Reid voting that states should be have an equal say in
deciding where such projects are built.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
26 APP.COM: TOPIC OF THE DAY: Oyster Creek relicensing
Asbury Park Press Online
in the Asbury Park Press 06/22/05
A safer path without A-plant
Close your eyes and picture what it would be like if the Oyster
Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey were permanently shut down
now.
Envision a cleaner and safer environment — free from radioactive
emissions that now pollute our air and land. You can throw away
those potassium iodide tablets that offer protection from only
one type of cancer. Marine life would be saved and the marine
ecosystem would become healthy and thriving once more — with no
more fish kills or entrapment.
Warning systems that are not always reliable would not be
needed. Our risk of a terrorist attack would be diminished. We
would not need to be concerned about evacuation plans that are
not workable.
We would cease to add more highly radioactive spent fuel rods to
the pile we have already accumulated and don't have room to
store. We would not have to live in fear of a nuclear meltdown
that would kill all those within a 10-mile radius of the plant
and make the land uninhabitable.
We could focus our attention on using safe, abundant renewable
energy sources such as wind turbines and solar energy that are
now readily available.
Now open your eyes and face the realities of having this plant
continue operation for another 20 years. This old plant
represents ancient technology. I'm ready to embrace a safer way
to supply our energy needs.
Grass-roots organizations and citizens closed the Ciba-Geigy
plant in Dover Township and the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on
Long Island. Don't underestimate the power of your voice. Call
the Capitol switchboard, 800-839-5276, and let your legislators
know you want their support in closing this plant immediately.
State legislators and gubernatorial candidates need to hear from
you, too. The Department of Environmental Protection should hear
your input at its public hearing on evacuation plans July 12 in
the Ocean County Administration Building in downtown Toms River.
A standing-room-only crowd will send the message that the DEP
needs to really listen to our concerns, and that a plan that is
not realistic is unacceptable.
Joyce Kuschwara
BERKELEY
Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
27 Guardian Unlimited: Vermont Nuclear Plant Will Not Face Fine
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday June 23, 2005 12:31 AM
By DAVID GRAM
Associated Press Writer
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - A Vermont nuclear plant violated safety
rules when it lost track of two rods of highly radioactive spent
fuel, but the facility will not be fined, federal regulators
said Wednesday.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that records at the
Vermont Yankee plant listed an inaccurate description of where
the fuel had been stored since 1980, and previous inventories
had not discovered the problem.
The pieces were eventually found in the plant's spent-fuel pool,
where they posed no danger.
If the rods had somehow been placed outside the spent-fuel pool,
regulators were concerned that they could have been mixed with
other radioactive components and mistakenly shipped to a burial
site for low-level nuclear waste.
Plant owner Entergy Nuclear could have faced a fine up to
$60,000, but regulators credited the company with taking action
to correct the problem.
In a letter to plant managers, Samuel Collins, head of the NRC's
Northeast region, praised the facility for finding the missing
rods and setting up new systems to better track materials in the
future.
Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said the NRC also noted
that Entergy did not own the plant when the poor record keeping
took place.
``This was a problem that occurred long before Entergy bought
the plant,'' Williams said. ``Under Entergy, the problem was
corrected.''
The NRC's decision drew fire from Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt.,
who said it sends the wrong message to nuclear plants about the
importance of carefully tracking radioactive materials.
The NRC should not suggest that finding the fuel rods after an
NRC-ordered inspection ``is sufficient to overcome years of poor
materials accounting,'' the senator wrote in a letter to the
commission.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
28 [NukeNet] Russia: Intruders Targeted Nuclear Site
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:00:56 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-Nuclear-Security.html
Russia: Intruders Targeted Nuclear Site
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 22, 2005
Filed at 11:24 a.m. ET
MOSCOW (AP) -- Authorities have thwarted two
attempts to break into Russian military nuclear
facilities since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet
Union, a Defense Ministry official said Wednesday.
There have been no terrorist attacks on the
facilities, but civilians twice tried
unsuccessfully to gain illegal access, said Col.
Gen. Igor Valynkin, chief of the ministry's 12th
Main Department, which is in charge of atomic
weapons.
The attempts to penetrate military nuclear
installations occurred in 2002 and 2003, both in
the European part of Russia, Valynkin said. In
both cases, the attempts involved one intruder.
The attempts ''were averted by our mobile units
and security at the facilities,'' he said,
asserting they were reliably protected from
penetration by intruders and potential terrorist
attacks.
''Our system is good, it works and it provides
nuclear security,'' he said.
However, Valynkin acknowledged that ''there are
problems with nuclear security'' and said it is
being improved with help from the United States
and other foreign donors, including by installing
security systems that eliminate the need for human
guards.
''The human factor plays a role everywhere,'' he
said. ''If you place a guard at an installation,
he is doubtless a protector, but he also can be an
individual who either violates or aids in the
violation or penetration of the facility.''
He said Russia is using U.S. and German funding,
as well as its own money, ''to strengthen our
facilities with security systems. This enables us
to take away the guard and fully control it
through technical means of protection.''
Valynkin said the main source of a potential
terrorist threat to the Kremlin's nuclear weapons
facilities is ''Chechen terrorist groups,'' which
have warned that they will target Russian
facilities of all kinds.
He suggested there had been warnings from the
Federal Security Service, or FSB, indicating
potential terrorist threats to specific
installations, but he would not discuss the issue
in detail.
''We get special information from the FSB on
terrorism and their plans as to our facilities,
and in connection with this we immediately take
measures at these facilities,'' he said.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
29 Daily Yomiuri: Data leak shows need for virus crackdown
The Yomiuri Shimbun
The latest leak of technical data on domestic nuclear power
plants from a privately used personal computer has sparked
concerns about security against possible attacks on nuclear
facilities in this country.
It has been revealed that maintenance and inspection data on
some nuclear power plants, including Hokkaido Electric Power
Co.'s Tomari Nuclear Power Station, was leaked and became
accessible on the Internet.
The leak took place at a Mitsubishi Electric Corp. subsidiary
commissioned to inspect nuclear power stations. A computer virus
infected a PC owned by an employee of the subsidiary, leading to
the data's distribution via the Net.
The subsidiary should be called to task for allowing the
employee to copy important data from his firm's computer system.
Its method of controlling data was extremely sloppy.
The virus in question can affect file-sharing software called
Winny, which is able to distribute data not intended for
distribution by its user.
In recent years, there have been a large number of cases in
which data have been leaked from computers used by an
organization. Such leaks have included data of hospital patients
and records of police investigations. Was the employee at the
Mitsubishi subsidiary aware of the risks involved in using
Winny?
===
Key info must be guarded
The succession of data-leak cases in recent years has prompted
businesses to take precautions. Some companies have imposed
strict regulations not only on employees using their own PCs in
the office, but also those using PCs allocated by their firms.
For instance, these firms do not permit employees to keep
important corporate information in their PCs.
All organizations should be reminded that no important
information should be stored where there is danger of a leak.
Nuclear power stations must be heavily guarded against a
possible leak of data from such facilities. This is essential to
help protect nuclear power plants from terrorist attacks.
The Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law, which the current Diet
session has revised, requires operators of nuclear facilities to
increase precautions against a leak of pertinent information.
The revised law also obligates employees at such facilities to
protect the confidentiality of data accessible to them at work.
Offenders can be sentenced to prison terms.
According to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, there is
no evidence that the data leaked in the latest incident included
information directly related to the operation of nuclear
reactors.
However, the data in question included photographs of some
sections of nuclear power stations. The internal structure and
design of a nuclear power station is classified data.
