*****************************************************************
08/28/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.199
*****************************************************************
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 AFP: Iran bids to open out nuclear talks beyond Europe
2 RIA Novosti: Iran ready to continue cooperation with IAEA
3 Xinhua: Iran reiterates rights to nuclear know-how
4 Xinhua: Pakistan reiterates objection to military action on Iran
5 Xinhua: Iran touts new nuclear initiative
6 ITAR-TASS: Iran not counting on Russian, Chinese veto of its dossier
7 Reuters: Unidentified drone crashes in Iran, ministry says
8 Korea Herald: Six-party talks: an evaluation
9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. and N.K. Likely to Decide on Date fo
10 Korea Times: Seoul Plays Central Role in Nuke Talks
11 ITAR-TASS: Six-party talks on NKorea put off at least till mid-Septe
12 Council on Foreign Relations: Meeting the North Korean Nuclear Chall
13 Reuters: N.Korea says not ready for nuclear talks -Thai min
14 Reuters: N.Korea not ready for six-party talks -Thai formin
15 Reuters: China wants N. Korea talks as security forum-paper
16 Reuters: China envoy to visit N.Korea before talks resume
17 Reuters: NKorea says will rejoin NPT if "trust" at talks
18 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Blasts U.S. Envoy Appointment
19 Guardian Unlimited: China: Nations Close to N. Korea Statement
20 US: The State: Sanford belatedly urges NuStart
21 US: TheDay.com: How The Sub Base Got On - And Off - The BRAC List -
22 US: TheDay.com: Still Too Many Economic Eggs In Navy Basket
23 Ynetnews: Egypt links nuclear test ban to Israel
24 Green Left: Australian uranium: feedstock for proliferation
25 Guardian Unlimited: Egypt Turns Down Nuclear Treaty Request
NUCLEAR REACTORS
26 US: Burlington Free Press: Yankee; good for consumers and the enviro
27 US: York Daily Record: Nuke industry seeks more power -
28 Sofia Morning News: Bulgarian Nuke Four Switched onto Energy Grid
29 Sofia Morning News: Bulgarian Nuke Unit Shuts Down for Repairs
30 US: News-Miner: Closure threatens Galena nuclear plan
NUCLEAR SECURITY
31 US: Tennessean: Grant to fund work on radiation detection system for
32 US: York Daily Record: Security upgrade planned for reactors -
NUCLEAR SAFETY
33 US: DU Tests in Troops
34 [NYTr] US, Iraqi Birth Defects Caused by Depleted Uranium
35 US: St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Federal board endorses payments
36 US: Deseret News: Mysterious deaths: Ex-soldier links horses' malady
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
37 US: Bismarck Tribune: Uranium mine cleanup tagged at $22 million
38 Taipei Times: Lawmakers go on nuclear waste tour at Nevada facility
39 US: Gallup Independent: Shirley seeks help on mining ban;
40 US: Gainesville Times: I-3 should not be built just to carry nuclear
41 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Envirocare receives approval to expand
42 US: PTI: India to import natural uranium if supply is assured - Kako
43 Australian: Nuke fuels more risky than waste
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
44 Seattle Times: N-plant construction lull worries industry
45 New Mexican: Ex-LANL computer is focus of investigation
46 lamonitor.com: Lab probes computer story
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 AFP: Iran bids to open out nuclear talks beyond Europe
28/08/2005 12h37
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
©AFP - Behrouz Mehri
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran does not consider Britain, France and
Germany to be the sole negotiating partners on its nuclear
programme and believes the process should be opened out beyond
Europe.
"We will continue negotiating with them, but on the other hand
we will not restrict our negotiations to being with just these
three countries," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
said of the so-called EU-3.
Britain, France and Germany have been engaged in close to two
years of tough talks with the Islamic republic but Asefi said
that Iran has now also been talking with countries such as
Japan, Malaysia and South Africa.
"We want to have negotiations with other countries, it is up to
the Europeans not to remove themselves from the negotiations,"
he said, accusing the EU-3 of refusing to recognise Iran's right
to the nuclear fuel cycle.
Countries from the Non-Aligned Movement -- notably South Africa
and Malaysia -- have been more sympathetic to Iran's effort to
possess nuclear fuel facilities.
"The Europeans did not live up to commitments. If the European
cannot live up to their commitments, we will negotiate with
other countries as is our right," he added.
According to Asefi, Iran's "main negotiating partner is the
International Atomic Energy Agency" -- the Vienna-based UN
nuclear watchdog -- and said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei had
been informed of this.
Iran is unhappy with the EU-3 after they demanded a total halt
to fuel cycle work in exchange for a package of trade, security
and technology incentives. Iran maintains such work for peaceful
purposes is a right of any signatory of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Iran has rejected the deal, and in protest resumed uranium
conversion activities, the first step in making enriched uranium
which is fuel for power reactors but can also be the raw
material for atom bombs.
The resumption of this work, which Iran had suspended last
November to start talks with the EU, has scuttled the
negotiations and could lead to Iran being brought before the
United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.
The IAEA is due to issue a new report on Iran on September 3,
and Iran has been emboldened by agency conclusions that highly
enriched uranium (HEU) particles found in Iran were from
imported equipment and not from Iran's own activities.
But the report will also however cover suspicious on Iranian
work with plutonium, another atom bomb material.
"We expect the report on September 3 to clarify the remaining,
minute issues because our cooperation has clarified a lot of
ambiguities," Asefi insisted.
"I don't think Iran's case can be referred to the UN Security
Council. If they want to make our case a security issue, it will
cost the Europeans more than it will cost Iran," he warned.
Asefi also revealed further details on promised proposals from
Iran's new hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he
suggested would be released within the next six weeks.
"They will enshrine Iran's right to have the fuel cycle. It will
also have objective guarantees" that Iran will not seek nuclear
weapons, Asefi said.
"It will say the main negotiating partner will be the IAEA. It
will make sure the other parties will not resort to pretexts.
This proposal is a way out of the current situation. I think
around two years of negotiations (with the Europeans) is enough."
The EU-3 have already reacted to Iran's challenge, with France
insisting Friday that the EU-3 have been working in conjunction
with their 22 other EU partners as well as the IAEA's full
35-nation board of governors.
The US State Department on Thursday said Iran was trying to
"change the subject from what the real issue is, and that is
their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons."
Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2005
*****************************************************************
2 RIA Novosti: Iran ready to continue cooperation with IAEA
27/ 08/ 2005
TEHRAN, August 27 (RIA Novosti) - Iran is ready to closely
cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency as regards
Iranian nuclear programs, Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council, said.
"The Islamic Republic is serious in its intentions to master
peaceful atom and considers it its legal right. We acknowledge
that peaceful nuclear technology development should be carried
out under IAEA supervision and are ready to closely cooperate
with it in this direction," Larijani told journalists in Iran's
airport Friday.
Larijani flew from Vienna, where the day before he held talks
with IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei on Iranian nuclear
problem settlement. He said Iran had always observed and would
observe the IAEA's resolutions but would not accept imposed
solutions.
"The EU troika (U.K., France and Germany) is a catalyst here.
This role can also be played by other countries who understand
Iran's position in the negotiating process and can render our
country the necessary political support," Larijani said.
The secretary touched upon some new initiatives to resolve the
problem around nuclear programs Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad intended to propose to the EU troika soon.
"Iran will continue activity aimed at mastering peaceful nuclear
technologies under the supervision of IAEA specialists and will
convince the Agency that this activity is peaceful and
transparent," Larijani said.
Earlier the secretary said the negotiating process on Iran's
nuclear problem should involve more participants.
Moscow said the Iran-EU troika format's potential was not
exhausted, but added only participants could change the format.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
3 Xinhua: Iran reiterates rights to nuclear know-how
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-27 19:46:50
TEHRAN, Aug. 27 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran's chief nuclear
negotiator reiterated Iran is determined to continue its
legitimate nuclear research, the official IRNA news agency
reported Saturday.
"The Islamic Republic is serious in achieving nuclear
know-how and regards it as a legal right of the Iranian nation,"
Ali Larijani was quoted as saying.
Larijani made the remarks upon his arrival in Tehran after
wrapping up his first visit to the headquarters of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna since he was
appointed as chief negotiator earlier this month.
During his one-day visit, the negotiator held talks with
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
Larijani described on Friday the outcome of his meeting with
ElBaradei as positive and stressed that Iran had been fully
committed to the international regulations.
"Iran has complied with all regulations of the agency and
will do the same in the future ... but will not tolerate
imposition beyond that," he said.
Larijani has also invited ElBaradei to visit Iran to
continue negotiations, which has been accepted by the IAEA
chief, IRNA said.
Iran resumed uranium conversion activities on Aug. 8,
prompting the IAEA board of governors' approval of a resolution
on Aug. 11 which urged Iran to re-establish full suspension of
all enrichment-related activities.
Tehran has rejected the resolution but expressed willingness
to cooperate and negotiate with the international community.
The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons
under the disguise of civil usage, a charge rejected by Tehran.
Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Xinhua: Pakistan reiterates objection to military action on Iran
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-27 02:04:21
ISLAMABAD, Aug. 27 (Xinhuanet) -- Pakistani Prime Minister
ShaukatAziz Saturday reiterated his country's objection to any
military action on Iran and stressed all matters relating to
that country'snuclear issue must be resolved through dialogues.
Commenting on Pakistan's relations with the neighboring
countries at a news conference held in Lahore, capital of Punjab
province, Aziz said Pakistan will never support any military
action on Iran with a view to destroy its nuclear facilities,
according to the Associated Press of Pakistan.
He said Pakistan enjoys very cordial and friendly relations
with its western neighbor and the two countries are in constant
touch with each other on regional issues including that of
Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Aziz expressed hope that initiative taken by the European
countries to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue will prove
successful.
Highlighting the Sino-Pak friendship, Aziz said the
relations between the two countries are strong and growing in
strength with each passing day.
"The relations are moving ahead on a strong basis in every
sphere of socio-economic and defense fields," he noted.
Referring to the relations with India, Aziz said peace
dialogues with its eastern neighbor are under way but as long as
the core issue of Kashmir is not resolved, peace in South Asia
will not be possible. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 Xinhua: Iran touts new nuclear initiative
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-28 02:06:44
TEHRAN, Aug. 28 (Xinhuanet by Zhang Shengping, Chen Wendi )
-- Taking over a nuclear standoff, Iran's new conservative
cabinet has been promising to put forward a new initiative to
solve the deadlock.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said
Sunday that Tehran would present its nuclear initiative within
45 days, referring to a proposal already promised by President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"The comprehensive initiative will lead to a breakthrough in
thecurrently stranded nuclear negotiations with Europe, if the
Europeans refrain from any precondition they have set on the
negotiations," Asefi said.
Later in the day, Ali Aqamohammadi, spokesman of the Supreme
National Security Council (SNSC), the body in responsible for
nuclear talks, told the official IRNA news agency that the new
initiative has been studied by the council in four sessions but
more meetings will be held to finalize it in two weeks.
Ahmadinejad on Aug. 9 announced his intention to submit a
new comprehensive nuclear proposal in a telephone conversation
with the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
"We are ready to proceed with (the nuclear) talks. Of
course, I will put forward initiatives in this respect after
forming my cabinet," the new president told Anna one day after
Iran resumed uranium conversion activities and raised
international worries about the prospect of a diplomatic
solution to Iran's nuclear issue.
Since then, Ahmadinejad and other top officials have
restated the pledge for several times but have not revealed
anything in detail so far.
Ali Larijani, Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator and SNSC
secretary, also joined the chorus of touting the new initiative.
He said on Saturday that the president's proposal would
cause a breakthrough and major changes in negotiations over the
country's nuclear program.
Aqamohammadi told IRNA that the proposal just "deals with
Tehran's nuclear issues in an strategic way" and is "aimed at
lifting barriers to talks between Iran and Europe."
In parallel with these vows over the initiative, Iranian
officials have also been waving invitation cards to other
countries, with an aim at expanding its nuclear negotiations
with the European Union's big three, namely France, Germany and
Britain,to multilateral consultation.
Ahmadinejad said on Aug. 21 that Iran would not tolerate
some certain countries gaining billions of US dollars from Iran
but always condemning Iran and intervening in the country's
domestic affairs.
The strongest message came from Larijani, who on Thursday
urged the EU to take a logical stand in the nuclear negotiations
and stressed that the EU's role in the nuclear talks had been
extensively doubted.
"Not only many members of the International Atomic Energy
Agency(IAEA) but also a number of other European countries have
questioned about the connection and frame based on which the
European trio had been selected to represent the European states
and the agency," the new chief negotiator said.
On Saturday, Larijani wrapped up a visit to the headquarters
of the IAEA in Vienna and told reporters in Tehran that Iran
would hold nuclear talks with more countries.
"Iran's negotiating partners need not be limited to the
three European countries since other European countries can also
play a favorable role in Iran's nuclear issue. I do not agree
that the European countries are acting on the behalf of all
nations," he said, proposing Russia, China and the NAM.
A similar intention was echoed by Asefi in his Sunday's
briefing.
"Iran will continue to negotiate with the EU, but we will
not restrict the negotiating partners to the European trio of
Britain, France and Germany," Asefi said, citing Malaysia and
South Africa.
"However, that does not mean that we will rule out the
European trio. We just want to talk with all countries and our
principal negotiating partner is the IAEA, " Asefi added.
Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
6 ITAR-TASS: Iran not counting on Russian, Chinese veto of its dossier at UN
28.08.2005, 20.56
TEHERAN, August 28 (Itar-Tass) - Iran does not count on Russia
and China’s power of veto at the UN Security Council, should its
nuclear dossier be taken to the Council or should the issue of
economic and/or political sanctions against this country rise to
the UN agenda, Hamid-Reza Asefi, an official spokesman for the
Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday.
The genuine supporting pillar of the Islamic Republic of Iran is
found within itself, he said.
Teheran does not count on a Russian or Chinese veto in the
Security Council, but it reiterates that Iran will act
scrupulously on all obligations to those two countries, Asefi
said.
He also indicated the huge losses that the European Union
countries and the rest of the world would suffer from a transfer
of the Iranian dossier to the Security Council, adding that Iran
itself would sustain much smaller losses in that case.
Asefi said, however, he hoped the European trio of mediators –
Britain, France and Germany – would look attentively at the new
Iranian nuclear initiatives.
Basic provisions of the plan will be formulated in September
when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits New York to attend a
session of the UN General Assembly.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
7 Reuters: Unidentified drone crashes in Iran, ministry says
Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:43 AM ET
TEHRAN, Aug 28 (Reuters) - An unmanned "drone" aircraft has
crashed into mountains in the central Iranian province of
Lorestan, an Interior Ministry official said on Sunday, but it
was unclear where it came from.
"We have not yet identified it," a ministry spokesman said.
Drones have been the subject of feverish media speculation in
Iran, with commentators asking if the United States would use
them to spy on Iran after U.S. forces employed them in
Afghanistan.