There is no telling how terrorists will take advantage of a
blind spot in security at nuclear facilities. To prevent
incidents similar to the latest leak, the government and the
electric power companies affected by the latest incident must
thoroughly examine details of the leak and implement strict
precautions.
===
Pass legislation swiftly
There is no legislation for directly punishing producers of
computer viruses. This should change.
The Convention on Cybercrime, which Japan signed in 2001,
requires signatory nations to step up efforts to fight computer
viruses.
The government has submitted to the current Diet session a bill
to revise the Penal Code with the aim of punishing the
production of viruses. The envisaged law would sentence any
offender to a prison term of up to three years, or a maximum
fine of 500,000 yen. The bill also includes a provision
punishing anyone who has provided others with viruses or
possesses them.
The government should ensure early passage of the bill to crack
down on computer viruses.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 24)
Copyright 2005 The Yomiuri Shimbun
*****************************************************************
30 FCW: Experts highlight nuke-detection flaws
[Federal Computer Week, June 6, 2005]
Vulnerabilities in cargo security programs still exist
[FCW.com, May 27, 2005]
BY Dibya Sarkar
Published on Jun. 22, 2005
Smuggling and detonation of nuclear or radiological devices in
the United States remains a serious concern, scientists and other
experts say.
They called for more money, research and development, training,
advanced technology, government coordination, and a better
overall strategy for prevention efforts.
Members from two subcommittees of the House Homeland Security
Committee held a joint hearing on the effectiveness of radiation
portal monitors and other technologies used to detect material.
Such technologies could prevent smugglers from importing
radioactive material on vehicles, trains, ships, airplanes or
even by walking across unprotected points along the borders.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the Emergency Preparedness,
Science and Technology Subcommittee, said many unresolved matters
regarding the issue still exist. For example, officials must work
out the timeframe for developing advanced technology, federal
agencies' coordination of detection programs, elimination of
possible waste and duplication in those programs, and the
helpfulness of a newly proposed Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office.
The subcommittee held the joint hearing with members from the
Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack Subcommittee.
Richard Wagner, a senior staff member at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, said that even though no defense against nuclear and
biological weapons will be perfect, it's important to build a
system for deterrence.
"That means creating an uncertainty in the mind of the
attackers," said Wagner, who also chaired the Defense Science
Board Task Force on Preventing and Defending Against Clandestine
Nuclear Attack, which produced a report last year for the
Pentagon.
Wagner also said Congress and the Bush administration must
realize that there will be false starts and wasted money over the
course of this effort. Most important, the administration needs
to find and leave good people in place who can build trust, he
said. He also advised Congress to find the right degree and
balance of oversight.
From fiscal 1994 through 2005, Congress has appropriated about
$800 million toward radiation-detection equipment and training,
including $500 million to the Energy, Defense and State
departments for international efforts and $300 million to the
Homeland Security Department for installing equipment at certain
points of entry, according to the Government Accountability
Office. In May 2005, DHS reported that it had installed more than
470 radiation portal monitors nationwide.
Gene Aloise, GAO's national resources and environment director,
said federal agencies now do a better job of coordinating their
efforts related to detection equipment. But it still remains a
concern, possibly signaling a need for a broader strategy, he
said. For example, the State Department installed
radiation-detection monitors in more than 20 countries, but they
are less sophisticated than those installed by the Defense and
Energy departments, he said.
He said another problem facing agencies and others is whether to
deploy available detectors or wait for better technology. Current
equipment has limitations, but at least it provides some ability
to catch radioactive material, Aloise said. "Without it you have
very little chance," he said.
A greater problem may be how Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
agency employees use the devices. For example, Aloise said, some
CBP agents have improperly used small handheld detectors, known
as radiation pagers, to search trucks instead of using isotope
detectors. Pagers alone are limited in effectiveness, but work
best when used within a suite of available equipment, he said.
Bethann Rooney, security manager for the Port of New York and New
Jersey, said 22 radiation portal monitors have been deployed and
another 10 will be installed later this year. One problem of the
detectors is false alarms, averaging about 150 per day, or about
1 in 40 containers.
Once an alarm is set off, CBP officials follow strict protocols
to determine whether the threat is terrorist related, naturally
occurring or a legitimate medical source of radiation. In the
vast majority of the cases, CBP is able to resolve the alarm in
approximately 10 minutes or less and release the truck without
causing any undue delays to the flow of commerce, she said.
But Rooney pointed out that officials dont screen 55 percent of
the ports total cargo that passes through the port, which is the
third largest in the country. That includes all cargo traveling
by rail or barge. Screening such intermodal cargo could be
disruptive to the flow of commerce, she said.
Rooney suggested the scientific community needs to work with the
private sector and maritime security to develop technology to
ensure security without hindering the flow of goods.
The technology itself needs to be improved, lawmakers and experts
say. Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said some monitors cannot
distinguish between nuclear bombs and radiation that occurs
naturally in items such as a ceramic pile and cat litter.
Benn Tannenbaum, a physicist and senior program associate with
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said
technologies and procedures must improve to produce better
results. Such improvements include decreasing the distance
between the detector and sample, increasing sampling time and
increasing the shielding around a detector to reduce any
naturally occurring radiation. He also said algorithms in
second-generation monitors can be improved.
He added that the best defense is a layered defense, including
monitoring existing supplies of highly enriched uranium and
plutonium worldwide.
But King said that despite all the precautions, terrorists can
still detonate a bomb at a port even after it has been detected.
He said it would make better sense to screen cargo at sea before
it arrives at a port.
"I think that is a crucially important theme to pursue," Wagner
said in agreement.
House members also heard testimony from officials from the
Homeland Security, Defense and Energy departments on the issue
later in the afternoon.
FCW.COM is a product of FCW Media Group.
*****************************************************************
31 satribune.com: Nine Nuclear Scientists Slip Out of Pakistan
Issue No 23, Dec 30, 2002 - Jan 05, 2003 | ISSN:1684-2075 |
Many Others Ready to Abscond: Pathetic Conditions Revealed at
Chinese-aided CHASNUPP Power Plant
Special SAT Report
KARACHI: At least nine senior Pakistani Nuclear Scientists have
secretly absconded from Pakistan, the latest defection taking
place as late as in July 2002, documents from Pakistan's nuclear
power plant CHASNUPP, built with Chinese assistance at Chashma
in central Pakistan, have revealed.
Eight of the nine absconders were "Senior Engineers" at CHASNUPP
and one was an Assistant Engineer. Four of them belonged to the
Operations Division of the power plant, two to the Mechanical
Maintenance Division and one each to Electrical, Technical and
Training Divisions. Many of them are CNS Fellows while others
got their fellowship from Karachi Nuclear Power Plant, KANUPP.
Six disappeared between February to October 2000, one in April
1997 and two in 2002.
The details about these defections were revealed in an innocent
looking memo sent by the engineers of CHASNUPP to their higher
authorities warning them that many more nuclear scientists
were "planning to run from the country because they were not
getting a fair deal in Pakistan.
The Memo which gave a list of the nine absconders only
speculated that these engineers had gone to USA, Canada or
Australia but in fact they could have gone to any country as
they left without permission or informing the authorities.
There are some 250 nuclear engineers and scientists working at
CHASNUPP. Most of them are unhappy with their salaries and other
benefits and are thus looking for openings to leave the country
quietly, as the Government of Pakistan would never allow them to
go and work for some other country.
The working conditions of these nuclear scientists should be a
cause for grave concern to everyone as unhappy engineers at
nuclear facilities could mean troubles of all kinds, a retired
Pakistani nuclear scientist told South Asia Tribune in Karachi.
The situation is ripe for any country needing their services to
offer them a reasonable package and most will quietly disappear,
traveling on passports which would not reveal their
qualifications or experience. Pakistani passports normally do
not mention the specific field of employment and it is easy to
get replacement passports or even to conceal the real identity.
The engineers were getting so restless that some of them decided
to write a detailed Memo pointing out the main problems being
faced by them at the remote facility. Copies of the Memo were
made available to the SA Tribune in Karachi by some of the
relatives of the unhappy employees. Click to View Memo (copy
quality not good)
A look at the Memo reveals that these engineers are being kept
in Chashma as if they were in a detention camp because they
are required to work 11 hours a day, seven days a week. They
work Monday to Sunday from 7.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. and sometimes
many of them are called for emergency duty, a concerned
relative said, handing over a copy of the Office Order issued
late in September this year. It confirmed that every one was
required to work for 77 hours a week. Click to View Office Order
They are not allowed to keep their families in Chashma and
scientists who are below Grade-20 are not being allowed even
telephone facilities, the Memo reveals. Almost 90 per cent of
the engineers fall in grades lower than 20.
The Memo of the Engineers warns that taking such heavy duty at
such a sensitive facility could result in a major catastrophe.
As per IAEA, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and
CHASNUPP regulations, (authorities) are bound to implement the
40 hours limit & Engineers are called for emergency duty and
working hours easily touch 90 hours a week, the Memo complains.
Due to these extra abnormal working hours, the safety of the
plant is in a dangerous position, it warns reminding the
authorities of the Chernobyl and Three-Mile Nuclear disasters in
Soviet Union and USA.
There has been no immediate improvement in their working
conditions, despite the Memo which shows that Pakistans nuclear
manpower is now almost ready to disperse throughout the world,
even to rogue nations needing their expertise.
The list of senior engineers who left the country for greener
pastures mostly includes scientists who had at least two years
of training from China and were highly qualified to run the
power plant.
The cost of training such an engineer, as estimated by the
CHASNUPP scientists themselves is Rs. 9 million per engineer in
a 7 to 8 year period. Each person lost is a huge blow to the
Pakistani nuclear establishment but working conditions and
salaries are not being improved to keep them engaged.
For the rest of the world this is a scary situation as Pakistan
could easily become the feeding ground for nuclear activities
any where as Pakistani official wage structures are far less
than any rich country with nuclear ambitions may offer,
specially oil-rich states or organizations like Al Qaeda.
The scientists of CHASNUPP have sounded the warning bell for
the Pakistani authorities. They have to look after this
sensitive resource and not push it to the edge. Otherwise it
could mean disaster for the country, the retired nuclear
scientist warned.
Copyright © 2002 South Asia Tribune Publications, L.L.C. All
*****************************************************************
32 Las Vegas SUN: Secret Data From Japan Nuke Plants on Web
Today: June 23, 2005 at 12:49:38 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
TOKYO (AP) - Confidential data from Japanese nuclear plants was
posted on the Internet when a worker's computer software was
attacked by a virus, a company said Thursday.
The Japanese government said it was investigating whether the
data included sensitive information on nuclear materials.
Mitsubishi Electric Industrial Co. said the information -
inspection forms, reports and manuals used from 2003 to this
year - probably appeared on the Internet sometime after March,
but company officials were unaware of it until Wednesday.
The files from Tokyo-based affiliate Mitsubishi Plant
Engineering Corp. had been saved on a worker's personal
computer, which was loaded with file-sharing software, the
company said. A virus that infected the software sent those
files to the Internet.
Mitsubishi Electric said the information was from seven Japanese
electric power companies and four other utility industry firms.
Though confidential, the data did not appear to include anything
about nuclear materials, according to media reports.
--
*****************************************************************
33 SBCS: Study: Perchlorate contamination, cleanup not under federal watch
San Bernardino County Sun:
Article Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 -
By Nikki Cobb, Staff Writer
A rocket-fuel ingredient contaminates hundreds of sites across
the country, but neither the extent of perchlorate contamination
nor the effectiveness of cleanup efforts is being tracked,
according to a study.
The Government Accountability Office released its findings on
perchlorate contamination. The May report criticizes the federal
government for failing to set standards and consistently monitor
perchlorate.
"It is difficult to determine the extent of perchlorate in the
United States or the status of cleanup actions, if any,' the
report states.
Perchlorate can occur naturally, but has been found in large
quantity where rocket fuel, munitions and explosives have been
stored or manufactured.
Residual amounts of perchlorate contaminate the soil and
groundwater. It has been detected in the Colorado River, and in
at least 400 sites in 35 states. It has been found in lettuce,
in cow's milk and in human breast milk.
In tests, perchlorate seems to impair thyroid function and can
cause developmental problems in infants.
Two of Rialto's wells are contaminated with perchlorate. The
city has filtration systems on both that clean the water to the
point that perchlorate is undetectable.
There may be many more sites than those reported to the EPA.
The study says that neither the federal nor state government has
a standardized approach to reporting perchlorate contamination,
so accurate identification of sites isn't possible.
Allan Hirsch is a spokesman for the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment, a division of California EPA. He said
he's confident the public health goal of six parts per billion
set by the EPA in 2004 protects everyone, including infants and
pregnant women and their fetuses.
The Department of Health Services must come up with an
allowable standard for perchlorate, a Maximum Contaminant Level
that triggers mandatory clean up if exceeded.
The department anticipates releasing its Maximum Contaminant
Level before the end of the year. It must take into account the
EPA's Public Health Goal of six parts per billion.
"By law, the Maximum Contaminant Level has to be as close to
our Public Health Goal as economically and technically
feasible,' Hirsch said.
Travis Madsen, a policy analyst for California Public Interest
Research Group, said environmental organizations, scientists and
the defense industry have been battling over what the Maximum
Contaminant Level should be, each commissioning studies to prove
their point.
"This has been a really nasty ongoing fight,' he said. "The
Pentagon is involved; they and a lot of defense contractors are
pushing for the weakest standard they can get.'
But the Department of Defense responded, saying it continues to
evaluate perchlorate contamination associated with its
activities.
The department has spent more than $70million since 1997,
according to Maj. Susan Idziak, and has used a recommendation
from the National Academy of Sciences for its guidelines.
"No promulgated drinking water standard for perchlorate in the
United States currently exists,' Idziak said in an e-mail.
The report said that standard needs to be set, and that the
states and other federal agencies need to work with the EPA to
develop a way of formally tracking perchlorate.
"It's a relatively new chemical in terms of people being
concerned about it,' Hirsch said. "There's going to be a lot
more research on this in the future."
Copyright © 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
34 RIA Novosti: Vladivostok port: radiation level returns to normal after alert
24/06/2005
VLADIVOSTOK, June 23 (RIA Novosti, Veronika Perminova) - The
level of background radiation in the fishing port of Vladivostok
(a city on the Pacific coast) has returned to normal after an
alert yesterday, a local official said today.
The official said the source of the radiation, a rod made of
strontium, which is a highly radioactive metal, had been taken
to Promtechnopolis, a specialized firm that deals with nuclear
materials.
Measurements made soon after the source of radiation was taken
away from the port showed that the level of background radiation
had returned to the normal limits.
Port staff had detected a major radiation source (300
micro-roentgen per hour) in a pile of scrap metal loaded on a
truck.
Promtechnopolis experts told RIA Novosti the rod was probably a
part of special density measuring device.
The region's deputy transport prosecutor, Andrei Samarkin, told
RIA that the strontium rod had probably been found and sold to a
scrap yard by as yet unidentified individuals. He said officers
from the Federal Security Service would check a list of sites
from where the rod could have been stolen.