Most of the key sites of Iran's disputed nuclear programme lie
in the centre of the country. Washington accuses Iran of seeking
nuclear arms, a charge Tehran denies.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Korea Herald: Six-party talks: an evaluation
The fourth round of six-party talks, scheduled to resume in late
August after a three-week recess, has raised hopes that progress
may finally be possible in resolving the North Korea nuclear
weapons standoff. Special features of the talks not seen in
other rounds included an American willingness to negotiate
directly with North Korean counterparts in a series of bilateral
sessions, a new, more active formal mediating role for the
Chinese hosts as drafters of a joint statement that ultimately
might become a consensus document, and more active brokering
efforts by South Korea, both in the run-up to the talks and
during the talks themselves. South Korea has emerged as the key
interlocutor and constituency for American and North Korean
counterparts in shaping the issues and positions that others
needed to accept in order to expect a viable agreement.
The key to moving forward at this stage is whether or not the
six parties - or at least the other five, absent North Korea -
have a clear, common understanding of desired outcomes and
objectives, a common definition of what constitutes success (or
failure) and a common roadmap for getting from where we are
today to the objective of the talks that all parties have
accepted in principle-the denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula.
Seoul's brokering efforts
Since inter-Korean dialogue resumed in mid-May, the South Korean
government has taken on a more active role in bringing North
Korea back to the six-party talks. For the first time, the North
Koreans have responded to South Korea's efforts to address the
nuclear issue through that channel. This development represents
a victory for South Korean diplomatic persistence in finding
ways to convince the North to respond. In addition, the
emergence of the Joint South-North Denuclearization Agreement of
1992 re-enforces South Korean opportunities to play an important
role in promoting a solution to the second North Korean nuclear
crisis.
South Korea's diplomatic achievement has been directly related
to South Korean willingness to bring to the table extra
"carrots" in the form of significant tangible benefits to North
Korea through the provision of conventional energy to the North.
The "important proposal" by South Korean Unification Minister
Chung Dong-young was one among several factors to which North
Korean Chairman Kim Jong-il finally responded. The fact that Kim
used the meeting with Chung to signal his willingness to resolve
the North Korean nuclear issue through negotiation, in
accordance with the wishes of his father that the Korean
Peninsula be denuclearized, has provided South Korea with an
enhanced role as a broker in the six-party context. The
outstanding question becomes whether South Korea can effectively
find ways to motivate the United States and North Korea,
respectively, to move toward a joint agreement on how to
proceed. The position of South Korea, especially related to the
question of whether or not North Korea can have a nuclear energy
program for peaceful purposes, will be decisive in determining
whether or not an agreement on a set of principles can be
reached.
The United States thus far has welcomed South Korean diplomatic
interaction with the North, and has been willing to accept South
Korea's "important proposal" and the concrete benefits that it
would bring to North Korea - if North Korea indeed makes the
strategic decision to give up its nuclear program. As long as
such brokering efforts continue to occur within the context of
strong U.S.-South Korea alliance coordination (and South Korea
avoids the temptation to "defect" from the alliance or the
six-party process to cut separate deals with North Korea prior
to a clear resolution of the nuclear issue), the United States
should welcome South Korean brokering efforts. For this reason,
it is critical that the United States and South Korea come to a
clear agreement on the question of whether North Korea can
retain any sort of nuclear capacity that would be "reversible,"
i.e., allow the North to retain an easily restored nuclear
weapons production capability.
Key issues
A number of divisions have emerged among the participants in
six-party talks over what it would take to resolve the North
Korean nuclear crisis, as well as the scope of demands that the
North would have to satisfy in order to resolve the issue. These
differences are significant because South Korea, Japan, China,
and Russia are not only participants in the six-party talks but
also serve as de facto jurists in the talks, assessing the
relative positions of the United States and North Korea and
effectively isolating either the United States or the North in
varying degrees as the most effective way to pressure each party
to move forward in the negotiating process. It is not surprising
that the primary areas where the United States and the North
failed to reach agreement on a joint statement of principles in
the fourth round negotiations, the key issues were the ones on
which there was little or no prior consensus between the United
States and the other parties to the negotiations.
The fundamental underlying division that has become apparent as
talks have proceeded is over whether a second, multilateral
understanding with North Korea along the lines of the Agreed
Framework is politically feasible. While Asian participants in
the six-party talks may prefer a new agreement with the North as
a way of relieving the crisis and bounding some key aspects of
North Korea's nuclear development efforts, American officials
and many nongovernmental analysts remain doubtful that the North
will live up to any agreement that is not accompanied by a
robust inspections regime.
There are two sets of more specific divisions among the six
parties that have been highlighted at the most recent round of
talks. One is related to the question of whether North Korea is
required to admit that it has a uranium enrichment program,
although there has been progress in achieving consensus on this
point with Chinese and other counterparts. In the end, the
existence of North Korea's uranium enrichment efforts is not so
likely to be a sticking point or area of disagreement among the
six parties given the availability of proof that might be
offered by Pakistani testimony and evidence of what it has
provided, in combination with ongoing procurement efforts that
point to North Korea's continuing work in this area.
A more complex and indeed critical area of divergence among the
six parties relates to whether North Korea is entitled to
maintain a nuclear program for "peaceful purposes" as part of
the negotiation process. North Korea's return to an IAEA and
NPT-consistent position would not alone deny the North the right
to use nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, an argument that
the North may bolster by pointing to the need for continued
productive employment of scientists with nuclear backgrounds,
not to mention its growing energy shortages.
However, the Bush administration seeks a result that
demonstrates the penalties of noncompliance with NPT
obligations. One way of achieving that objective while also
underscoring that North Korea through its actions over decades
has failed to draw an effective distinction between peaceful
nuclear applications and nuclear weapons development is to deny
the North any involvement in nuclear-related research or
applications.
As long as nuclear production or research facilities, and hence
access to spent fuel, exists in the North, the capability exists
to easily reverse any denuclearization agreement. Thus far,
China, Russia, and South Korea are not convinced that it is
necessary to deny North Korea an IAEA-compliant nuclear program
for peaceful purposes.
Based on these broad differences in the positions of the six
parties, it is reasonable to anticipate that there would be
further divisions over what might constitute an effective
verification regime and what types of monitoring activities
might need to take place as part of that regime. Since these
differences may exist quite apart from what North Korea is
likely to accept, it is easy to imagine that technical
discussions over verification regimes and principles may require
considerable time and effort to hash out in subsequent rounds of
six-party talks, if those talks are able to resume.
Prospects for talks
The record thus far casts doubt on whether the six-party talks
are up to the challenge of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.
Efforts by all parties have fallen short of their rhetorical
commitments in the past and Pyongyang has proven itself a master
at exploiting the differences that continue to exist among its
other interlocutors.
However, if all the parties are willing to back up their pledges
with actions toward a common goal, the talks could move forward
by achieving consensus both on goals and means - and then by
implementing the specific agreed-upon actions that derive from
the principles that are currently under discussion. A firm
common stance on such issues by all the other parties will
reduce the ability of North Korean negotiators to play at the
fissures in an attempt to exploit divisions among the other
parties to the negotiations so as to gain more space and
benefits on behalf of the North. A clearer common definition of
failure will help the talks ultimately succeed since Pyongyang
would be hard-pressed to ignore common stances, just as it finds
irresistible the temptation to exploit the differences.
During the three-week recess, the other five participants (less
the North) need to reach common understanding on what
constitutes failure - on what the "deal breakers" might be. In
the one instance where the other five have all spoken firmly and
publicly on the same issue - in warning of the "severe
consequences" that would result if the North were to conduct a
nuclear test - Pyongyang appears to have heard and honored the
message. The reverse can also be true: thus far only Washington
seems to be speaking out firmly against allowing Pyongyang to
have any form of "peaceful" nuclear energy program. Without a
single voice on this issue, compromise on Pyongyang's part seems
unlikely when the parties reconvene at the end of the month.
This is an excerpt from the writer's contribution to the Korea
Policy Review published yesterday. Scott Snyder is a senior
associate of The Asia Foundation/Pacific Forum CSIS. - Ed.
By Scott Snyder
2005.08.29
*****************************************************************
9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. and N.K. Likely to Decide on Date for Resumption of
Home> National/Politics Updated Aug.27,2005 19:12 KST
The United States and North Korea will likely make bilateral
contacts in a few days in an attempt to set a date for the
resumption of the six-party talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's
nuclear ambition.
Quoting a North Korean diplomatic source, Russia's Interfax news
agency reported a high-level contact between the two countries
will be made by Monday.
The latest round of multilateral nuclear talks went into a recess
on August 7th after failing to draw up a joint statement.
Arirang News
*****************************************************************
10 Korea Times: Seoul Plays Central Role in Nuke Talks
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times
By Park Song-wu
Staff Reporter
Seoul's ``active brokering efforts'' to find a solution to
Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions have highlighted the fourth round
of the six-party talks, which await resumption after a
three-week recess, Scott Snyder, a North Korea expert, wrote in
a recent contribution article.
``South Korea has emerged as the key interlocutor and
constituency for American and North Korean counterparts in
shaping the issues and positions that others needed to accept in
order to expect a viable agreement,'' he said in the article,
written for the September issue of Korea Policy Review.
Snyder, senior associate at the nongovernmental Asia Foundation
in the United States, contributed the interim evaluation report
on the talks to the English-language monthly policy magazine,
published by the Korean Overseas Information Service.
He underlined the necessity of a united voice among the five
countries _ South Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan _ to
pressure North Korea into abandoning its nuclear programs.
``(Thus far) only Washington seems to be speaking out firmly
against allowing Pyongyang to have any form of peaceful nuclear
energy program,'' Snyder said. ``Without a single voice on this
issue, compromise on Pyongyang's part seems unlikely when the
parties reconvene at the end of the month.''
After the U.S. and North Korea failed to narrow differences on
Pyongyang's hope to have the nuclear programs for civilian uses,
China, host of the denuclearization talks, announced the recess
on Aug. 7 with a plan to reconvene in the week of Aug. 29.
The talks, however, are expected to resume later than scheduled.
North Korea told a visiting foreign diplomat that it was unable
to take part in the negotiation as scheduled because ``trust and
confidence'' are lacking, Reuters reported.
``The North Korean foreign minister (Paek Nam-sun) told me what
he had in mind, what had caused North Korea not to be able to
participate in the six-party talks scheduled for Monday," Thai
Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon told reporters without
elaborating.
``(I) hope that the talks can resume at least by mid-September
or within September at the latest,'' the Thai official added.
A bad signal to the resumption of the talks has recently been
shown by the Pyongyang regime.
Describing it as ``not a good omen,'' North Korea criticized
Washington for its appointment of Jay Lefkowitz, a hawkish
conservative, as a special envoy to monitor North Korea's human
rights situation.
Pyongyang also denounced an annual South Korea-U.S. military
exercise as a precursor of invasion of North Korea and vowed
``stern measures'' against the U.S. It did not elaborate on what
the measures are.
To find a breakthrough, Wu Dawei, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister
and the top representative to the talks, arrived in Pyongyang
Saturday. He is scheduled to stay there until Aug. 30, China's
Xinhua news agency reported.
South Korea's Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Bank Ki-moon
said Friday that the talks would resume next week as planned.
``The talks will reopen next week, although we have yet to fix
the exact date,'' he told reporters in Seoul upon returning from
a weeklong trip to the U.S.
The nuclear row erupted in late 2002 after the U.S. accused the
communist country of running a secret nuclear weapons program.
im@koreatimes.co.kr 08-28-2005 18:04
*****************************************************************
11 ITAR-TASS: Six-party talks on NKorea put off at least till mid-September
28.08.2005, 15.34
PYONGYANG, August 28 (Itar-Tass) - The talks on the North
Korean nuclear problem were shifted on at least till
mid-September, said on Sunday Thai Foreign Minister Khantathai
Suphamongkon by the results of his talks in Pyongyang with his
North Korean counterpart Paek Nam Sun. “The North Korean
minister told me what makes impossible North Korea’s
participation in the six-party talks which are to begin on
Monday,” Suphamongkon told reporters.
“I hope that the talks may resume in mid-September or in one
month’s time,” he added.
According to the Thai foreign minister, his North Korean
colleague told him at the bilateral negotiations that an
atmosphere of confidence was absent at the talks held in
Beijing.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 Council on Foreign Relations: Meeting the North Korean Nuclear Challenge -
Task Force Report
Chair: The Honorable Morton I. Abramowitz, James T. Laney
Director: Eric Heginbotham
May 2003
72 pages ISBN 0-87609-331-4 $15.00
+ North Korea Nuclear Challenge (711K PDF)
Overview
The North Korean nuclear program is headed in a dangerous
direction. Yet the United States and its allies have not set
forth a coherent or unified strategy to stop it. This Task Force
report evaluates the challenges facing the United States in and
around the Korean Peninsula and assesses American options for
meeting them.
The situation on the peninsula has deteriorated rapidly since
October 2002, when North Korea admitted having a secret highly
enriched uranium program that put it on course to produce
fissile material for nuclear weapons. North Korea has since
withdrawn from the Non-proliferation Treaty, asserted that it
possesses nuclear weapons, and declared that it is reprocessing
its spent nuclear fuel. Having initially emphasized the need for
a negotiated solution, North Korea in its recent rhetoric has
stressed the deterrent value of nuclear weapons.
The Task Force report makes specific recommendations to help
guide U.S. foreign policy: 1) articulate a strategy around which
U.S. regional partners can rally; 2) as part of that strategy,
engage in a serious negotiating effort with North Korea and test
its intentions by proposing an interim agreement; 3) secure the
commitment of U.S. allies to take tougher action should talks
fail; 4) restore the health of the U.S.-South Korea alliance; 5)
persuade China to take greater responsibility for resolving the
crisis; and 6) appoint a full-time high-level coordinator for
Korea.
+ The Author
The Author
Task Force Members:
MORTON I. ABRAMOWITZ is a senior fellow at the Century
Foundation. He was U.S. ambassador to Thailand and has served as
the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
DESAIX ANDERSON is former executive director of the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization.
EDWARD J. BAKER is associate director of the Harvard-Yenching
Institute, a foundation associated with Harvard University that
brings East Asian scholars to the United States for research and
studies.
DANIEL E. BOB is Council on Foreign Relations Hitachi
international affairs fellow in Japan and research adviser to
Japans National Institute for Research Advancement.
STEPHEN W. BOSWORTH is dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts
University. He has served as U.S. ambassador to the Republic of
Korea and the Philippines.
VICTOR D. CHA is an associate professor of government at the
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
JEROME A. COHEN is adjunct senior fellow for Asia Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations. He is also counsel to the
international law firm of Paul,Weiss, Rifkind,Wharton and
Garrison and is professor of Law at New York University Law
School.
JAMES E. DELANEY is a consultant at the Institute for Defense
Analyses. He served as a U.S. intelligence officer in Asia for
more than twenty years.
L. GORDON FLAKE is executive director of the Maureen and Mike
Mansfield Foundation. Formerly, he was associate director of the
Program on Conflict Resolution at the Atlantic Council of the
United States.
DONALD P. GREGG is chairman of the Korea Society in New York. He
served as the Central Intelligence Agency Station chief in Seoul
(197375) and as ambassador to the Republic of Korea (198993).
JOSEPH M. HA is vice president of international business and
government relations at Nike, Inc. He is also professor emeritus
at Lewis and Clark College.
ERIC HEGINBOTHAM is senior fellow in Asia Studies at the Council
on Foreign Relations.
FRANK S. JANNUZI is a Democratic staff member on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. He served as an East Asia regional
political-military analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, Department of State.