He added that a criminal case had been opened into the incident.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
35 Yokwe: CCP Hearing Scheduled for July
Everything Marshall Islands :: http://www.yokwe.net
Jun 24, 2005 - 01:18 AM
[US] Senate Committee to Hear Testimony on US Nuke
Legacy in Marshall Islands
A Senate Committee hearing to receive testimony regarding the
effects of the U.S. nuclear testing program on the Marshall
Islands was announced yesterday by Senator Pete V. Domenici,
Energy and Resources Chairman. The oversight hearing has been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
on Tuesday, July 19, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses
may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit
written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies
of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150.
YokweOnline | Thursday, June 23, 2005 | 52 Reads
[US] US Senate Committee Requests $1 Million for
Marshall Islands Health Program in FY2006 Interior Bill
The US Senate Appropriations Committee concurred with the House
report to continue $1,000,000 funding of a health program for
the populations of Marshall Islands atolls where Cold War
nuclear testing occurred. Also clearing the Committee last
Thursday was $800,000 for distribution to Prior Service Trust
Fund enrollees of the region. In departmental budgeting for the
Compact, however, the Committee recommended $500,000 less than
the House allowance, which is $588,000 less than FY2005. The
decrease includes a cut in Federal Services Assistance which
provides funding for U.S. Postal service to reimburse cost of
postal service to Compact countries.
[Nuclear] Marshall Islands' Changed Circumstances
Petition in the News
©Aenet Rowa, webmaster - yokwenet@aol.com
*****************************************************************
36 Times-News: Spending bill could expand those eligible for fallout compensation
Online: Twin Falls, ID
, June 23, 2005 • Twin Falls, Idaho
BOISE (AP) -- A new U.S. Senate spending bill directs
administrators of a federal compensation fund for nuclear-bomb
fallout victims to find ways to open up the program to others
whose cancers may be linked to Cold War-era testing in the
Southwest.
If the measure is approved by Congress and signed into law by
President Bush, the Justice Department would have until October
to report back to Congress on ways to cover more people under
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
The Senate directive was spurred by a National Academies of
Science study that recommended the government open up the
program and consider cancer claims from people in all states.
Currently, eligibility is limited to residents of 22 counties in
Utah, Arizona and Nevada.
In the April report, researchers found that people living as far
away as the East Coast were exposed to airborne fallout from the
Cold War-era bomb tests in the Nevada desert. Making a
scientifically sound case that fallout caused cancers that far
away would be difficult, the scientists conceded.
The study also determined that residents of some Idaho counties
received higher doses of radioactive fallout than those now
eligible for the $50,000 to $100,000 lump-sum payments.
"We're not going to allow this National Academies study to lie
on a shelf," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee. Craig requested the language in
the fiscal 2006 appropriation for the departments of Commerce
and Justice and federal science programs.
"The reality is, this study has now defined this as a national
issue," Craig said Wednesday.
The $48.9 billion spending measure was approved Tuesday by a
subcommittee and will be voted on by the full appropriations
panel Thursday. If approved by the full Senate, it will be
reconciled with a House version that passed last week.
Craig's language directs the Justice Department to outline steps
the Bush administration can take to immediately expand coverage,
and to submit any recommended changes in the law to Congress by
Oct. 1.
Craig and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, have also introduced
legislation that would amend the 1990 act that created the
compensation program, making all Idaho residents eligible for
consideration of cancer claims linked to fallout.
But Craig said the appropriations language, making the change
administratively, is a better bet.
"Can Idaho act independently and alone now? Probably not," he
said. "Already Montana and Wyoming are taking a look at this and
asking to be included."
Preston Truman of Malad, director of a grassroots coalition of
so-called "downwinders" who are lobbying for expanded
eligibility, dismissed the Craig provision as another in a long
line of studies.
"It sounds good, but there's nothing the Department of Justice
can do until the law is amended," said Truman, who has thyroid
cancer he attributes to fallout exposure. "It still doesn't come
close to adding the state of Idaho into the existing program and
that's what's needed now."
Story published at magicvalley.com on Thursday, June 23, 2005
Copyright © 2005, Lee Publications Inc.
Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News,
published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St.,
Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary
of Lee Enterprises.
*****************************************************************
37 Brattleboro Reformer: VY files for cask permit
June 23, 2005 Brattleboro, VT
By CAROLYN LORIé Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- Vermont Yankee officials filed an application
with the Vermont Public Service Board today for permission to
install dry cask storage at the Vernon plant.
According to Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, the
application does not specify the number of casks, but the
proposed design will ultimately fit 36 of the steel and concrete
containers.
The company intends to initially purchase six casks, which will
allow the plant to run until 2011.
Plant officials could not apply to the board until the state
Legislature approved the plan, which came in the final days of
the legislative session.
Under an agreement between the state and Entergy, the company
will pay $2 million a year into a renewable energy fund, if
Entergy's bid to increase power by 20 percent is approved.
Otherwise, there will be no charge associated with dry cask
storage.
Officials at the nuclear watchdog the New England Coalition said
they intend to intervene in the dry cask storage case before the
Public Service Board.
Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc.,
*****************************************************************
38 Las Vegas SUN: Report: Perchlorate cleanup needs tracking
Today: June 23, 2005 at 11:19:37 PDT
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Perchlorate contamination and cleanup efforts in
areas of the nation like Southern Nevada need to be tracked by
the federal government and state agencies, according to a report
by Government Accountability Office released Tuesday.
The office identified 400 sites across the country with soil or
water contaminated by perchlorate, which is commonly found in
rocket fuel used by the Defense Department and some civilian
companies.
Overall, Nevada has the fourth highest perchlorate
contamination levels reported in the country, with six sites
that have reported levels between four and more than 500,000
parts per billion, according to the report.
The Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation plant near U.S. 95 at Lake
Mead Drive in Henderson is the site of the largest reported
perchlorate contamination of ground water in the nation with 3.7
million parts per billion in Henderson's groundwater, 120,000
parts per billion in the surface water and 24 parts per billion
in the drinking water according to the study, although clean up
is under way.
Many other areas of the nation also need perchlorate clean up
efforts, however, so and there needs to be "a national response
to this problem." Erik Olson, a senior attorney at the Natural
Resources Defense Council, said.
"This is not just a problem in some isolated communities," he
said.
Perchlorate is a salt that can be easily dissolved and
transported through drinking water.
If relatively high levels of perchlorate are ingested, it can
cause thyroid problems in adults or brain development problems
in fetuses or newborns, although the exact amount that can lead
to the problems is not known. The federal government does not
have a required cleanup standard or drinking water level for the
substance, although cleanup is planned or under way at 51 of the
400 sites through other environmental laws and recommended
levels.
From June 2004 to March 2005, the GAO reviewed 90 health
studies on perchlorate published since 1998, looked at data from
the Defense Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
U.S. Geological Survey, and state agencies and looked at federal
and state laws and regulations.
"Without a formal system to track and monitor perchlorate
findings and cleanup activities, EPA and the states do not have
the most current and complete accounting of perchlorate as an
emerging contaminant of concern, including the extent of
perchlorate found and the extent or effectiveness of cleanup
projects," according to GAO.
EPA agreed that perchlorate contamination exists but did not
want to establish a tracking program.
In comments sent to the GAO, Barry Breen, EPA's principal
deputy assistant administrator said such a system would require
"more resources or the redirection of resources from other vital
ongoing environmental activities." He said it was unlikely EPA
would fund a tracking program because there is sufficient
information on the contamination already.
The Defense Department found the findings "factually incorrect
and fundamentally flawed," according to comments by Phillip
Grone, principal assistant deputy under secretary for
installations and environment.