RICHARD KESSLER is the Democratic staff director of the
Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and
International Security for the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
SUKHAN KIM is senior partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and
Feld. He is also the founder and president of the Sukhan Kim
Foundation: Korean-American Youth Service Organization, Inc.
JAMES T.LANEY is president emeritus of Emory University. He
served as U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Korea (199397).
KENNETH G. LIEBERTHAL is professor of political science and the
William Davidson professor of business administration at the
University of Michigan. He served as senior director of Asia at
the National Security Council (19982000).
WINSTON LORD is co-chairman of the International Rescue
Committee. He served as assistant secretary of state for East
Asian and Pacific affairs and ambassador to China.
K. A. NAMKUNG is an independent consultant specializing in
U.S.-Asian relations. He advises government agencies and
businesses in the United States and East Asia.
MARCUS NOLAND is a senior fellow at the Institute for
International Economics. He has served as the senior economist
for international economics at the Council of Economic Advisers.
DONALD OBERDORFER is distinguished journalist-in-residence and
an adjunct professor at the Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also
the author of The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History.
KONGDAN OH is a research staff member at the Institute for
Defense Analyses and a nonresident senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution.
MITCHELL B. REISS is dean of international affairs at the
College of William and Mary. He has served as assistant
executive director and senior policy adviser at the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization.
ROBERT W. RISCASSI is a retired U.S. Army General. He has served
as commander in chief of U.N. Command and commander in chief of
the Republic of Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command.
ALAN D. ROMBERG is senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson
Center. He served as principal deputy director of the State
Departments Policy Planning Staff under President Clinton.
JASON T. SHAPLEN was a policy adviser at the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organization (KEDO) (199599), where his
primary responsibility was to prepare and negotiate agreements
between KEDO and North Korea.
WENDY R. SHERMAN is a principal at The Albright Group. She
served as a counselor of the Department of State, with the rank
of ambassador during the Clinton administration.
SCOTT SNYDER is the Korea Representative at The Asia Foundation.
He is the author of Negotiating on the Edge: North Korean
Negotiating Behavior.
STEPHEN J. SOLARZ heads an international business consultancy.
He was also vice chair at the International Crisis Group. For
twelve of his eighteen years in the House of Representatives, he
served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific
Affairs.
NANCY BERNKOPFTUCKER is professor of history at Georgetown
University in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She
served in the State Department Office of Chinese Affairs and the
U.S. Embassy, Beijing (198687).
WILLIAM WATTS is president of Potomac Associates. He has served
as U.S. Foreign Service officer in the Republic of Korea,
Germany, and the Soviet Union, and as staff secretary at the
National Security Council.
JOEL WIT is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
DONALD S. ZAGORIA is a trustee at the National Committee on
American Foreign Policy and also a professor of government at
Hunter College.
RICHARD V.ALLEN is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on
War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University. He served as
national security adviser to President Ronald W. Reagan.
ROBERT DUJARRIC is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and chairs
the Korea-Japan seminar series.
ARNOLD KANTER is a principal at the Scowcroft Group. He served
as undersecretary of state for political affairs (199193) and
as special assistant to the president for defense policy and
arms control (198991).
HELMUT SONNENFELDT is a guest scholar for foreign policy studies
at the Brookings Institution. He has served as a senior staff
member of the National Security Council.
Communications Contacts
Lisa Shields
Vice President
212-434-9888
lshields@cfr.org
Marie Strauss
Deputy Director
212-434-9536
mstrauss@cfr.org
Anya Schmemann
Communications Manager
DC Office
202-518-3419
aschmemann@cfr.org
Kathleen Zimmerman
Assistant Director
212-434-9537
kzimmerman@cfr.org
Amy Gunning
Communications Coordinator
212-434-9679
agunning@cfr.org
Copyright 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights
*****************************************************************
13 Reuters: N.Korea says not ready for nuclear talks -Thai min
Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:52 PM ET
By Nopporn Wong-Anan
PYONGYANG (Reuters) - North Korea says it is not ready to rejoin
six-party talks on its nuclear weapons program, Thailand said on
Sunday, which if true would test the world's patience and throw
the talks process into doubt.
Japan and host China, partners in the deadlocked negotiations
along with the United States, Russia and the two Koreas, said on
Friday that the talks were on for this week, but no exact date
had been fixed.
China's top negotiator, Wu Dawei, flew to Pyongyang on Saturday
and was expected to stay until Tuesday.
The United States said the talks were not likely to resume this
week, but that it expected China to make an announcement about
the schedule for the next round of negotiations.
The regional powers hope to persuade reclusive and impoverished
North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs in exchange
for security guarantees and economic assistance.
"The North Korean foreign minister told me what he had in mind,
what had caused North Korea not to be able to participate in the
six-party talks scheduled for Monday," visiting Thai Foreign
Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon told reporters.
"...The North Koreans said that they are willing to dismantle
their nuclear weapons as long as there is trust among the parties
concerned. They say they are ready to dismantle and go back to
the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), allowing the International
Atomic Energy Agency to step in, as long as there is trust among
parties.
"...I hope that the talks can resume at least by mid-September or
within September at the latest," he added, without specifying
what gave him that hope.
North Korea threw out IAEA inspectors at the end of 2002 and
withdrew from the NPT in January 2003.
Kantathi met his North Korean counterpart, Paek Nam-sun, for
about 90 minutes in the North Korean capital on Saturday,
followed by dinner.
The status of the six-party talks had been up in the air, with
silence from all sides on a firm date to resume, after the
participants agreed to a three-week recess in the last round
which ended this month.
Japan said on Sunday no decision had been made, as far as it
knew.
"As far as Japan is concerned, the date of the talks is still
under discussion," Foreign Ministry spokesman Akira Chiba said in
Tokyo.
PATIENCE WEARING THIN
Previous rounds of six-party talks have ended with simply an
agreement to meet again.
"If North Korea actually refused to return to the six-party forum
this week, that would mean they would break the promise they had
made to all other parties concerned," a Japanese government
source told Reuters.
"We have given them a chance, maybe a last chance so to speak, to
resolve the crisis in the region the way we all have been hoping
for. Our patience would wear thinner and thinner. I believe
particularly those in the U.S. government would feel so
disappointed and frustrated and their patience would wear very
thin."
In Washington, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said: "We have
every reason to believe that the talks will resume in the near
future, though likely not next week."
Noting Chinese negotiator Wu's visit to Pyongyang, she said "we
expect the Chinese will make an announcement shortly regarding
the schedule of resumption of the fourth round."
North Korea said on Saturday that Washington's decision to
appoint a special envoy to monitor human rights in the country
had cast a shadow over the six-party talks.
North Korea, which has routinely accused the United States of
hostility in the talks and lack of trust, has been playing the
nuclear card to win diplomatic and economic benefits since the
standoff began in October 2002.
Washington said then that Pyongyang had admitted to a secret
program to enrich uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement, a
claim North Korea later denied.
Described by U.S. President George W. Bush as part of an "axis of
evil" along with Iran and pre-war Iraq, North Korea said for the
first time this year it had nuclear weapons, arguing it needed
them to deter a hostile United States.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
14 Reuters: N.Korea not ready for six-party talks -Thai formin
Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:33 AM ET
By Nopporn Wong-Anan
PYONGYANG, Aug 28 (Reuters) - North Korea says it is not ready
to rejoin six-party talks on its nuclear weapons programme this
week, as had been hoped by host China, because of a perceived
lack of trust, the visiting Thai Foreign Minister said on Sunday.
China and Japan, partners in the deadlocked talks along with the
United States, Russia and the two Koreas, said on Friday that the
talks were on for this week, but no exact date had been fixed.
"The North Korean foreign minister told me what he had in mind,
what had caused North Korea not to be able to participate in the
six-party talks scheduled for Monday," Thai Foreign Minister
Kantathi Suphamongkhon told reporters.
"...The North Koreans said that they are willing to dismantle
their nuclear weapons as long as there is trust among the parties
concerned. They say they are ready to dismantle and go back to
the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), allowing the International
Atomic Energy Agency to step in, as long as there is trust among
parties.
"...I hope that the talks can resume at least by mid-September
or within September at the latest," he added, without specifying
what gave him that hope.
North Korea threw out IAEA inspectors at the end of 2002 and
withdrew from the NPT in January 2003.
Kantathi met his North Korean counterpart, Paek Nam-sun, for
about 90 minutes in the North Korean capital on Saturday,
followed by dinner.
The status of the talks had been up in the air with silence from
all sides on a firm date to resume after the participants agreed
to a three-week recess in the last round which ended this month.
North Korea, which has routinely accused the United States of
hostility in the talks and lack of trust, has been playing the
nuclear card to win diplomatic and economic benefits since the
standoff began in October 2002.
Washington said then that Pyongyang had admitted to a secret
programme to enrich uranium, a claim North Korea later denied.
Described by U.S. President George W. Bush as part of an "axis
of evil" along with Iran and pre-war Iraq, North Korea said for
the first time this year it had nuclear weapons, arguing it
needed them to deter the United States.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 Reuters: China wants N. Korea talks as security forum-paper
Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:08 AM ET
TOKYO, Aug 28 (Reuters) - China has suggested that the six-way
talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons programme could evolve
into a permanent regional security forum, a Japanese daily
newspaper said on Sunday.
Beijing, the host of the talks which also involve the United
States, South Korea, Russia and Japan, put forward the suggestion
at the fourth round of negotiations, which were adjourned without
progress earlier this month, the Asahi Shimbun said.
The six parties are negotiating to restart the talks, which
stalled when North Korea refused to comply with a U.S. demand
that it abandon not only nuclear weapons programmes, but nuclear
power for civilian purposes.
In its draft of a joint statement, China said the Korean
peninsula should be nuclear weapons-free, that the United States
and Japan should normalise diplomatic ties with North Korea, and
that North Korea should receive energy assistance, the paper
said, citing sources close to the talks.
It also suggested making the talks a permanent forum, if
progress is made on the North Korean nuclear question when they
resume, the paper said.
The United States, South Korea and Japan have agreed to the
draft, the Asahi said.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 Reuters: China envoy to visit N.Korea before talks resume
Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:33 AM ET
BEIJING, Aug 27 (Reuters) - China's top envoy to the six-party
talks aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons
programme will fly to Pyongyang on Saturday, state television
said, to discuss negotiations set to resume next week.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei's three-day trip comes
after he visited Japan, where he said the next round of talks
would likely make more progress than the previous round, where
parties failed to agree to a joint statement.
"The two sides will exchange views on bilateral relations and
the six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue,"
Xinhua news agency said of Wu's trip to North Korea, citing a
Foreign Ministry release.
A Foreign Ministry spokesperson confirmed the visit but declined
to provide any details, and Xinhua and state television did not
say whom Wu would meet.
China and Japan said on Friday that the talks were still on for
next week, but no date has been fixed.
After a gap of more than a year, the six sides, which also
include Russia, South Korea and the United States, met in Beijing
for nearly two weeks before breaking off earlier this month with
an agreement to reconvene during the week of Aug. 29.
North Korea has been playing the nuclear card to win diplomatic
and economic benefits since a standoff began in October 2002
after Washington said Pyongyang had admitted to a secret
programme to enrich uranium, violating a 1994 accord.
North Korea has since denied having such a programme beyond its
known plutonium plant, but said this year for the first time that
it had nuclear weapons, arguing it needed them to deter a hostile
United States.
North Korea's insistence on the right to develop peaceful
nuclear energy was the key sticking point in the last round of
talks.
But the United States may be softening its stance. Top U.S.
negotiator Christopher Hill said on Tuesday the issue of the
North's having a civilian nuclear plan would not break a deal.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
17 Reuters: NKorea says will rejoin NPT if "trust" at talks
Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:51 AM ET
PYONGYANG, Aug 28 (Reuters) - North Korea said it would be
willing to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme and rejoin the
Nuclear Proliferation Treaty if there was trust at six-party
talks on that programme, visiting Thai Foreign Minister Kantathi
Suphamongkhon told reporters on Sunday.
Kantathi met his North Korean counterpart, Paek Nam-sun, in the
North Korean capital on Saturday.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
18 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Blasts U.S. Envoy Appointment
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Saturday August 27, 2005 6:46 AM
AP Photo TOK801
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Saturday demanded the
United States rescind its recent appointment of a special envoy
on human rights in the communist country, warning the position
could hurt international efforts to end the North's nuclear
weapons program.
The demand came as a Chinese vice foreign minister prepared to
travel to North Korea to discuss resuming the six-party nuclear
talks.
Washington announced last week that Jay Lefkowitz, a former
adviser to President Bush, will be in charge of promoting
efforts to ``improve the human rights of the long-suffering
North Korean people.''
The new post is part of the North Korean Human Rights Act passed
by the Senate last year. The legislation provides $24 million a
year in humanitarian aid for North Koreans, mostly for refugees.
North Korea said the appointment ``is an act of bad omen that
hurts our generous and flexible efforts to resolve the nuclear
problem'' and demanded the envoy be ``removed immediately.''
``It is an extremely challenging and dangerous act for the U.S.
... to take its intention to topple our regime into the stage of
detailed action,'' the North's state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper
said in a commentary carried by its official Korean Central News
Agency.
Human rights conditions in the North have been discussed
periodically, but have not been a central issue in the
disarmament negotiations.
The fourth round of arms negotiations were suspended earlier
this month after 13 days. China, Japan, Russia, the United
States and the two Koreas failed to agree on a basic statement
of principles to guide future discussions.
The six parties have agreed to resume meetings the week of Aug.
29 but have not yet set a day.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei was scheduled to travel
Saturday to North Korea from Japan, where he has been discussing
the talks with his Japanese counterparts, a duty officer at the
Chinese foreign ministry said when reached by phone. She
declined to give her name.
The official Xinhua News Agency also reported the planned visit,
saying that Wu would ``exchange views on bilateral relations and
the six-party talks.''
Wu, Beijing's top negotiator for the talks, said on Thursday in
Japan that the next round could start on Sept. 2.
But on Saturday, the North said moves that ``chill'' efforts to
resolve the nuclear standoff prompt it ``to think otherwise,''
without elaborating.
On Wednesday, North Korea condemned annual joint military
exercises between South Korea and the United States as
``provocative war maneuvers.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: China: Nations Close to N. Korea Statement
[UP]
Sunday August 28, 2005 4:46 PM
AP Photo XIN201
WASHINGTON (AP) - China's ambassador to the United States said
Sunday that he believed envoys from six nations are very close
to agreeing on a joint statement that could eventually lead to
North Korea abandoning its nuclear weapons program.
An earlier round of talks recessed on Aug. 7 with no agreement,
and the negotiations were to resume this week in Beijing,
although no exact date has been set. The diplomats are trying to
agree on a set of principles that would act as signposts for an
agreement scrapping North Korea's nuclear program.
``The (Korean) peninsula should be denuclearized, and that
should be the goal of the six party talks,'' Ambassador Zhou
Wenzhong said on CNN's ``Late Edition.'' ``And I think we are
very close to a joint statement.''
When asked whether China, with its close ties to Pyongyang,
should take a larger role in persuading North Korea to stop its
nuclear program, Zhou said the six nations - the two Koreas, the
United States, China, Russia and Japan - needed to work
together.
``It's not just what China should do alone,'' Zhou said. ``I
think this is something we need to work together, and without
that I don't think we will be able to accomplish it.''
The latest nuclear standoff with North Korea was sparked in 2002
after U.S. officials said the North admitted to a secret uranium
enrichment program.
Three previous rounds of six-nation talks in Beijing since 2003
have failed to bridge differences.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
20 The State: Sanford belatedly urges NuStart
08/28/2
By LAUREN MARKOE
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON South Carolina is in the running for what would be
one of the first commercial nuclear power plants to be built in
the United States in nearly 30 years a project many of South
Carolinas most powerful politicians backed strongly and early.
It took Gov. Mark Sanford, however, a little longer to rev up
his lobbying.
Last week Sanford sent a two-page letter to NuStart, the
consortium of energy companies that has narrowed its choices for
two new power plants to six locations, including South
Carolinas Savannah River Site the nuclear waste storage and
research campus near Aiken.
I am writing to express my support for constructing a new
commercial nuclear reactor at the Savannah River Site... he
began.
The letter was dated Aug. 22 a week after NuStarts deadline
for the six sites to make their case as to why each would be the
best choice for a new plant.
Sanford has taken some flack recently from critics who say he
should act more aggressively and get more personally involved in
efforts that would boost the states economy.
Among their complaints: a slow growth rate that sparked a recent
downgrading in the states bond rating and Airbus decision to
pick Alabama over South Carolina for its new jet tanker plant.
Some key Republican business leaders are even looking for a
candidate former state Commerce Secretary Bob Royall, for one
to run against Sanford in the GOP primary next year.
Sanford wasnt required to write to NuStart before the Aug. 15
deadline, or to write at all. But on that day, Ben C. Rusche,
chairman of the governors own Nuclear Advisory Council,
composed a letter to the governor.
While it did not ask him to show NuStart some enthusiasm, it
explained how enthusiastic other S.C. politicians had been.
I was pleased to receive a copy of the letter of support signed
by the entire S.C. delegation expressing encouragement to
NuStart, urging them to select the Savannah River Site because
of its special features derived from its 50 years of nuclear
activity and its potential value to SC, Rusche wrote.
Rusche also wrote Sanford of how Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour
and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco have been supportive of
efforts to court NuStart to their states. And he reiterated how
the plant is a prospect which could be of great value to South
Carolina.
NuStart aims to pick two sites for a total of two reactors by
Oct. 1. NuStart president Marilyn Kray has estimated that each
new plant would bring 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs for the
chosen community, and 250 to 400 permanent jobs.
Sanford spokesman Chris Drummond, asked if Sanford needed a
little push before he demonstrated some excitement over
NuStarts interest in SRS, said the governor likes to think
things over before he acts.
Before he wrote, Sanford wanted to talk to various folks in the
Aiken area just to get information, Drummond said. He listened
to the information provided, had some follow up questions and
from that the letter was sent.
Its the governors style, Drummond said. Hes very
deliberative.
Mal McKibben, executive director of the pro-nuclear Aiken-based
Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, said the important
thing to remember is that Sanford is helping to persuade NuStart
to come to South Carolina.
The governors of two other states had urged NuStart to select
their state for the location of the reactor, McKibben said. We
thought it would be helpful if Gov. Sanford did the same and
were grateful that he did.
VERBATIM
That energy bill we passed this summer doesnt even begin to
deal with short-term issues such as what do we do to affect the
price of gasoline. And Im not too sure what President Bush is
doing or not doing is to keep the cost of oil high. Its
certainly got the effect.
U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., on how U.S. energy policy seems
to work against lower gas prices
Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or
TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
21 TheDay.com: How The Sub Base Got On - And Off - The BRAC List -
Robert A. Hamilton
New London, CT
Sunday, Aug 28, 2005
How The Sub Base Got On And Off The BRAC List
In May, the Pentagon proposed closing or consolidating 62 major
military bases and 775 smaller installations to save $48.8
billion, streamline services and reposition the nation's armed
forces.
J. Scott Applewhite
Anthony J. Principi, center, chairman of the federal Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Commission, leads the vote to keep
the Naval Submarine Base in Groton open, rejecting the
Department of Defense recommendation for closure, during the
BRAC hearing in Arlington, Va., Wednesday.
U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Sen.
Christopher J. Dodd answer questions after the vote Wednesday to
keep open the Naval Submarine Base in Groton .
The Sub Base's 68 Days In Limbo On The Closure List
HOW GROTON GOT ON THE LIST
* Navy's move toward "fleet concentration areas"
* It was only East Coast base not "fenced off," or protected, by
BRAC rules
* Tension between submarine and surface ship communities
HOW GROTON GOT OFF THE LIST
* Synergy of having submarine operations, training, tactics
development, research, design, construction and repair in one
place
* Skepticism toward Navy estimates of costs, savings and
military value
* Support of a former president, top defense officials and key
political figures in both parties
* Uncertainty of how many submarines will be needed to counter
21st century threats
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer, Navy/Defense/Electric Boat
Published on 8/28/2005
Almost 40 percent of the $7 billion in savings the Navy expected
from the 2005 base closure process came from just two submarine
installations: the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, a homeport,
and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, which
repairs the undersea fleet.
There was grumbling that the Navy was trying to balance its
budget on the back of the submarine force, and the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission essentially agreed, rejecting
both recommendations.
Since the commission's 7-1 vote last week to keep Groton open,
state, local and federal officials are scrambling to fully
understand how it got on the list, to prevent that from
happening again and to comprehend the key arguments that
prevailed in getting it off the list, so they can better arm
themselves if they ever have to fight the battle again.
Interviews with dozens of defense analysts, retired and
active-duty admirals and many of the people who won the Save
Groton fight last week have shown that to a large degree,
Groton got on the list because the Navy thinks it can save money
by lumping its forces together, and Groton was never even
considered for a role in this reorganized Navy.
Groton got off the list, those interviews showed, because it is
an international center of excellence for submarine warfare, and
because there was some deep-rooted skepticism about the
Pentagon's case to move its submarines, training centers and
repair capability to bases in Norfolk, Va., and Kings Bay, Ga.
And the victory last week, in and of itself, could have a
significant impact on the future of the base.
The arguments that have been brought up to keep New London and
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard open have led people in the
administration and in elected positions to take a close look at
those arguments and determine the appropriate way ahead for the
nation and the Navy,, and the role of the submarine in the
global war on terror, said retired Vice Adm. Albert H. Konetzni
Jr., a former commander of the Pacific submarine fleet whose
support was considered critical in the fight to save Groton.
It's a very important discussion, and it has to be carried
forward, Konetzni said. Now the issues are on the table, so
let's go ahead and take a very close look at them, look very
analytically at the threats, try to determine what might face
our country in the coming years, and how we need to respond to
that.
Submarines in general, and Groton in particular, could benefit
from the debate that the decision will stimulate, Konetzni said.
Retired Adm. Carlisle A.H. Trost, who was chief of Naval
Operations from July 1986 to June 1990, agreed.
I'm hoping it means the base is free and clear for years to
come, and I hope it means the submarine force will enjoy a bit
of a resurgence, Trost said.
In particular, he said, the submarine community hopes the base
realignment and closure or BRAC decision will prompt a
re-thinking of submarine production rates. The Navy is now
ordering one a year, which would eventually lead to a fleet of
33 boats; submarine backers want the production rate doubled, to
two a year.
Trost said from a high of more than 100 attack submarines
during the Cold War, the fleet is already down to 53, but the
boats perform too well for their own good. The force has had to
set a rapidly increasing pace to meet rising demand for its
services as the number of ships has shrunk, and it has so far
kept up.
The submarine force hasn't been a problem for years, so it's
taken for granted, Trost said. The fact that the force is
slowly shrinking away doesn't concern people the way it should.
I think what the vote shows is that one, the process works,
the commission provided a truly independent review, and two, the
arguments the community made about military value held true,
said Robert Gillcash, senior adviser at the Washington
consulting firm McKenna, Long &Aldridge.
New England is critical to national security it has the
talent, the expertise and the corporate knowledge that is not
available anywhere else in the country, Gillcash said.
Gillcash was a defense analyst to U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd,
D-Conn., when the Pentagon proposed shutting down the Groton
waterfront in 1993.
And on each attempt (to close Groton), the facts that support
keeping open the crown jewel and historic birthplace of maritime
superiority have saved it, he said. That should be the
message, loud and clear, to the Navy and the Pentagon.
"""
Navy sources have said perhaps the biggest factor that led to
Groton getting on the list was the Navy's avowed interest in
establishing fleet concentration areas to achieve efficiencies
from large-scale operations. Defense analysts said that was
evident in the recommendations.
It's clear from the department's recommendations in all of the
armed forces that they have gotten over their fear of Pearl
Harbor, said Jeremiah J. Gertler of the Washington, D.C.-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
I think that's realistic, Gertler said. Even if you think
about a strong terrorist attack, it's difficult to take out an
entire base.
But Groton was never even considered as a fleet concentration
area, in large part because there is little room for the base to
expand, and at 678 acres it is too small to be considered a
major homeport. Norfolk comprises more than 4,600 acres, Kings
Bay about 16,000.
Consequently, Groton was the only submarine base on the East
Coast that was even considered for closure. Kings Bay was
protected because the Navy plan called for it to maintain one
base for strategic missile submarines, or SSBNs, on each coast;
Norfolk was so large the other bases could not absorb all its
ships.
But at least one commissioner said the process should have at
least looked at pulling the submarines out of one of the other
ports, and U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, agreed. He
noted, for instance, that the range of ballistic missiles is so
great more than 4,600 miles that the nation really only
needs one SSBN port, because the submarines could strike almost
anywhere in the world from either the Atlantic or the Pacific.
In addition, he said, when the grass-roots Subase Realignment
Coalition ran a scenario that moved Norfolk's 11 attack
submarines to Groton, it yielded more savings than closing
Groton and freed up valuable pier space in Norfolk.
My message to the Pentagon, if there is another base closure
process, is Don't fence off certain bases,' Simmons said. I
think that was an unfair part of the process right from the
start.
To some extent the commission agreed with the philosophy that
consolidation can yield efficiency, giving its imprimatur to a
plan to consolidate the 12 Navy regions to eight, and to move
onto military installations more than 20,000 Pentagon employees
scattered in small offices in and around Washington, D.C.
But Gertler said it was also apparent that the commission
didn't apply that standard uniformly. It rejected a proposal to
close an Air Force Base in South Dakota and move all B-1 bombers
to Texas.
South Dakota in defending against the B-1 move made explicit
the eggs-in-one-basket' argument, and it was clear that that
argument won the day, Gertler said. While it wasn't made clear
as a factor in New London, I think the same principle applied.
"""
Although the commission did not address it directly, there were
also critics of the Pentagon proposal who are convinced that the
recommendation was politically motivated not a Red State vs.
Blue State payback for Connecticut backing John Kerry over
President Bush in the 2004 presidential election, but a clash of
the submarine and surface ship communities.
Until last month, the Navy's top uniformed officer was Adm.
Vernon Clark, a former destroyer sailor who was widely viewed as
overly critical of submarines. In fact, Clark sought to assign
some submarine missions, particularly surveillance, to surface
ships that were on the drawing board.
Publicly, most active-duty submariners would never speak
against Clark. Privately, many celebrated the day he turned over
the reins to Adm. Michael G. Mullen. With that backdrop, many
believed Clark had a hand in the effort to close Groton.
This was all part of an effort by some in the Navy to just
diminish the hell out of the submarine force. It did not stand
by itself, said retired Adm. Kinnard McKee, who was director of
Naval Reactors in the 1980s. The submarine force has suffered
over the last few years, and I don't think this was any
accident, but the truth will out, and that's what happened in
this case.
You look at this on the face of it, and you ask, Why would
the Navy ever suggest this?' said retired Vice Adm. Ron
Thunman, a former deputy Chief of Naval Operations. It just
doesn't make sense. You have to think the Navy had another
agenda it was pursuing.
In fact, there is some evidence to suggest Clark's office was
behind the recommendation. According to the working papers of
the internal Navy group that prepared the BRAC recommendations,
Groton was under consideration for closure, and the panel sought
the counsel of the Fleet Forces Command and Clark's office.
The next month the group reported that Fleet Forces Command
opposed it. Clark's response was not documented, but the
proposal advanced, which many took as evidence that he endorsed
it.
The Connecticut congressional delegation, too, seemed to
indicate that the submarine force was not getting a fair shake
under Clark. Simmons, for instance, once noted that a submarine
force structure study ordered by Clark said the Navy could get
by with as few as 37 submarines. A Pentagon review done at the
same time said the force should go no lower than 45.
The Pentagon study was not done within the Navy bureaucracy,
so it was not subject to internal Navy politics, Simmons said
at the time.
There is a concern, and we all hear it, that Adm. Clark is a
surface Navy person, U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn.,
said in June. Certainly, he added, there's no question the
submarine force diminished under Clark, and the projections call
for even further declines.
Others are hopeful that Mullen, the new chief of Naval
Operations, will bring a different approach to relations between
the warfare specialties, bridging the perceived rift between the
submarine and surface communities.
I think this was a move to have a very different kind of Navy,
and it just didn't fly, said retired Adm. Bruce DeMars, head of
the office of Naval Reactors in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
But that fellow's gone, and now we move on.
But if the proposal to close Groton was the result of an
internal Navy struggle, some worry that it could be back in the
next round of BRAC.
I wouldn't be surprised, especially if some of this same crowd
is around the next time this comes up, said retired Adm.
William J. Crowe, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and former U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James. They have
long memories they won't forget this.
The big question is, how long before there is another BRAC?
Some officials think that after the controversies surrounding
this one, it will be hard to get Congress to sign off on another
for many years. In addition, the fact that some of the
Pentagon's biggest closure proposals were rejected might be
taken as a sign that military infrastructure has been trimmed
enough.
I don't think we're going to see another BRAC round for quite
a while, Lieberman said. It's been 10 years since the last
one, and I think it will be more than 10 years before we'll see
another one.
Also, having overturned two Pentagon recommendations to close
the base, they're not going to do it again for a long time,
Lieberman continued. We are now stronger than we were before,
because the case was made so powerfully for it.
"""
Even those who believe it could be years before the base might
become a target again, however, are studying the commission's
decision to determine which arguments were most effective, so
that if the time comes to mount another defense they can key in
on the winners quickly.
The save-the-base team mounted a multifaceted defense, but
one angle in particular seemed to resonate with the commission:
synergy.
In the 90 years since the submarine force has operated out of
Groton, the Navy has assembled an incredible array of submarine
operations, training, repair and research capabilities in Groton.
Among the unique units there: the Naval Submarine Medical
Research Laboratory, which has done groundbreaking research into
how to keep submariners safe; the Naval Undersea Medical
Institute, which trains the highly qualified medics known as
independent duty corpsmen who have to be prepared to deal with
a vast range of ailments aboard submarines that often cannot
surface for weeks at a time while operating in sensitive areas;
Development Squadron 12, which formulates tactics for the entire
undersea fleet; and the deep-diving research submarine NR-1.
In addition, the commission noted the proximity to Electric
Boat, which designs, builds, repairs and maintains submarines,
and the efficiencies that are achieved by having it so close to
the base.