"It is not clear that new formal structures to track and
monitor perchlorate will provide added value," Grone wrote.
Olson, however, said the fact GAO identified 400 contaminated
sites, which had never been done before, proves a tracking
system is needed.
But even if such a tracking system were put in place, it would
not change things much in Southern Nevada, water experts say.
"I don't think it would have any bearing on Southern Nevada
because we are so far ahead with mediation," said J.C. Davis,
spokesman for the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
Davis said there has been a 90 percent decline in the
perchlorate that gets into the Las Vegas Wash that goes to Lake
Mead, even at a time when the lake levels are lower than normal.
Davis said the Southern Nevada Water Authority will be under
four parts per billion of perchlorate in its water supply this
year. That is the amount of four drops in an Olympic-sized
swimming pool.
Perchlorate was first detected in Lake Mead in 1997. Kerr-McGee
stopped making perchlorate in 1998 and a cleanup project began
in 1999. The other plant, owned by American Pacific, moved to
Utah in 1989. The American Pacific site also in Henderson, is in
the planning stages of cleaning up 600,000 parts per billion of
perchlorate contamination, according to the report.
Todd Croft with Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
said a lot of work has been done in Nevada already and the
contamination levels are below the possible standard EPA could
set for the chemical, so another tracking system might not make
much difference.
*****************************************************************
39 Rutland Herald: Nuclear storage request made
June 23, 2005
Entergy asks state for waste facility
By Susan SmallheerHerald Staff
Entergy Nuclear moved quickly Wednesday to apply for a
controversial high-level radioactive waste facility, the day
after Gov. James Douglas signed legislation allowing the company
to proceed.
The company, citing the importance of the storage facility to
its continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power
plant in Vernon, asked the Public Service Board for a decision
by April 1, 2006, or sooner.
The company said it hoped to start construction on that date.
Susan Hudson, clerk for the Public Service Board, said Entergy
filed a massive application Wednesday afternoon. "It is huge, it
is inches and inches thick," she said.
It will be some time before the board schedules a hearing, she
said, so the staff will have time to review the application.
Entergy spokesman Robert Williams said the concrete pad planned
for the site north of the plant could hold up to 36 storage
casks. But the company has agreed to only keep six casks, he
said, and return to the Vermont Legislature if it wants to store
more than that.
Those six casks will solve the plant's immediate fuel storage
crisis and avoid a potential shutdown before Yankee's federal
license expires in 2012. The plant will run out of space in
2008, Entergy claims, or 2007 if the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission allows Entergy to increase power production by 20
percent.
Each of the six casks will hold 68 fuel assemblies, which are
currently being cooled in the plant's deep-water pool on the
fifth floor of the reactor building. Entergy wants to transfer
the oldest and coolest fuel into the concrete and steel
canisters, which will be cooled by air as they sit on a concrete
pad within the safety zone surrounding the Vernon plant.
"The Legislature put a limit on the number of casks, and they
can't hold any fuel beyond 2012," Williams said.
Entergy is expected to seek a license renewal to operate beyond
that date, but it hasn't made that decision yet.
Once the governor signed the legislation allowing Entergy to
seek PSB approval for on-site storage of nuclear waste, Public
Service Commissioner David O'Brien signed a memorandum of
understanding, or MOU, between the state and Entergy Nuclear.
He said the agreement did not include an endorsement of the
project. The Douglas administration merely supported Entergy's
right to apply to the PSB to create the storage facility, he
said.
"The MOU does not in any way implicitly support dry cask
storage," O'Brien said. "It stipulates to certain things that
area residents and legislators wanted that we would not be able
to raise (in the PSB permit process)."
The agreement also calls for Entergy to pay $2.5 million a year
into a new Clean Energy Fund for six years starting in 2006. The
money will be used to encourage development of renewable energy
in the state, O'Brien said.
"We have to come up with a plan to administer the fund," he
said. "That's not going to be an easy task."
The payments are contingent on the company getting approval from
the NRC to increase power production.
Entergy asked the PSB to convene a pre-hearing conference to
establish a schedule for the hearings and to hold technical and
public hearings as necessary "to hear the issues raised by this
petition."
Raymond Shadis, senior technical adviser for the New England
Coalition, a Brattleboro-based anti-nuclear group, couldn't be
reached for comment Wednesday.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said that if Entergy used one of the
already-approved cask designs, it wouldn't need to apply to the
NRC for an amendment to its operating license.
But he said that the facility would need to meet certain
requirements. "We need to make sure the location is
appropriate," he said.
He said that NRC staff would be on hand to supervise any
practice runs of the transfer of the spent nuclear fuel into the
casks. The transfer takes place within the reactor building.
Williams said dry storage was the best plan. "This is not new;
34 plants already have it," he said.
And, he said, by transferring the fuel into the concrete
containers, it will be much more ready to transfer to a federal
radioactive waste facility, like the one proposed for Yucca
Mountain in Nevada, 100 miles north of Las Vegas.
Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.
© 2005 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
40 Rutland Herald: NRC won't fine Entergy over lost fuel rod pieces
June 23, 2005
By Susan SmallheerHerald Staff
Entergy Nuclear will not be fined for losing track of two pieces
of highly radioactive fuel rods last year, despite what the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission called "a significant failure" by
workers at the Vermont Yankee reactor.
"This finding did not have any actual safety consequences since
the fuel rod pieces remained in the spent-fuel pool the entire
time that the violation existed," wrote Samuel J. Collins, NRC
Region 1 administrator, in announcing the violation of federal
regulations.
Collins said the company failed to follow federal regulations
and keep adequate inventories of its nuclear fuel.
"As a result, the possibility of these irradiated fuel pieces
being mixed with other irradiated components and shipped
off-site to a burial site was increased," Collins wrote.
While Entergy would normally face a $60,000 penalty, the NRC
opted against the fine, noting the fuel rods "never left the
spent-fuel pool."
Despite the violation and the criticism, the NRC had kind words
for Entergy for its extensive search, which eventually found the
fuel rods three months later.
"Your investigation … was thorough and complete," the NRC
administrator added.
Those kind words were lost on Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., who
sharply criticized the NRC's handling of the missing fuel rods
in a letter to NRC Chairman Nils Diaz.
"The NRC should not send the message to licensees that simply
acting to recover fuel rods discovered missing is sufficient to
overcome years of poor materials handling," said Jeffords, the
ranking member of the Senate committee that oversees the NRC.
"The NRC missed an opportunity to use its enforcement discretion
to work with the licensee and develop a new, comprehensive
materials tracking system to ensure spent fuel is secure,"
Jeffords wrote.
"I remain deeply concerned that the NRC regards spent fuel rods
as a minimal risk for public exposure to radiation, and this
decision adds to my concern," Jeffords concluded.
Jeffords' comments were echoed by David O'Brien, the state's
commissioner of the Department of Public Service, who said he
was more concerned with NRC's handling of the missing fuel rods
than Entergy Nuclear's.
"Entergy largely inherited this problem," O'Brien said. "I'm
more concerned about the NRC's handling of this than Entergy.
... I'm not pleased with the NRC."
He added: "Entergy responded and committed the resources and
they located the fuel pieces and have taken steps to ensure it
doesn't happen again. Contrast it with how the NRC handled it."
O'Brien was referring to the length of time NRC took to issue a
report on the crisis.
He acknowledged he was unhappy Entergy didn't initially
recognize the fuel pieces in the bottom of the spent fuel pool,
despite an extensive search.
"I'm not saying I'm pleased with that, and they are clearly
being taken to task for that failure," he said.
But he said as a regulator, he felt the NRC was failing
Vermonters.