It is the center of excellence, said commissioner Samuel
Skinner. It has been the center of excellence. It will continue
if it stays in place to be the center of excellence in the
world.
The sum is greater than the parts, said Chairman Anthony J.
Principi of the co-location of the base with EB.
In the end, synergy was one of the most telling arguments in
the whole debate, said Markowicz.
But equally important was skepticism about the Navy's case.
Commissioners noted that the Government Accountability Office,
in a limited review of the Navy's claimed personnel savings,
found a $400 million overstatement of savings, and an internal
Navy memorandum that came to light late in the process hinted
that the cost of moving the Naval Submarine School might have
been seriously understated.
Those started the process of sowing seeds of doubt in the
Department of Defense recommendation, Markowicz said.
In addition, the recommendation portrayed the base as aging,
and a top Navy official in testimony last weekend referred to
the base as centuries old.
In fact, it has operated as a submarine base for less than 90
years, and the Navy has invested so much in Groton, more than
$50 million in capital projects this year alone, it has the most
modern submarine infrastructure in the Navy and the five
commissioners who visited the Groton base saw that at first hand.
I think that cost the Navy some credibility, Markowicz said.
The best way to sell the submarine base is to tour the
submarine base, because you can clearly see it is anything but
an elderly' facility.
"""
Clearly, too, the fact that more than a dozen retired four- and
three-star admirals signed letters in recent weeks touting the
importance of Groton to national security had some influence.
People whose opinions I respect very much convinced me it was
the right thing to do, Principi said.
The commission didn't have a good source of senior naval
backup that was convincing until we got these admirals
together, said retired Navy Capt. Mario P. Fiori, a consultant
to the coalition.
Fiori, who helped to bring the admirals together and shuttled
letters supporting Groton between them to get signatures,
downplayed his role. All I did was organize some comments for a
bunch of very talented people, he said. I was fortunate to be
in the position to fight for something that I really, completely
believed in.
But clearly that effort played dividends.
There have been a whole series of former admirals that came in
and talked to us, and I can't remember any one of them
supporting the premise to close New London, said former
Congressman James H. Bilbray of Nevada. In fact the most senior
former official, former President Jimmy Carter, sent a letter to
the commission as a former Navy man in opposition to this,
against his own state of Georgia. I think that's very important.
In addition, the commissioners seemed concerned that closing
New London would leave the Navy short of the infrastructure it
will need to support the submarine force of the 21st century.
Emerging regional threats that we face in the world today
leave uncertain the force structure of nuclear powered
submarines in the future, Principi said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Lloyd W. Fig Newton echoed his
comments: Clearly, the strategic issue of the number of
submarines that you would have in the force as we move forward,
in the next several years, is complicated by the threat data
that was presented to us on many occasions of other world events
that are taking place, and particularly in Asia.
The Navy said it would have the force structure to sustain up
to 66 submarines in the future even if Groton is closed. But
supporters of the Groton base said if that was the case, why was
it proposing to build two new piers in Norfolk, and expand a
pier in Kings Bay?
There isn't excess infrastructure in the submarine force,
Simmons said. There may be in the Navy, but there isn't in the
submarine force, and the plan for closing Groton demonstrated
that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Related Articles
» Base Commission Wraps Up Closings, Restructuring Work
» Business Rebounding After Sub Base Escapes Hatchet
» Late Vote By BRAC Will Close Navy Office
» Panel Took On Rumsfeld, Insisting Politics Had No Role
In Its Decisions
» Threat Of Sub Base Closing United State's Delegation
» Air Guard Shake-up Is Last Task For BRAC
» BRAC Vote Spares Local Navy Region Office
» Otis Air National Guard Base To Close
» Recommended Base Changes
» BRAC Vote Due On Realignment Of Bradley Base
» Georgia At Loss Over Carter Lobbying
» Now Markowicz Can Rest Sort Of
» Sub Base Battle Not Over Yet
» The End Draws Near For Hospital With Storied Past
» There's A Lot Of Happy People In Groton'
» A School Community Remains Intact
» Admirals Who Lent Support To Sub Base Revel In The
Outcome
» At Electric Boat, BRAC Panel's Vote Ends a Lot Of
Sleepless Nights'
» BRAC Chairman Says Panel Did Right Thing
» BRAC Timeline
» Coalition's Tense Morning Ends In Joy
» DEP Cites Need To Continue Cleanup Work At Sub Base
» Many Bases Fall Victim To Pentagon List
» On Financial Front, $3 Billion Worth Of Worry Swept
Away
» Quotes About The BRAC Decision:
» Rell Sums It Up Quite Simply: We Did It'
» Sub Vets Pleased That Common History' Remains Intact
» Too Good To Close
» Wanted: Submarines To Fill Rescued Sub Bases
» What Happens Next
» Base Backers Hoping For The Best As BRAC Casts Its
Votes
» Businesses Awaiting Word Are Cautiously Optimistic
» In Groton, Prayers For A Positive Vote
» Sub Base Vote A Big Moment For Simmons
» Final Hearings Begin This Week
» It's Down To Wire For Groton's Sub Base
» Carter Tells BRAC Chief Closing Base Is A Bad Idea
» Hastert Joins Chorus Calling For Sub Base To Be Saved
» BRAC-Fest In America
» Dodd, Lieberman: Congress Unhappy With BRAC Process
» GAO Analysis Strengthens Case For Base
» Lawmakers, Rell Forward Documents To BRAC Chief
» Many On BRAC Panel Say Navy Overstated Savings
» State Calls Closing Base Too Costly
Search Last 7 Days NEWS: in: All Categories
Announcements Arts & Ent. Beliefs Business Court & Police
Daybreak Editorial Education Food & Dining Food Reviews
Health Home & Garden Horoscopes Letters Marketplace
Military National News Obituaries People Politics Real
Estate Region News Sports Technology Travel Wheels
Archives: News | Photo | Real Estate
For the best site experience, please use a non-beta version
of Internet Explorer 5+, set the screen resolution to 1024x768,
and enable JavaScript and Cookies. For additional enhancements,
install Macromedia Flash, Adobe Acrobat, Windows Media Player,
Apple QuickTime, and Real Player.
Advertising Info | Feedback | Site Index
Terms of Usage | FAQs
[The Day Publishing Co.]
About The Day Publishing Company
Advertising Info | Day Staff | Jobs @ The Day
About Shore Publishing
Advertising Info | Contact Us
What Do You Think?
The Day Store | Shopping Cart | Exchange
Portals
Classifieds | Daily News | Business Center | News Archive
Photo Archive | Spanish | The Day Store
Visitors Guide | Weather News Categories
Arts &Entertainment | Business &Markets | Daybreak
Editorials | Magazines | Marketplace | Nation, World News
Region News | Science &Technology | Special Reports | Sports
Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | ©
1998-2005 The Day Publishing Co.
Application("user_sessions").ToString() active users
online!
-->[Beacon Locator]
~ YN ~
*****************************************************************
22 TheDay.com: Still Too Many Economic Eggs In Navy Basket
New London, CT
By GREGORY N. STONE
Day Staff Columnist, Deputy Editorial Page Editor
Published on 8/28/2005
For as long as anyone alive can remember and still longer, the
Navy has been a cornerstone of this community, so a decision to
close the submarine base would have been a tough blow to absorb.
Part of the reason, without question, is self-centered. The
Navy's presence has brought unusual prosperity, even when other
parts of the country were faring poorly. Annual military
spending softened the impact of the Great Depression and helped
the region withstand other low points in the business cycle in
the years since.
The naval presence, including naval shipbuilding and research,
helped build schools and new roads and sustained commerce. The
fact that closing the submarine base would be as costly as
experts say it would be to the Connecticut economy is another
way of describing the bonanza southeastern Connecticut has
reaped from the Navy.
To put it bluntly, we have developed a sense of entitlement and
dependency. This is something the region needs to confront and
get over. There is no law or principle of public policy anywhere
that entitles anyplace to a fat life annuity from the Pentagon.
On top of that, there is no assurance that nuclear submarines
that cost taxpayers more than $2 billion each will retain a
place in the Defense Department budget.
But the attachment we have had for the base goes beyond
financial dependency. There is some lasting good in it. The Navy
has shaped our character and made this a strong community. In
turn, the service has benefited from the accumulation of
military knowledge; from southeastern Connecticut's excellent
deep-water port and from the good will and pride that builds up
in a Navy town. The Navy has been an important part of what we
are.
The sailors, officers, naval engineers and shipyard workers
have made up a populous class of civic leaders of all types,
from mayors and first selectmen to Little League coaches and
scout leaders. Many have retired here, and continue to be good
neighbors, adding to the region's strong affection for the Navy.
Their lives are woven into ours.
In their day jobs, they were heroes. We're only beginning to
learn what an extraordinary bunch of people they have been now
that the lid of secrecy has been lifted following the Cold War.
They made this, to use a phrase that has been bandied about in
the BRAC hearings, a Center of Excellence. Largely under cover
of secrecy, such areas sprouted up all over the country, and
some of these have faced the same threat of extinction as the
BRAC process shrinks the post-Cold War infrastructure. They
brought to the communities treasure chests of government
investment and large payrolls, but also knowledge, or
intellectual capital, as the Pentagon likes to call it.
This has been a blessing and a privilege for which we can be
grateful. This region helped win the war in the Pacific during
World War II with submarines built at EB and with their crews
trained and stationed in Groton. This same center helped win the
Cold War, with its attack and ballistic submarines and their
handpicked crews.
The BRAC process reminded us how important the Navy has been to
us as our leaders compiled arguments against closing the
submarine base. The BRAC Commission, in its decision to leave
the base open, validated how important this accumulation of
talent is to the nation.
The commission did not accept the Defense Department's
assurances that the Navy could reconstruct in the Southeast in
10 years or so something better than what exists here now. That
presumption assumed it were a simple matter of engineering,
logistics and human-resources management. Corporations, after
all, do this sort of thing all the time; that's how progress
occurs, the commission was told by one Pentagon official.
History tells a more complicated story. It took a century to
develop this military-industrial complex, starting in earnest
with an earnest local campaign to locate 19th-century, Navy
coaling station on the Thames River and culminating in the
development of generations of progressively more sophisticated
nuclear submarines.
Some of this structure already has been taken apart, including
the Navy sonar laboratory in New London and a submarine squadron
that used to be stationed at State Pier. Judging from the
experiences of other defense regions that have lost big bases,
we would have survived and maybe in time been better off if the
Pentagon's decision stood.
We were spared having to find that out right away, but the
experience of having dodged two bullets should have taught us an
important lesson. We mustn't take anything for granted. It would
be a bad mistake to sink back into complacency, thinking that
God intended for this good deal to last forever. Nothing on this
Earth is forever.
Greg Stone is deputy editorial page editor of The Day.
[The Day Publishing Co.]
*****************************************************************
23 Ynetnews: Egypt links nuclear test ban to Israel
Iranian nuclear reactor Photo: Reuters
Egypt has linked a decision on ratification of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to an Israeli decision to join the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the Egyptian state news agency MENA said on Saturday.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit set the condition in
a response to Tibor Toth, the new executive secretary of the
commission which oversees the CTBT, it said.
Surprising Move
U.S. backs Iran civilian nuke program / By Reuters
EU proposal to allow Tehran to pursue atomic power in exchange
for giving up fuel work; Washington believes EU offer has enough
safeguards to prevent Iran diverting its civilian work into
making nuclear bombs
"The minister said that Egyptian ratification of the treaty was
linked to the extent of developments that may occur in regional
and international circumstances, including the possibility that
Israel may join the NPT," the agency said.
Egypt is one of 44 states which are deemed capable of producing
nuclear weapons and which need to ratify the 1996 test ban
treaty before it comes into force. Eleven of the 44 have not
ratified, including Egypt, Israel and Iran in the Middle East.
The treaty bans all nuclear weapons tests, while the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) aims to prevent new countries
developing nuclear weapons.
The Egyptian agency said Toth wrote to Egypt to say he hoped
Cairo would sign the treaty in time for a conference in New York
in September.
Aboul Gheit replied that a nuclear danger continued to threaten
the region and every state in the region other than Israel had
signed and observed the NPT.
Israel has never admitted it has a nuclear weapons program but
is widely believed to have some 200 nuclear warheads.
(08.27.05, 14:15)
Copyright © Yedioth Internet. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 Green Left: Australian uranium: feedstock for proliferation
www.greenleft.org.au
Jim Green
The good news is that we don't know for sure that exported
Australian uranium has been used in nuclear weapons programs
since the late 1940s. The bad news is that we don't know it
hasn't.
The regime designed to attempt to prevent military misuse of
Australian obligated-nuclear material (AONM) — mainly uranium
and its by-products such as plutonium produced in nuclear power
stations — has the following elements:
+ Uranium exports are subject to Australian Safeguards and
Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) audits. Consignment weights are
recorded and passed on to the UN's International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).
+ All recipient countries must be signatories to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the AONM must be subject to
IAEA safeguards inspections.
+ In addition to IAEA safeguards, bilateral agreements must be
in place between Australia and uranium customer countries.
The basic elements of this system were put in place in 1977 by
then-prime minister Malcolm Fraser's Coalition government. But
within months, the system was being watered down. As Mike Rann,
now the premier of South Australia, noted in his 1982
anti-uranium mining book, Uranium: Play It Safe: “Again and
again, it has been demonstrated here and overseas that when
problems over safeguards prove difficult, commercial
considerations will come first.”
A detailed critique of the safeguarding of AONM is provided by
retired diplomat Professor Richard Broinowski in his 2003 book
Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia's Nuclear Ambitions.
Broinowski details how the 1977 safeguards system was gradually
weakened, and he discusses current problems: “Terms such as
‘fungibility' and ‘equivalence' are used by Australian nuclear
officials to explain the fact that Australian uranium cannot be
identified once it leaves Australian shores and enters the
commercial international nuclear fuel cycle. Instead, it becomes
a book-keeping entry. This is meant to ensure that somewhere in
the complex international fuel cycle system, in some country,
and in some form, an equivalent amount of material is not being
used to make nuclear weapons. But the accounting method is
tenuous, and subject to distortion or abuse...
“Despite assurances of the Safeguards Office to the contrary, it
is not credible that none of this material has been lost through
accounting errors, illegally diverted, or otherwise mishandled
without detection...”
To take the case of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plants,
accounting depends on estimates of the quantity of plutonium and
other radionuclides contained in the spent fuel, and the
accounting is further complicated by the inevitability that some
material will be stuck in the reprocessing apparatus. So-called
Material Unaccounted For (MUF) is commonplace. As ASNO concedes:
“Every year inventory reports involving bulk material will
include a component of MUF.”
ASNO also claims that “to date, reported MUF involving AONM has
been explained to ASNO's satisfaction”. However, ASNO refuses to
supply details of unaccounted AONM. Certainly there have been
incidents of large-scale MUF in Australia's uranium customer
countries such as Britain and Japan. Moreover, ASNO has not
established a track record as an honest, independent regulator.
It is pro-nuclear industry bureaucracy that routinely peddles
pro-nuclear propaganda.
A further difficulty safeguarding AONM is its quantity, the
variety of its forms, and the variety of locations and
circumstances in which it is held. ASNO provides the following
information on AONM held overseas — totalling over 100,000
tonnes — in its 2003-04 annual report:
+ Natural uranium: 20,262 tonnes (Canada, Euratom, Japan,
South Korea and the US).