"As a Vermonter, for Vermonters, I have confidence in Entergy
handling the plant," he said. "I'm not entirely satisfied with
the NRC."
O'Brien said the NRC had also been difficult to work with on the
state's concerns over the safety aspects of the proposed power
increase at Vermont Yankee. He noted that it took the NRC months
to respond to a letter from the state's nuclear engineer.
The NRC decision also drew sharp words from the New England
Coalition.
"With apologies to Muhammad Ali, NRC stings like a butterfly,"
said Raymond Shadis, senior technical advisor for the
anti-nuclear New England Coalition.
He said the most important safety issue with nuclear power is
the control of radioactive materials.
"That's everything. Everything is focused on that. There are no
safety issues other than that," he said.
"There are no safety issues greater than losing nuclear fuel —
not knowing if has been released to the environment," he said.
Shadis said he remained concerned that Entergy workers didn't
recognize the fuel even when they did an extensive, underwater
video camera examination of the spent-fuel pool.
"I have a question of Vermont Yankee's competence and eyesight,"
he said. "Are they blind and stupid at the same time?"
Entergy tracked down the fuel container after a three-month
search of its records and records at its suppliers, including
General Electric. The latter revealed the purchase of a
stainless steel container designed to hold small pieces of fuel.
Entergy returned its cameras to the spent-fuel pool and found
the container, ending the three-month search.
Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said the fuel
pieces were mislaid decades before Entergy bought Vermont Yankee.
"Our team reviewed documents dating back 25 years," he said. "We
did a video search of the pool and did interviews with everyone
associated with pool activities over the years. In the end, it
was a combination of all three of those efforts that led to a
successful conclusion."
Entergy subsequently revised its policies and recordkeeping, he
said, but declined to say what those changes were.
"We want to make sure this doesn't happen again," he said.
Williams declined to respond to questions about why Entergy
workers failed to initially recognize the container, which held
the two pieces of fuel rod.
Williams said Entergy was in negotiations with the former owners
of Vermont Yankee over the issue in an effort to recoup some of
its expenses in searching for the fuel.
"I don't have a status report on those discussions," he said.
Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.
© 2005 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
41 Valley Advocate: Dumping on Vermont
The owners of Vermont Yankee have a wish list that includes
building a radioactive waste repository a few miles from the
Massachusetts line.
by Eesha Williams - June 23, 2005
PAUL SHOUL/C.KRAVATAS
People who could be killed or driven from their homes by an
accident at an aging nuclear plant wait for their legislators to
say the N-word to Entergy.
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant sits three miles from
Massachusetts and a few hundred yards from New Hampshire. The
federal government has said 7,000 people would die within a year
of a serious accident or act of sabotage at Vermont Yankee. An
article in the June 12 issue of Time magazine suggests the
number of deaths could be higher. And hundreds of square miles
of land in the region would be left uninhabitable.
In 2003, physicist David Goldstein won a $500,000 genius award
from the MacArthur Foundation for proving that shutting down
nukes like Vermont Yankee and replacing their power through
energy efficiency (for example, installing better insulation and
light bulbs in houses) would result in a net increase in jobs
and a net savings for electricity customers.
Nationally, nuclear power plants are now operating in only 64
locations. The effectiveness of the industry's lobbyists are the
biggest reason even more nukes haven't been scrapped. The
nuclear lobbyists' clout was demonstrated in the Vermont
legislature this spring, as it is routinely in Congress.
Instead of shutting Vermont Yankee and investing more in energy
efficiency, the federal government and Vermont's governor and
legislature are now likely to approve three requests from
Vermont Yankee's owner, Louisiana-based Entergy Corp.
Entergy wants permission to produce 20 percent more power at
Vermont Yankee than has ever been produced there before; to
build a nuclear waste dump at the plant that will likely pose a
deadly threat to human health for the next 100,000 years; and to
run Vermont Yankee long after its scheduled shut-down date in
2012.
Entergy -- which paid its chief executive $15 million last year
-- recently refused a request from a Vermont legislative panel
to disclose how much money Vermont Yankee sends back annually to
corporate headquarters in Louisiana. But an independent expert
testified that Entergy will make an extra $35 million or so a
year if it increases Vermont Yankee's output by 20 percent.
Nevertheless the Democrats, who have solid majorities in both
the Vermont House and Senate, recently approved a deal that lets
Entergy build a nuclear waste dump at Vermont Yankee for free if
federal regulators reject the power boost plan, or for the
bargain basement price of $2.5 million a year if the power boost
is approved. (Minnesota charges $16 million a year for a similar
nuclear waste dump there.) The deal was struck in secret
meetings between Vermont's legislative leaders and Entergy
lobbyists.
Vermont state Rep. Steve Darrow lives in the Vermont Yankee
evacuation zone. He pushed hard for Vermont to charge Entergy a
$7 million annual fee for the dump, regardless of the fate of
the company's power boost application.
"My committee's bill got neutered in the secret meetings between
Entergy and a handful of top legislators," Darrow told the
Advocate. "It was unbelievable."
The most active of the citizens' groups fighting for the
shutdown of Vermont Yankee and the replacement of its jobs and
power with renewables and efficiency is the Brattleboro-based
New England Coalition (www.necnp.org, 802-257-0336). "We're
making significant progress," says Coalition director Peter
Alexander. "But ultimately our success will depend on volunteer
labor and financial support."
More than a dozen nuclear power plants that were built around
the same time as Vermont Yankee (in the '60s and '70s) have been
dismantled following mass protests. These include the Yankee
Rowe plant in western Massachusetts and plants in Maine,
Connecticut and Long Island.
Copyright © 1995-2005 New Mass Media. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
42 Concord Journal: Cost of Starmet cleanup $3M more than expected
TownOnline.com:
By Chris Cassidy/ Staff Writer
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The cost to remove depleted uranium drums from the Starmet site
will cost $3.1 million more than expected, according to the
Department of Environmental Protection.
Crews must remove 3,700 drums of depleted uranium buried at
the 46-acre Main Street site, where Nuclear Metals, Inc. once
manufactured uranium-tipped bullets.
Because of the increase, the total cost to remove the
barrels will hit $8.3 million, according to DEP spokesman Joe
Ferson.
The Army agreed to pay for the removal of the drums as part
of a settlement reached last year with DEP and the state
attorney general's office.
The agreement does allow for the request of additional
funds, Ferson said. The Army now has 20 days to respond to the
request, but Ferson said he knew of no reason the Army would
refuse to pay.
The increase came after DEP received bids from contractors
that exceeded the original budget of $5.2 million, according to
Ferson. They also reflect additional DEP administrative costs,
he said.
The Army has until July 5 to respond to the request for
additional funds, Ferson said.
Jim West, the technical coordinator for Citizens Research
and Environmental Watch, an organization that has kept an eye on
the cleanup of the Starmet site, said he understood the need for
additional funds.
"There's a limited number of suppliers to this type of
service - two to be exact," West said. "You might say there's
not a large field to select from. In addition to that, there are
just high costs to handling this material."
Nuclear Metals, renamed Starmet in 1997, filed for
bankruptcy in 2002.
Starmet became a Superfund site in June 2001, making it a
top priority for cleanup.
But the Superfund action and the uranium drum removal are
two separate projects, West said. The Superfund cleanup, which
involves the removal of other contaminants at Starmet, is under
the supervision of the Environmental Protection Agency
In January, the town's 2229 Main St. Committee, which has
watched over the Superfund cleanup, reported that approximately
50, 55-gallon drums, buried since 1968, had been removed. They
also found pieces of old laboratory equipment buried
underground. [continue]
Meanwhile, work on the uranium drum removal cannot begin until
the $8.3 million is secured to hire a general contractor for the
project, West said.
"It hinders the examination of the factory plant itself and
any examination of the ground underneath the plant because those
barrels are in the way," West said. "I don't believe the
contractor wants to go into the plant while they're there."
Meanwhile, West said he understands the reasons for the
delay, particularly because of the sheer magnitude of the
project.
"I think it was a difficult situation," West said. "This
stuff was brought up here surreptitiously, and they had the
problem of 'What do we do?' The state doesn't have the money for
this kind of operation. I think they did the best they could.
They turned around and found a responsible party and asked the
Army to pay for it."
*****************************************************************
43 Deseret news: Reid isn't backing plan to block Utah N-waste
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, June 23, 2005
He is still fighting to keep material at power plants
By Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada insists he is working to
keep nuclear waste out of Nevada and Utah.
But don't look for the powerful Senate minority leader to
help the Utah delegation with wilderness language inserted in
the Defense Authorization Act that would block temporary storage
of spent nuclear fuel on Goshute tribal lands west of Salt Lake
City.
"He is opposed to legislating the wilderness area on the
defense bill," said spokeswoman Tessa Hafen.
The wilderness language, sponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop,
R-Utah, is regarded as Utah's last, best chance to block the
storage of 44,000 tons of nuclear waste in above-ground
canisters.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is poised to rule later
this summer on a recommendation by the quasi-judicial Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board that Private Fuel Storage, a
consortium of nuclear power utilities, be granted a license to
store spent nuclear fuel in Utah for up to 40 years.
The Utah delegation is largely resigned to the idea that
the NRC is going to grant the license. Earlier this week the NRC
rejected yet another state contention that the storage would
become permanent because the waste canisters were not suitable
for permanent storage at Yucca Mountain. Only one appeal
remains, that being whether the risk of an aircraft crash into
the site had been properly considered.
With the NRC signaling its willingness to grant the
license, the delegation has focused much of its efforts on
trying to persuade the Department of Interior to reject the PFS
lease with the Skull Valley band of Goshutes and to deny
approval for PFS to build a rail spur needed to transport the
waste to the storage site.
Bishop's language would declare those same federal lands
needed for the rail spur to be wilderness and therefore
off-limits to a new rail line.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is more confident the
wilderness language will pass this year, pointing out there are
two important differences between this year's attempt and the
one that failed to make it out of conference committee last
year. First, the Bishop language is part of the House version of
the bill, whereas last year the Utah delegation was trying to
get it added during the conference committee.
That means the issue is part of the debate and it becomes
much more difficult for the Senate to take it out.
The other difference is that the Bishop language has the
support of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which carries
a lot of weight with key members of the conference committee.
Last year, there were members of the conference committee
opposed to the Bishop language simply because there was a
perception that SUWA was opposed.
Reid and his Republican counterpart in Nevada, Sen. John
Ensign, are taking a different approach: If they can persuade
their colleagues to leave the waste at nuclear power plants
around the country, there will be no need for Yucca Mountain or
Skull Valley.
They continue to muster bipartisan Senate support for a
bill that calls for spent nuclear fuel to be stored at nuclear
power plants instead of at Yucca Mountain.
But the Reid-Ensign legislation is considered a
long-shot, at best, and it would certainly not deter the White
House from pursuing a permanent storage solution at Yucca
Mountain. On Wednesday, President Bush, speaking at a Maryland
nuclear power plant, again called for a revitalization of the
nation's nuclear energy industry.
Bush said the United States has not ordered a new nuclear
power plant since the 1970s. During that same time, France built
58, and China has eight under construction with plans for at
least 40 more.
"There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power
will lead to a cleaner, safer nation," Bush said. "In the 21st
century, our nation will need more electricity, more safe,
clean, reliable electricity. It is time for this country to
start building nuclear power plants again."
But what Bush did not address is the nation's stalemate
over what to do with the nuclear waste generated by existing
plants, not to mention a fleet of new power plants. Even if
Yucca Mountain is built — and it is years behind schedule and
embroiled in scandal — the facility deep inside a Nevada
mountain would be full with just the waste that exists today.
And that has critics speculating that the industry needs
both Yucca Mountain and PFS to accommodate all the nuclear waste.
The Department of Energy is expected to submit a license
application to the NRC for Yucca Mountain by the end of the year.
But with Yucca Mountain delayed until at least 2012, if
not longer, PFS is pushing forward with an interim storage site
in Utah. If the NRC grants PFS a license and the state
challenges the decision in federal court, the PFS project would
still be years ahead of Yucca Mountain.
Utah officials had hoped they had found a silver bullet
to kill the project when Gary Lanthrum, director of the DOE's
transportation program, said the welded canisters to be used at
Skull Valley would not be acceptable at Yucca Mountain and were
outside the current contract between the utilities and DOE.
The state jumped on that statement, arguing that the
Utah-bound canisters would remain permanently in Utah if they
were not accepted at Yucca Mountain — an issue that federal
licensing hearings had not considered.
But the NRC was unconvinced. "Utah's thinly supported new
contention does not justify reopening the adjudicatory record
and restarting our hearing process this late in a protracted,
8-year-old proceeding," the commission wrote in its unanimous
ruling earlier this week.
Industry and DOE officials have long maintained that the
packaging issue is a technical problem that can be easily
corrected.
E-mail: spang@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
44 Alert: Oppose Nuclear Weapons Funding -- Support the Feinstein
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:52:07 -0700
Tri-Valley CAREs, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and other groups
need your help to --
OPPOSE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUNDING
Support the Feinstein Amendment
Act Now!
Call your Senators and urge them to support Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA)
amendment to the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill eliminating
funding for the nuclear bunker buster and the Modern Pit Facility, and
cutting funding for nuclear test readiness. This amendment will mirror cuts
already made in the House, avoiding a lengthy battle in the House-Senate
conference.
Call the Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121.
Timing
Sen. Feinstein intends to offer one amendment that includes eliminating
funding to RNEP, the Modern Pit Facility, and potentially a cut to test
readiness when the Energy & Water appropriations bill comes to the Senate
floor. That timing is uncertain. The Senate Appropriations Committee
completed markup of the Energy & Water appropriations on June 16. Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-NM), who chairs the E&W Subcommittee, intends to bring the bill
to the Senate floor as early as the week of June 27, though it's possible
that it will be delayed until the week of July 11.
Background
Despite an extremely tight budget environment, the President requested over
$6.6 billion in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget request for nuclear weapons
activities within the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) including millions for provocative programs to
modernize nuclear weapons, design the next big nuclear bomb plant and
prepare the United States to resume underground nuclear testing.
Specifically, the President requested $4 million for the NNSA to research
and develop the nuclear bunker buster, also known as the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator or RNEP, $7.6 million for the Modern Pit Facility, a new
nuclear bomb plant, and $25 million to accelerate the test readiness of the
Nevada Test Site. Under the leadership of Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), Chairman
of the House Energy & Water Subcommittee on Appropriations, the House of
Representatives approved the elimination of funding for RNEP and the Modern
Pit Facility and cut funding for enhanced test readiness to $15 million.
The Senate Energy & Water Subcommittee on Appropriations, under the
leadership of Senator Domenici provided full funding for RNEP, the Modern
Pit Facility and test readiness. As a result, Sen. Feinstein is prepared to
offer an amendment on the floor that deletes funding for RNEP and the Modern
Pit Facility. The amendment may also include a cut to test site readiness.