+ Uranium in enrichment plants: 8025 tonnes (Euratom, Japan
and the US).
+ Depleted uranium: 67,823 tonnes (Euratom, Japan and the US).
+ Low enriched uranium 9056 tonnes (Canada, Euratom, Japan,
South Korea, Switzerland, Mexico and the US).
+ Irradiated plutonium: 78 tonnes (Canada, Euratom, Japan,
South Korea, Switzerland and the US).
+ Separated plutonium: 0.6 tonnes (Euratom and Japan).
A further problem with uranium exports is that even if the
uranium (or derivatives such as plutonium) is not used directly
in military programs, it potentially frees up uranium from other
sources — primarily domestically mined uranium ore — for use in
military programs.
The industry-funded Uranium Information Centre states:
“Australia's position as a major uranium exporter is influential
in the ongoing development of international safeguards and other
non-proliferation measures, through membership of the IAEA Board
of Governors, participation in international expert groups and
its safeguards research program in support of the IAEA.”
However, successive Australian governments have used whatever
influence they enjoy in support of flawed policies which
undermine non-proliferation and disarmament objectives. The
policies are largely driven by the commercial interests of the
Australian uranium export industry and also by the military
alliance between Australia and the nuclear-armed United States.
As Broinowski notes: “Australian diplomats may argue with their
American colleagues at the margins, for example, over the
desirability of the US ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test
ban treaty, or interpretation of the fissile materials cut-off
treaty. But what really shapes their position is the unstated
but well-understood Australian government policy that its great
protector — the US — should never forfeit its overwhelming
superiority over all other nations in nuclear weaponry.”
Bilateral agreements
The Uranium Information Centre states: “A further concern is
that countries may develop various sensitive nuclear fuel cycle
facilities and research reactors under full safeguards and then
subsequently opt out of the NPT. Bilateral agreements such as
insisted upon by Australia and Canada for sale of uranium
address this by including fallback provisions, but many
countries are outside the scope of these agreements.”
However, it is unlikely that any country willing to pull out of
the NPT would be concerned about abrogating its responsibilities
under a bilateral agreement.
Bilateral agreements negotiated between the Australian
government and uranium customer countries are not really any
more stringent than the generic “peaceful use” provisions
required by all uranium exporters. Australia insists on prior
consent to enrich uranium beyond 20% uranium-235 (because highly
enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs similar to the one
used by the US to destroy Hiroshima in 1945). But no country has
requested permission to enrich uranium imported from Australia
beyond 20%.
Australian bilateral agreements also require prior consent to
reprocess spent fuel, since that means the separation of
weapons-useable plutonium. But permission to reprocess has never
been refused, even when this has led to the stockpiling of
weapons-useable plutonium.
At least 600 kilograms of “unirradiated” Australian-obligated
plutonium is stockpiled in Japan and Europe. About 80 tonnes of
Australian-obligated “irradiated” plutonium is contained in
spent fuel held at many locations around the world. A mere 10 kg
is sufficient for a plutonium fission weapon of similar
explosive yield to that which destroyed Nagasaki in 1945.
It is frequently claimed that the “stringent” conditions placed
on AONM encourage a strengthening of non-proliferation measures
generally, and that the more uranium exported from Australia the
better because it means that a significant proportion of the
world's uranium trade is covered by Australia's “stringent”
conditions.
However, by permitting the stockpiling of plutonium the
Australian government is not “raising the bar” but setting a
poor example and encouraging other uranium exporters to adopt or
persist with equally irresponsible policies. The Australian
government does not have the authority to directly prohibit
plutonium stockpiling, but it does have the authority to refuse
international transfers and reprocessing of AONM and it could
therefore put an end to the stockpiling of Australian-obligated
plutonium.
ASNO claims that it “monitors the quantities of
Australian-obligated separated plutonium held under relevant
agreements. If these quantities appear excessive relative to
normal requirements the matter would be raised with the
government concerned. To date it has not been necessary to do
so.”
It is difficult to comment on Australian-obligated plutonium
stockpiles in Europe since successive governments have refused
to detail which countries hold how much plutonium. But in at
least some European countries holding Australian-obligated
plutonium, the amount must be excessive in relation to civil
uses since hardly any countries are engaged in plutonium breeder
research programs, and the use of plutonium in mixed oxide fuel
is also limited.
Japan is fast becoming drunk on plutonium. As at the end of
2003, Japan's holdings of unirradiated plutonium amounted to 5.4
tonnes, in addition to 35.2 tonnes of civil unirradiated
plutonium held overseas and 105 tonnes of plutonium in spent
fuel at reactor sites and reprocessing plants. Japan's plutonium
stockpile, which includes Australian-obligated plutonium, is
grossly excessive in relation to its limited use of plutonium in
civil power and research programs.
'Impeccable credentials'
According to ASNO's John Carlson, “One of the features of
Australian policy ... is very careful selection of our treaty
partners. We have concluded bilateral arrangements only with
countries whose credentials are impeccable in this area”.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Australia sells uranium
to a number of countries with poor nuclear credentials,
including the US, which is breaching its NPT disarmament
commitment in many ways: refusing to ratify the comprehensive
test ban treaty; making a mockery of the proposed fissile
material cut-off treaty by blocking any inspection or
verification measures; engaging in research on new generations
of nuclear weapons; suggesting that it might begin nuclear
weapons testing again; resuming the production of tritium for
use in nuclear weapons, and using a “civil” power reactor to
produce the tritium; acknowledging in the Pentagon's nuclear
posture review that it intends to maintain its nuclear arsenal
“forever”; embarking on nuclear co-operation with India (a
non-NPT country); threatening first-use nuclear strikes; and
developing a nuclear hit-list of seven countries, all of them
NPT member-countries except North Korea, and five of them
non-nuclear weapons states.
The disgraceful role of the US, and its manifold breaches of its
NPT obligations, are ignored by Canberra. Successive Australian
governments claim that the US is in compliance with its NPT
obligations because of Washington's claimed reduction in the
number of nuclear weapons it possesses. But even that solitary
achievement is largely a function of creative accounting “worthy
of Enron”, according to the US Natural Resources Defense
Council.
France and Britain are also customers for Australian uranium
and, like the US, neither country has the slightest intention of
fulfilling its NPT disarmament obligations. As IAEA
director-general Mohammed ElBaradei noted in a 2004 speech:
“There are some who have continued to dangle a cigarette from
their mouth and tell everybody else not to smoke.”
Australian uranium and Asia
Japan, a major customer for Australian uranium, has developed a
nuclear “threshold” or “breakout” capability — it could produce
nuclear weapons within months of a decision to do so, relying
heavily on facilities, materials and expertise from its civilian
nuclear program.
An obvious source of fissile material for a weapons program in
Japan would be its stockpile of plutonium, including
Australian-obligated plutonium. In April 2002, the then-leader
of Japan's Liberal Party, Ichiro Ozawa, said Tokyo should
consider building nuclear weapons to counter China and suggested
a source of fissile material: “It would be so easy for us to
produce nuclear warheads; we have plutonium at nuclear power
plants in Japan, enough to make several thousand such warheads.”
Japan's plutonium program increases regional tensions and
proliferation risks. Diplomatic cables in 1993 and 1994 from US
ambassadors in Tokyo described Japan's accumulation of plutonium
as “massive” and questioned the rationale for the stockpiling of
so much plutonium since it appeared to be economically
unjustified.
A March 1993 diplomatic cable from US Ambassador Michael
Armacost to US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, obtained
under the US Freedom of Information Act, posed these questions:
“Can Japan expect that if it embarks on a massive plutonium
recycling program that Korea and other nations would not press
ahead with reprocessing programs? Would not the perception of
Japan's being awash in plutonium and possessing leading edge
rocket technology create anxiety in the region?”
Broinowski poses questions that the Australian government won't
— and in some cases can't — answer: “How much AONM sold over the
years to Japan has gone missing? How much of it now exists as
weapons-grade uranium or plutonium ready to be put into Japanese
nuclear weapons if the government decides to make them?”
Australian consent to the separation of Australian-obligated
plutonium and its stockpiling in Japan should be withdrawn on
non-proliferation grounds. That consent should also be withdrawn
on the basis of the unacceptable safety record of Japan's
plutonium/reprocessing program over the past decade.
South Korea is another major customer for Australian uranium
with less than impeccable credentials. In 2004, South Korea
disclosed information about a range of activities that violated
its NPT commitments — uranium enrichment from 1979-81, the
separation of small quantities of plutonium in 1982, uranium
enrichment experiments in 2000 and the production of depleted
uranium munitions from 1983-87.
Australia has supplied South Korea with uranium since 1986. It
is not known — and may never be known — whether
Australian-obligated nuclear materials were used in any of South
Korea's illegal research. South Korea has acknowledged using
both indigenous and imported nuclear materials in the tests, but
denies that any AONM was used.
Canberra is now negotiating a bilateral treaty with China to
permit uranium sales. China is a nuclear weapons state with no
intention of fulfilling its NPT disarmament obligations, and it
refuses to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty.
Furthermore, under its current highly repressive and anti-worker
regime, it is difficult to imagine a Chinese nuclear industry
worker feeling free to publicly raise safety, security or
proliferation concerns.
Following the recent US decision to engage in nuclear industry
cooperation with India, two Australian government ministers are
now arguing for uranium sales to India. But India is one of just
four countries outside the NPT/IAEA regime. Australian uranium
sales to India would clearly weaken the NPT.
[Jim Green is a nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth,
Australia.]
From Green Left Weekly, August 31, 2005.
Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW
*****************************************************************
25 Guardian Unlimited: Egypt Turns Down Nuclear Treaty Request
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday August 28, 2005 12:16 AM
By SALAH NASRAWI
Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Egypt's foreign minister on Saturday turned
down a request from the world's nuclear watchdog to sign a
treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons, saying Israel
should first join a separate agreement calling for a halt to the
spread of atomic bombs.
The refusal by Israel, which is believed to possess hundreds of
nuclear warheads, to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
has also made the Middle East more insecure, Ahmed Aboul Gheit
was quoted by Egypt's semiofficial Middle East News Agency as
saying.
Aboul Gheit's comments came in a letter to Tibor Toth, the new
executive secretary of the commission that oversees the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
``Egypt's ratification of the (test ban) treaty is linked to the
extent of developments that may occur in regional and
international circumstances, including the possibility that
Israel may join the NPT,'' MENA quoted the minister as saying.
All Middle Eastern counties except Israel are signatories to the
NPT. Israel is believed to have commenced its nuclear program in
the 1950s, but has never denied nor confirmed the widely held
view that it possesses atomic bombs.
Arab states have demanded the international community do more to
force Israel to relinquish its nuclear arms.
Egypt runs small-scale nuclear programs for medical and research
purposes and has previously denied that it is trying to develop
a nuclear weapons program.
Under the NPT, states without atomic arms pledge not to develop
them, and five with the weapons - the United States, Russia,
Britain, France and China - undertook to eventually eliminate
their arsenals. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, are guaranteed
access to peaceful nuclear technology.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
26 Burlington Free Press: Yankee; good for consumers and the environment
Opinion
Published: Saturday, August 27, 2005
J. Moore's opinion piece on the Forum page (Free Press, Aug. 15)
criticizing Vermont Yankee ignores the fact that the facility
provides, by far and away, the state's lowest cost electricity,
safeguards the state's environment, and should be an important
source of Vermont's energy future because it generates
non-emission, carbon-free power.
Moore cites the recent 71-hour power outage at Vermont Yankee
(which represents 0.8 percent of the time in a year) and
complains that Vermonters will have to pay $1 million in added
costs for this electricity. The reality is that Vermont Yankee
is a great deal for Vermonters.
Under the Power Purchase Agreement entered into when Entergy
bought Vermont Yankee from a consortium of utilities, Vermonters
are saving $250 million in electricity costs from 2002 to 2012,
according to the Department of Public Service. If Vermont
Yankee's power cost were not already so low, at 3.95 cents per
kilowatt hour, the cost of the very temporary replacement power
would not be so high.
Moore goes on to say about this replacement power, "We also
relied on coal from deep mines and mountain top removal
operations, and burned oil and natural gas from troubled and
environmentally sensitive regions around the world."
Let's assume Moore knows exactly where the utilities got the
high priced spot market power from to replace Vermont Yankee's
power and his above assertions are correct. The bigger point,
left unsaid, is that without Vermont Yankee the state would be
much more reliant on fossil fuels, either produced in state or
out of state, and there would be much greater pollution in
Vermont.
In the United States today, coal accounts for half of the
electricity produced. For more than 30 years Vermont Yankee's
emission-free power has mitigated massive amounts of toxic
pollution that would come from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide,
and particulate matter. It has helped preserve the state's
beautiful forests, rivers, and lakes from the ravages of acid
rain.
In looking toward the future, Moore claims, "locally generated,
affordable electricity from wind and renewable biomass could
replace the power we now get from Vermont Yankee." Wind and
renewable biomass projects that can provide cost competitive
electricity are indeed pivotal to Vermont's energy future.
Wind power, however, depends on having wind. Wind power will
thrive when it is used in concert with 24/7, consistently
generated baseload power, such as that provided by Vermont
Yankee, which currently supplies one-third of the state's
electricity. Otherwise, our power sources will not be reliable.
Replacing Vermont Yankee's power with wind power would mean
destroying tens of thousands of acres for wind mill projects.
That would be an unprecedented environmental disaster.
Let's not forget the highly emotional ongoing debate across the
state about the acceptability of wind power by Vermonters, when
it means changes in someone's local landscape.
Finally, Moore cites the need for power that does not create
greenhouse gases, stating, "In Vermont, we have to be doing
everything we can to reduce our global warming pollution now." I
agree with Moore. The reality, however, is that nuclear power is
indispensable to significantly reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, as outlined in a 2003 seminal study by MIT and
Harvard researchers which found that "the nuclear option should
be retained precisely because it is an important source of
carbon-free power."
MIT Professor John Deutch, co-chair of the study, said, "Taking
nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent
the global community from achieving long-term gains in the
control of carbon dioxide emissions."
Since acquiring Vermont Yankee in 2002, Entergy has invested
millions of dollars in the plant to make it a top-of-the-line
facility. That's good news for Vermont consumers and
environmentalists. We should encourage Vermont Yankee's
continued operation in Vermont as part of our long-term,
sustainable energy plan.
Jennifer Clancy is president of Clancy Environmental Consultants
Inc. in St. Albans, and a member of the Vermont Energy
Partnership.
*****************************************************************
27 York Daily Record: Nuke industry seeks more power -
Consortium to apply for first new reactor since TMI accident
By SEAN ADKINS Daily Record/Sunday News Sunday, August 28, 2005
At bottom: · In it together Mention nuclear power to a longtime
resident who lives within eyeshot of Three Mile Island in
Dauphin County and the reaction is usually mixed.
Memories of mass evacuations and news reports of dangerous
radiation levels spurred by the March 1979 partial meltdown of
TMI Unit 2 has marred the reputation of the nuclear industry.
The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not approved the
construction of a new plant since 1978, said Diane Screnci, an
NRC spokeswoman.
A negative public perception of the nuclear industry, the
NRC’s strong focus on TMI’s partial meltdown a year after the
accident and the drive for utilities to improve existing plants
rather than invest in new sites all have delayed the filing of
any permit application to build a reactor, said David Lochbaum,
nuclear power expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit environmental group.
“The regulatory framework has always been there,” Screnci
said. “It was a decision by the utilities not file an
application.”
The NRC is the federal regulatory body that issues permits
needed to build and operate nuclear power plants.
The need to meet the nation’s hunger for electrical power may
make new nuclear reactors at existing plants a reality.
Last month, Maryland state and local officials met with
members of a consortium of nuclear power companies to discuss
the possibility of building a $2 billion Calvert Cliffs Unit 3.
The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power plant is a dual-reactor site
in Lusby, Md. — located roughly three hours south of York County.
Nuclear power companies have collectively argued for years
that benefits such as the reduction of greenhouse gasses would
support the building of new reactors.
The five-member Board of Calvert County Commissioners passed a
resolution in July unanimously supporting the project in an
effort to urge NuStart Energy Development LLC to select the site
for the first nuclear reactor to be built in nearly 30 years,
said Del. Anthony J. O’Donnell, a Charles County, Md., Republican
and the Maryland House minority whip.
O’Donnell was a senior at Middletown Area High School at the
time of the TMI Unit 2 partial meltdown. Following high school,
O’Donnell served in the U.S. Navy and eventually landed a job at
the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant.
While O’Donnell no longer works for the plant, he continues to
live within five miles of the site.
“I think the revitalization of the nuke industry in the United
States is long overdue,” he said. “My hope is that this country
is building a new plant by the end of this decade. It’s part of
the national energy policy to advocate this.”
In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Bruce Smith, R-Dillsburg, said he
is disappointed that Calvert Cliffs may soon house the nation’s
first new reactor since the partial meltdown of TMI Unit 2.
Smith lived in northern York County at the time of the accident.
“The nuclear industry wants to do this as quickly and smoothly
as possible so that they can get back into big business,” he
said. “Due to my experience with TMI, I don’t support the use of
nuclear power in the United States.”
Despite some negative opinions regarding the proliferation of
the nuclear power industry, NuStart Energy and its member
companies continue to collect data on individual plants.
Constellation-owned Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is one
of six sites now under review by NuStart Energy for the possible
construction of a standardized advanced nuclear reactor.
Formed in March 2004, NuStart Energy is a consortium of 11
nuclear power-related companies that joined forces to share the
cost of a combined construction and operating license — an NRC
permit needed to build and operate a commercial nuclear reactor.
Created by the NRC in 1989, the combined construction permit
and operating license requires a detailed site environmental
review and a preliminary safety analysis. Those combined
studies, along with other required reviews, can cost more than
$500 million.
To help offset the cost and encourage the construction of new
plants, the U.S. Department of Energy agreed — through its
Nuclear Power 2010 program — to use federal dollars to pay 50
percent of the cost to prepare a license application.
In September, NuStart Energy will file two applications with
the NRC for combined construction and operating licenses for two
of the six sites, said Marilyn Kray, president of NuStart Energy
and a vice president at Exelon Generation in Philadelphia.
Exelon owns and operates TMI Unit 1 and Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station.
One license application will outline a design for a General
Electric Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor while the
other will review plans to build a Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 Reactor.
While NuStart Energy will take about three years to complete
the license application before it is submitted to the NRC, most
utilities have spent nearly 30 years designing steps that would
lead to a new nuclear reactor.
Construction fallout
For about a year following the TMI accident, the NRC geared
most of its focus on the cause of the partial meltdown and how a
similar catastrophe could be averted at other plants, Lochbaum
said.
At that time, nearly all of the commission’s officials had
been drawn into that investigation and reviews of all operating
licenses needed by companies to run their plants were all but
postponed, he said. “They did not have resources to review a
plant that was under construction,” Lochbaum said. “The accident
did not speed up the construction of plants already in the
pipeline.”
A year after the accident, the NRC resumed its normal
operating license review processes, he said.
Another reason why utilities have not applied to build a plant
in nearly 30 years may have more to do with economics and a lack
of demand than with the public distrust of the nuclear industry.
Roughly half of the 103 reactors now in operation were under
construction at the time of the TMI Unit 2 partial meltdown.
Nuclear power companies brought those plant’s online in the
decade following the accident and started to generate enough
power to meet demand.
In 1990s, those companies chose to improve the capacity of
their current plants rather than invest in new sites, Lochbaum
said.
“It was cheaper to improve rather than to build,” he said.
“You already had all the concrete and cables paid for. You
didn’t need to go through the regulatory process.
Since 1990, nuclear power plants have been able to improve
their average electrical generation capacity from 65 to 90
percent, Lochbaum said.
“That does not leave too much room from growth,” he said.
“(Utilities) have to start building more plants to produce more
electricity and meet the demand of growing population.”
A powerful need
Nuclear power companies have offered many reasons why the
United States needs more power plants.
Aside from the fact that a nuclear power plant produces no
greenhouse gasses, some utilities argue that more sites would
allow for additional power output and eventually help to reduce
America’s dependence on foreign oil.
Such logic is problematic.
Dick Dubiel said Northeast residents who use oil to heat their
homes would need to switch to electricity to support the
argument that more power plants would help reduce the need for
foreign fuel.
In the northeastern United States, more people use heating oil
as a main fuel source compared to other sections of the country,
he said. Dubiel is a co-owner of Woodstock, Ga.-based Millennium
Services Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in the
decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
Between 1974 and 1982, Dubiel supervised Three Mile Island’s
radiation, protection and chemistry program.
More electricity generated by additional power plants will not
reduce the need for gasoline, he said.
“When you talk about the dependence on foreign energy, you are
talking about gas,” Dubiel said. “Unless everyone switches to
electric-powered cars, (more nuclear power plants) won’t be much
of a help.”
About 80 percent of imported oil is used for domestic
transportation, according to eyeforfuelcells.com.
One expert contends additional reactors would likely replace
plants that are on tap to be decommissioned by the NRC within
the next 20 to 40 years.
Lochbaum said utilities do not need to prove that additional
nuclear power reactors are needed immediately. Rather, those
companies need to show that new-generation reactors would be
ready to replace many aging power plants that will most likely
be decommissioned in the near future, he said.
“These newer reactors can help shoulder the burden and
continue to help meet demands (for energy),” he said.
These new plants do have the potential to satisfy the nation’s
hunger for electricity, but the projects also have potential to
boost the economy.
If approved by the NRC and NuStart Energy, the Calvert Cliffs
expansion would create 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs during
the four years that are needed to build the advanced reactor,
according to the Calvert County Department of Economic
Development.
Utilities are not expected to face work shortage delays
similar to those that arose when commercial nuclear power was
more widely accepted. In the 1970s, when multiple plants were
under construction, a manpower shortage of welders and engineers
caused widespread delays, Lochbaum said.
Costs went up and schedules slipped, he said.
“There were dozens of projects going on at the same time,”
Lochbaum said. “We drained the tanks dry in terms of manpower.
This time around, you’ll only have two projects going on at the
same time so staffing shouldn’t be a problem.”
Aside from construction jobs, a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs
does promise to boost permanent employment. Constellation Energy
could hire an additional 250 to 400 people to help operate the
advanced reactor, said Keith Cunningham, director of the
utility’s communications.
Should the commission issue a combined permit for a new
reactor to be built at Calvert Cliffs, the new site could be
operational by 2014.
Electricity generated by the new reactor would flow to the PJM
Interconnection power grid.
All of York County’s power flows through PJM’s grid.
Regardless of the approved permits, Constellation Energy or
any other member of NuStart Energy would not be obligated to
build a reactor, Kray said.
The utility could sell off that particular portion of land to
another company or build a reactor it intends to sell or
operate, Cunningham said.
“There would be a lot of options,” he said. “It is still too
early to make any sort of conclusions or decisions. We are very
pleased our site was chosen (among the finalists).”
Reactor strength
In the past, NRC officials struggled to regulate a motley crew
of reactor designs.
Often, the commission had to retain a large engineering staff
with a diverse knowledge of reactor designs, Dubiel said. The
task of regulating several reactor designs often slowed the
licensing process, he said.
Since the accident at TMI Unit 2, engineers have worked to
standardize reactor designs that rely more on the laws of
physics than on laws of engineering.
“The laws of physics can’t make mistakes,” Dubiel said.
Both proposed reactor designs — the General Electric Economic
Simplified Boiling Water Reactor and the Westinghouse Advanced
Passive 1000 Reactor — allow for fewer pipes and valves compared
to their older counterparts, Kray said.
The operation relies on natural circulation, gravity feed and
heat transfer, she said.
“Safety is improved if you have less failure mechanism,” Kray
said. “The less equipment you need to buy and maintain.”
Lochbaum said engineers have based several of their modern
reactor designs on the lessons learned from the 1979 TMI Unit 2
partial meltdown.
For example, at the time of the accident, the reactor’s
feedwater pumps shut down, and plant officials switched on the
plant’s auxiliary systems.
Initially, the auxiliary or backup feedwater system
experienced problems. Valves were closed that should have been
open, Lochbaum said.
Modern systems are designed as dual purpose, and several of
the components can act as primary and secondary equipment, he
said.
An advanced reactor would have enough equipment within a dual
purpose system that if one pipe did malfunction, other
mechanisms could still adequately pump coolant to the system,
Lochbaum said.
“You are not supposed to be one broken pipe from a disaster;
that’s too thin,” he said. “This dual-purpose system works to
prevent that.”
In it together
Members of the NuStart Energy Development LLC consortium:
Constellation Energy of Baltimore
Duke Energy of Charlotte, N.C.
EDF International North America, Washington, D.C.,
Entergy Nuclear, Jackson, Miss.
Exelon Generation, Philadelphia
Florida Power &Light Co., Juno Beach, Fla.
Progress Energy, Raleigh, N.C.
Southern Co., Atlanta.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn.
GE Energy, Atlanta
Westinghouse Electric Co., Pittsburgh
Copyright © York Daily Record 2005
122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122
York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000
*****************************************************************
28 Sofia Morning News: Bulgarian Nuke Four Switched onto Energy Grid
www.novinite.com Sofia News Agency
Politics: 28 August 2005, Sunday.
Unit four at Bulgaria's nuclear power plant Kozloduy, 200
kilometres north of Sofia, was switched onto the energy grid
Sunday morning, three days earlier than scheduled.
The unit was decoupled on July 30 for repair works and refueling
to increase the security and resource of the main equipment.
Unit six at Kozloduy nuclear power plant is currently undergoing
annual overhauling, which started at August 27.
The first of the two oldest units at Kozloduy nuclear power
station was decoupled from Bulgaria's energy grid on December
31, 2002. The closure of Unit 2 started at midnight December 30.
The decision for the final and complete closure of Kozloduy
Units 1 and 2 was under the act, which provided for releasing
credits for the upgrade of Units 5 and 6.
It came after many years of concern over their safety, strong
pressure from the European Union, protests from the nuclear
lobby and opposition parties that the reactors are economically
necessary.
novinite.com
All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2005 - Copyright
*****************************************************************
29 Sofia Morning News: Bulgarian Nuke Unit Shuts Down for Repairs
www.novinite.com Sofia News Agency
Business: 27 August 2005, Saturday.
Unit six at Bulgaria's nuclear power plant Kozloduy, 200
kilometres north of Sofia, was switched off the energy grid
Saturday morning for conducting regular annual repairs and
refueling.
The repair works, scheduled to be completed by the end of
November, will increase the security and resource of the unit's
main equipment.
The first of the two oldest units at Kozloduy nuclear power
station was decoupled from Bulgaria's energy grid on December
31, 2002. The closure of Unit 2 started at midnight December 30.
The decision for the final and complete closure of Kozloduy
Units 1 and 2 was under the act, which provided for releasing
credits for the upgrade of Units 5 and 6.
It came after many years of concern over their safety, strong
pressure from the European Union, protests from the nuclear
lobby and opposition parties that the reactors are economically
necessary.
novinite.com
All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2005 - Copyright
*****************************************************************
30 News-Miner: Closure threatens Galena nuclear plan
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner • 200 North Cushman Street •
Fairbanks, AK • 99707 • (907) 456-6661
August 28, 2005 Fairbanks, AK
By R.A. DILLON
, Staff Writer
A decision by the federal base closure commission to stop Air
Force operations in Galena has put the Yukon River village's
dream of going nuclear in doubt.
Galena officials have been working for two years to put a
nuclear power plant in the village of 700 as a test case for
providing cheap electricity to rural communities.
But Thursday, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission voted
unanimously to shut down the Galena Airport Forward Operation
Location as part of a Pentagon plan to save $48 billion over the
next 20 years, potentially robbing the City of Galena of its
biggest power customer.
The Air Force buys 60 percent of the 8.5 million kilowatts of
electricity produced annually by the city. Removing that demand
raises the question of whether there's a need to operate a
10-megawatt nuclear power plant.
City Manager Marvin Yoder thinks there is.
When the Air Force reduced its presence in Galena in the early
1990s, Yoder and other local officials developed a plan to fill
the empty military buildings with high school students from
across the state.
The Project Education Residential School leases a dining hall,
dormitory, classrooms, gymnasium and auto mechanics shop on the
base and provides 35 full-time jobs in the community.
Last year, the program served 85 predominantly Alaska Native
high school students from 43 communities.
City and tribal officials want to expand the school to 400
students and think they can use more of the military buildings
to accomplish that plan. Increasing the size of the school would
fill holes in the job market and power usage left empty from the
Air Force's withdraw.
"We're going to take over as much of the base as possible," said
Peter Captain Sr., first chief of the Louden Tribal Council.
"We're not just going to let them mothball it and go away."
Expanding the boarding school would make power use in the
community about what it is with the Air Force, Yoder said.
"If we have a redevelopment plan in place, most of the
electricity load is going to continue," he said. "If we can't
put a plan together, then the nuclear plant is in jeopardy."
Galena, like most rural Alaska communities, relies on burning
$2.55-a-gallon diesel oil to produce electricity. The diesel oil
has to be towed to the village 350 miles by barge, contributing
to electricity prices of 33 cents a kilowatt hour.
Yoder said installing a small nuclear power plant could reduce
the cost of electricity to 10 cents a kilowatt hour. The
national average is 8.71 cents.
The city is involved in discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission about licensing a plant being developed by Toshiba
Corp. But Yoder said it will take at least until 2010 just to
know if the plan is feasible.
Galena's neighbors on the Yukon River have raised concerns over
the possibility of putting a nuclear power plant next to North
America's fourth-largest river drainage basin.
Rob Rosenfeld, director of the Yukon River Intertribal Watershed
Council, said tribal leaders passed two resolutions at the
council's annual meeting in Dawson City, Yukon, in August
against the use of radioactive material in the area.
Yoder said the opposition is premature.
"We're going to work to answer all of the questions and my hope
is that everyone will reserve judgment until that work is
completed," he said.
Yoder wants to bring together community members, tribal
officials and state and federal representatives for a planning
meeting set for Oct. 13-15 to come up with a detailed
redevelopment plan.
"We want to make sure all the stakeholders in the community are
involved," he said.
Staff writer R.A. Dillon can be reached at 459-7503 or
rdillon@newsminer.com.