Talking Points
Nuclear Bunker Buster
What is the bunker buster? Also known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
(RNEP), the bunker buster is portrayed as a weapon that could burrow into
the ground before detonating, greatly increasing its ability to destroy
hardened underground targets. Supporters argue that the bunker buster is
needed to attack hard and deeply buried targets (such as leadership bunkers
or WMD production facilities) in countries of concern, thereby deterring or
defeating such nations.
Experts note that:
* The bunker buster would lower the threshold for use of
nuclear weapons and prompt other nations to develop nuclear weapons to deter
U.S. attack.
* Nuclear weapons (including the bunker buster) cannot
be engineered to penetrate far enough into the ground to prevent nuclear
fallout. To prevent fallout, a nuclear weapon with approximately the same
yield as the one dropped on Hiroshima would need to be buried 850 feet in
the ground. Currently, the most effective weapons casing available can
barely penetrate 100 feet.
* The yield of the bunker buster would be much larger
than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The bunker buster would have a yield of
100KT; the Hiroshima bomb was 15KT.
* If a weapon with a yield of one kiloton was detonated
some 35 feet underground (close to current capability), it would put one
million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air, and create a crater
the size of Ground Zero in New York.
Why oppose the bunker buster?
* The U.S. should lead by example. It's the right and
smart thing to do. Global teamwork to reduce and eliminate nuclear threats
works - but only when the biggest player on the team does its part.
* The U.S. needs to help reduce the allure of nuclear
weapons - not increase it by pursuing new nuclear weapons. Developing new
nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other nations, and has the
potential to spark a new nuclear arms race.
* It would almost certainly jeopardize the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (in which the U.S. and other nuclear powers pledged
to disarm in return for other nations not seeking nuclear weapons).
* Using a nuclear weapon to try to destroy a buried
bunker or other target would produce significant civilian casualties and
radioactive fallout. In addition, U.S. military personnel operating in the
area would be at enormous risk, not only of death and injury but also of
extreme psychological trauma.
* The bunker buster is regarded as a "tactical" nuclear
weapon. Developing such a weapon would make it difficult to encourage Russia
to dispose of its arsenal of over 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons.
* New nuclear weapons serve no practical role in
countering the threats from extremists who are willing to use terrorist
tactics. You can't nuke a network or an extremist ideology. Instead, we
should be taking more practical and appropriate steps to safeguard the U.S.
and enhance global security.
* Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction; they
are not just another weapon in the U.S. arsenal. We never want to use
nuclear weapons again or see others do so; it's important to preserve that
taboo, which has been in place since 1945.
Modern Pit Facility (MPF)
The planned capacity of 125 pits per year is not needed.
The MPF is specifically being designed for "modular expansion" as needed for
"surge capacity" (originally up to 450 pits per year was being planned). The
Bush Administration has not explained why planned "interim" pit production
of "a few hundred" by 2021 at Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) is not
sufficient. Finally, the US has 4,000 pits held in "strategic reserve" and
over 12,000 as "surplus" at the Pantex Plant.
Bush/Putin "Moscow Treaty" mandates that Russia and the US will each reduce
their nuclear arsenals to 2,200 or fewer deployed strategic warheads by
2013.
The Bush Administration has refused to explain how many of the warheads
taken out of deployment will be held in a "responsive reserve" or
irreversibly dismantled. The Bush Administration has refused to explain how
many of the warheads taken out of deployment will be held in a "responsive
reserve" or irreversibly dismantled. In effect, the NNSA is still planning
for a new bomb plant based on the much larger pre-Moscow Treaty stockpile.
The MPF is not needed because of projected pit lifetimes.
The NNSA itself states that age-induced effects impacting safety,
reliability and performance have never been observed in pits up to 42 years
old (the average age of pits in the deployed stockpile is 21 years). NNSA
studies have indicated that pits have a minimum lifetime of at least 45 to
60 years, with a conclusive study to be completed by the end of 2006.
Indisputably the MPF proposal is premature before those conclusions are
reached.
The MPF is internationally provocative.
NNNSA declares it needs the MPF for "the flexibility to produce pits of a
new design in a timely manner..." Building and operating the MPF would
graphically demonstrate that the US does not intend to honor its obligations
under the NonProliferation Treaty to disarm its nuclear stockpile.
Pit production is costly.
Massive federal deficits have returned, yet MPF construction is expected to
cost up to $4 billion and $300 million annually to operate for 30 years.
This does not including related waste management and eventual facility
decontamination and decommissioning. Meanwhile, LANL will have spent
billions more to resume pit production there. Should the present course of
US nuclear weapons programs prompt a global arms race, the costs are truly
incalculable.
Pit production is inherently dangerous.
Infinitesimal amounts of plutonium can cause serious cancers. The NNSA
itself admits that nine fatalities are expected because of MPF operations
and that spontaneous plutonium fires are inevitable.
Nuclear Testing
The United States already has an advantage in knowledge gained from nuclear
testing having conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests, more than any other
country.
If the United States returns to testing, this will provide the political
cover for other nations to resume including China, India, and Pakistan as
the U.S. will be unable to oppose such a move.
This will decrease U.S.security and further erode the viability of the
nuclear nonproliferation
regime.
The U.S. nuclear stockpile continues to be certified as safe and reliable
over a decade after imposing a moratorium on underground nuclear testing.
Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in August, 2003 that, "we have no
need to [test nuclear weapons]."
Nuclear testing is used to support new nuclear weapons, not to check aging
weapons.
According to National Academies of Sciences 2002 report on
Technical Issues Related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, "Most
U.S. nuclear tests were focused on the development of new designs."
Nuclear testing, even underground testing, causes adverse health and
environmental consequences.
The Centers for Disease Control estimates that
approximately 17,000 deaths inside the continental United States have
occurred or will occur from cancers resulting from global atmospheric
testing of nuclear weapons. This estimate does not even include venting from
the over 100 tests done above ground at the Nevada Test Site. An estimated
25.3 million curies of radioactive fission products were released to the
atmosphere from 30 underground tests at the Nevada Test Site between 1957
and 1970. The Baneberry test alone, vented 6.7 million curies into the
atmosphere and it used a 10 kilotons device, smaller than the Hiroshima
weapon, much lower than the B83, and that was placed in the bottom of a
sealed 900 foot shaft. The shaft failed to contain the explosion releasing a
radioactive cloud that rose 10,000 feet in the air and tracked north to
Canada. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment stated in its 1989 report
The Containment of Underground Nuclear Explosions, OTA-ISC-414, that there
is no way to guarantee that radiation from an underground test will not vent
some radiation into the surrounding environment.
Nuclear testing is expensive.
As revealed by NNSA's report to Congress on
Nuclear Test Readiness in 2003, it costs $225 million per year to support
the basic infrastructure, personnel, equipment and facilities at the Nevada
Test Site for test readiness and stockpile stewardship activities, $15
million a year to maintain a readiness posture of 24-36 months, $100 million
to increase test readiness in one year to 18-24 months and between $100-150
million to prepare a single nuclear test.
Call your Senators to support the Feinstein amendment! Let them know you
support the dismantlement of nuclear weapons, not the research, production
and testing of new, catastrophic ones!
The Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
_______________________________
Jim Bridgman, Program Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
322 4th Street, NE, WDC, 20002
202-544-0217 x3
FAX: 202-544-6143
jcbridgman@earthlink.net
www.ananuclear.org
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
OPPOSE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUNDING
Support the Feinstein Amendment
Act Now!
Call your Senators and urge them to support Sen. Dianne Feinsteins (D-CA)
amendment to the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill eliminating
funding for the nuclear bunker buster and the Modern Pit Facility, and
cutting funding for nuclear test readiness. This amendment will mirror cuts
already made in the House, avoiding a lengthy battle in the House-Senate
conference.
- is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our
phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************