©2005 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Fairbanks Daily
News-Miner, Inc.
*****************************************************************
31 Tennessean: Grant to fund work on radiation detection system for homeland security -
Saturday, 08/27/05
Associated Press
OAK RIDGE — A $75 million federal grant has been awarded to
Nuclear Safeguards and Security Systems Inc. to develop a new
radiation detection system that officials hope to use for
homeland security efforts.
U.S. Sens. Bill Frist and Lamar Alexander, both Tennessee
Republicans, announced the grant yesterday. They called the
investment in detection systems essential to finding nuclear
material that may be planned for use in a terrorist attack in the
United States or abroad.
The company manufactures a variety of continuous radiation
monitoring systems in the form of panels that can be used for
scanning small items like baggage, or tractor-trailers and
shipping containers.
tennessean.com main | news | sports | business |
Copyright © 2005, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 York Daily Record: Security upgrade planned for reactors -
More officers could be hired to guard next generation of power
plants
By SEAN ADKINS Daily Record/Sunday News Sunday, August 28, 2005
The nation’s new generation of nuclear reactors will likely
include thicker walls and may be built underground to offer more
protection from potential airborne threats, according to one
industry expert.
“What was not envisioned was what we saw on 9/11,” said David
Lochbaum, a nuclear power expert with the Union of Concerned
Scientists. “Suicide bombers were not thought of when the first
plants were built. That’s not the case now.”
In late September, NuStart Energy Development LLC will file
with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission two applications for
two combined construction and operating licenses. The NRC
requires those approved permits to break ground and operate a
nuclear reactor.
NuStart Energy will identify two existing power plants to
house each of the new reactors.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby, Md., is one of
six sites under review by NuStart Energy to possibly land a
roughly $2 billion reactor.
NuStart Energy’s application to the NRC will include a
detailed section on security enhancements designed to protect
the new reactor from potential external and internal sabotage.
Security measures listed to protect the new reactors meet all
the upgraded criteria required by the NRC.
Dick Dubiel said the chances of someone or something being
able to breach a 3-foot thick concrete containment wall, the
current protective curtain that surrounds a reactor, is slim.
Dubiel is a co-owner of Woodstock, Ga.-based Millennium
Services Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in the
decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
“I could envision someone driving into a plant and blowing up
a transformer,” he said. “But that would only cause some power
loss.”
Much like its existing counterparts, new reactors would be
built with spent-fuel pools equipped with racks that resemble
the utensil holders in dishwashing machine.
Those racks would store the reactor’s stockpile of 12-foot
depleted uranium rods.
Chances are the pools built alongside new reactors would be
larger than those at current plants, Lochbaum said.
In the past, pools were designed with the industry belief that
a permanent repository — such as that proposed for Yucca
Mountain in Nevada — would already have been in place, he said.
Now, with NRC approval of Yucca Mountain still uncertain,
nuclear plant engineers have decided to enlarge a reactor’s pool
so that more waste may be stored on site.
Dubiel said he does not believe that someone would be able to
steal spent fuel from a nuclear reactor, old or new, without
alerting security. Large equipment and robust measures designed
to protect a person from radiation contamination would be needed
for such an act, he said.
“I don’t see nuke plants as a security risk to outside
environment,” Dubiel said. “And certainly not to a terrorist who
wants to steal spent fuel.”
Private security firms, such as Wackenhut Nuclear Services,
would most likely hire additional officers to guard the new
reactors — the earliest of which could be operational by 2014.
Wackenhut officers guard both Three Mile Island in Dauphin
County and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
“New nuclear reactors are the right way to go,” said Shawn
Kirven, vice president of nuclear operations for Wackenhut
Nuclear Services. “We will be looking to provide our services.”
Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the
commission established new ground rules for nuclear plant
security.
Many existing plants now have in place 25-foot guard towers
equipped with gun portholes and have installed “delay fencing”
designed to create greater standoff distances from a plant.
Delay fencing is a combination of regular fencing, razor wire
and concrete barricades that circle the protected area of the
plant.
That area includes the reactors.
Kirven said his understanding is that the new reactors would
require the same number of officers as existing sites.
Marilyn Kray, president of NuStart Energy and a vice president
at Exelon Generation in Philadelphia, said the design of the new
reactors would most likely call for a smaller footprint, or
property size. In that case, fewer guards might be called to
protect the reactor.
“A smaller piece of property might not need as many officers,”
Kirven said.Reach Sean Adkins at 771-2047 or sadkins@ydr.com.
Copyright © York Daily Record 2005
122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122
York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000
*****************************************************************
33 DU Tests in Troops
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:21:20 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Gerard Matthew thought he was lucky. He returned from his Iraq tour
a year and a half ago alive and in one piece. But after the New
York State National Guardsman got home, he learned that a bunkmate,
Sgt. Ray Ramos, and a group of N.Y. Guard members from another unit
had accepted an offer by the New York Daily News and reporter Juan
Gonzalez to be tested for depleted uranium (DU) contamination, and
had tested positive.
Matthew, 31, decided that since he'd spent much of his time in Iraq
lugging around DU-damaged equipment, he'd better get tested too.
It turned out he was the most contaminated of them all.
Matthew immediately urged his wife to get an ultrasound check of
their unborn baby. They discovered the fetus had a condition common
to those with radioactive exposure: atypical syndactyly. The right
hand had only two digits.
So far Victoria Claudette, now 13 months old, shows no other genetic
disorders and is healthy, but Matthew feels guilty for causing her
deformity and angry at a government that never warned him about
DU's dangers.
US forces first used DU in the 1991 Gulf War, when some 300 tons
of depleted uranium - the waste product of nuclear power plants and
weapons facilities - were used in tank shells and shells fired by
A-10 jets. A lesser amount was deployed by US and NATO forces during
the Balkans conflict. But in the current wars in Afghanistan and,
especially, Iraq, DU has become the weapon of choice, with more
than 1,000 tons used in Afghanistan and more than 3,000 tons used
in Iraq. And while DU was fired mostly in the desert during the
Gulf War, in the current war in Iraq, most of DU munitions are
exploding in populated urban areas.
The Pentagon has expanded DU beyond tank and A-10 shells, for use
in bunker-busting bombs, which can spew out more than half a ton
of DU in one explosion, in anti-personnel bomblets, and even in
M-16 and pistol shells. The military loves DU for its unique
penetration capability - it cuts through steel or concrete like
they're butter.
The problem is that when DU hits its target, it burns at a high
temperature, throwing off clouds of microscopic particles that
poison a wide area and remain radioactive for billions of years.
If inhaled, these particles can lodge in lungs, other organs or
bones, irradiating tissue and causing cancers.
Worse yet, uranium is also a highly toxic heavy metal. Indeed, while
there is some debate over the risk posed by the element's radioactive
emissions, there is no debate regarding its chemical toxicity.
According to Mt. Sinai pathologist Thomas Fasey, who participated
in the New York Guard unit testing, the element has an affinity for
bonding with DNA, where even trace amounts can cause cancers and
fetal abnormalities.
Dr. Doug Rokke, a health physicist at the University of Illinois
who headed up a Pentagon study of depleted uranium weapons in the
mid '90s after concerns were raised during the Gulf War, concluded
there was no safe way to use the weapons. Rokke says the Pentagon
responded by denouncing him, after earlier commending his work.
No one knows how many US soldiers have been contaminated by DU
residue. Despite regulations authorizing tests for any military
personnel who suspects exposure, the US military is avoiding doing
those tests - or delaying them until they are meaningless.
"When we asked to be tested at Ft. Dix, they wrongly told us we
didn't have to worry unless we had DU fragments in our body," says
Matthew. His buddy, Sgt. Ramos, who exhibits symptoms resembling
radiation sickness and heavy metal poisoning, adds that at Walter
Reed Medical Center he was grilled for hours about why he wanted
to be tested and was then branded a troublemaker by his own unit.
Matthew says Walter Reed "lost" his sample.
At the war's start, the United States refused to allow UN or other
environmental inspectors to test DU levels within Iraq. Now the
United Nations won't even go near Iraq because of security concerns.
"It doesn't seem right that we are poisoning the places we are
supposed to be liberating," Ramos says.
The Pentagon continues to insist, on the basis of no field evidence,
that DU is safe. To date, only some 270 returned troops have been
tested for DU contamination by the military and Veterans Affairs.
But even those tests, mostly urine samples, are useless 30 days
after exposure, because by that time most of the DU has left the
body or migrated into bones or organs.
Gonzalez and the Daily News paid for costlier tests for nine Guardsmen
- tests that could pinpoint uranium inside the body and identify
the special isotope signature of man-made DU. Four of the nine
tested positive for DU; all had symptoms of uranium poisoning.
Even harder evidence may soon arrive. Connecticut State Representative
Pat Dillon (D-New Haven), a Yale-trained epidemiologist, has crafted
state-level legislation that Connecticut and Louisiana have unanimously
passed, authorizing returned National Guard troops to request and
receive specialized DU contamination tests at the Pentagon's expense.
This approach bypasses the Pentagon's feet-dragging because National
Guard troops fall under state, rather than federal, jurisdiction.
"This was not a Democratic or a Republican issue," Dillon says.
"These are our kids and someone needs to protect them." She says
that since passage of her bill, which takes effect this October,
military groups and family organizations, state legislators, and
even National Guard unit commanders have contacted her for copies
of her bill to promote in their states. Bob Smith, a veteran in
Louisiana who got hold of Dillon's bill and spearheaded a successful
effort to pass similar legislation in Louisiana, claims that 14 to
20 other states are considering similar measures.
If enough Guard troops avail themselves of the testing - and start
testing positive for contamination - it seems likely that reservists
and active duty troops and veterans will demand similar access to
rigorous tests, which can cost upwards of $1000 per person.
One way or another, the Pentagon will pay a price. "DU is a war
crime. It's that simple," Rokke says. "Once you've scattered all
this stuff around, and then refuse to clean it up, you've committed
a war crime."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082605A.shtml (I am resending
this as it is important that you see it. It is the best argument
for ending the Iraqi occupation.)
*****************************************************************
34 [NYTr] US, Iraqi Birth Defects Caused by Depleted Uranium
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:36:47 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Shanti Renfrew
LA VOZ DE AZTLAN NEWS BULLETIN - August 26, 2005
http://www.aztlan.net/du_deformed_iraqi_babies.htm
Depleted Uranium Deformed Iraqi Babies Caused by USA
Not too many "good" Americans are aware about the horrible deformities that
depleted uranium, utilized by the Pentagon to hardened ammunition, has
caused not only in Iraqi babies but in the babies of Iraq war veterans as
well. Depleted uranium, like Agent Orange in Vietnam has caused untold
miseries to families and is one of the worst war crimes in history.
We invite our readership to view some of the photographs of the Iraqi baby
victims and to pass these photos to all of your friends.
Please support mother Cindy Sheehan and the antiwar rally to take place in
front of the White House on September 24.
The photographs of the Iraqi baby victims are published at
http://www.aztlan.net/du_deformed_iraqi_babies.htm
Deformed Iraqi babies caused by USA use of Depleted Uranium
The following pictures were provided by
Dr. Siegwart Horst-Gunther, authored of a 1996 book titled,
"URANIUM PROJECTILES - SEVERELY MAIMED SOLDIERS,
DEFORMED BABIES, DYING CHILDREN" (ISBN: 3-89484-805-7).
The book is a documentary record of the depleted urnaium ammunition effects
on Iraqi babies that were taken between 1993 and 1995.
The book has been censored in the USA. Dr. Gunther also has in his possesion
additional photographs from his unpublished collection which feature the
birth deformities being experienced by USA Iraqi war veterans' children.
Dr. Gunther has given permission for his pictures to be treated as 'Public
Domain' and copyright free. Please reproduce them and distribute them as
widely as possible.
The deformities are similar to those experienced by both Vietnam war
veterans and Vietnamese mothers because of the US Military/Industrial
Complex's use of the abominable chemical of mass destruction called "Agent
Orange".
The Pentagon has swept these American baby deformities and its causes under
the rug.
The USA is presently ruled by extreme evil people who do not care about
human life but only in "MONEY".
This group includes those who benefit from profits in the "war weapons
industry" and cronies in the Bush Administration involved in "OIL". These
two groups are utilizing Americas's youths as dupes. Most of the soldiers
in Iraq are poor and uneducated. They are merely being utilized by the "USA
ruling elite" as "cannon fodder" to protect their wealth and interests.
They are being duped by making them believe that they are "heroes" and
"patriots".
It is very sad!
La Voz de Aztlan encourages our readership to support mother Cindy Sheehan
in her struggle to support USA troops and to bring them home. Cindy, mom to
a USA occupation soldier who needlessly lost his life in foreign soil, has
awaken to the realities of the USA war against Iraq. She is presently
camping at Bush's Crawford Ranch in protest and will be joining a massive
rally in front of the White House on September 24. Viva Cindy Sheehan!
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
35 St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Federal board endorses payments
By Ken Leiser Of the Post-Dispatch
08/26/2005
STLtoday - News - St. Louis City / County
A second group of former nuclear workers who became ill while
working at a Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. plant in downtown St.
Louis should be entitled to automatic compensation from the
government, according to a federal panel.
Meeting at the Westin St. Louis near Busch Stadium, an advisory
board for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health voted 6-4 Friday to urge Health and Human Services
Secretary Michael Leavitt to approve the $150,000 payments to
former workers or their survivors.
The designation - which already has been granted to people who
worked at Mallinckrodt's Destrehan Street facility from 1942 to
1948 - would free claimants from having to prove that their
illnesses were caused by radiation exposure at the plant.
Friday's recommendation covers employees who worked at the plant
from 1949 to 1957 and contracted one of 22 different types of
cancer.
"This helps so many people because it expedites their payments
and gives them the benefit of the doubt," said Denise Brock, an
employee advocate who has fought for the designation.
She also credited the efforts of U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit"
Bond, R-Mo., who has testified on behalf of the workers and
attended previous advisory panel meetings.
Without the designation, Brock said, former employees and their
surviving family members were faced with a lengthy process to
show that their exposure to radiation on the job was responsible
for their illnesses. She said she disagreed with an earlier
decision to split the employees into two groups.
Brock said about 3,500 people worked at the plant from 1942
until the late-1960s. Her father, Christopher Davis, worked
there from 1945 to 1960. He was later diagnosed with lung cancer
and leukemia that the federal government linked to radiation
exposure at the plant.
The company refined and processed uranium ore at the downtown
site.
Reporter Ken Leiser
E-mail: kleiser@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8215
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
*****************************************************************
36 Deseret News: Mysterious deaths: Ex-soldier links horses' malady
in 1976 to his poor health
[deseretnews.com]
Sunday, August 28, 2005
By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News
Duty had been quiet for Scott Baranowski at the Army's Dugway
Proving Ground on July 4, 1976, as the nation celebrated its
bicentennial. But everything changed, including his health,
forever when a helicopter crew saw something disturbing.
Deseret Morning News archivesWild horses, sick with an
unknown ailment, drink from a watering hole on Dugway Proving
Ground in July 1976. "They reported a bunch of dead, wild
horses. I was the first one sent to check it out," he said.
On duty at the base motor pool, the then-18-year-old was
sent to Orr Springs on the desert base known mostly for its
testing of chemical and germ weapons. He found 20 dead horses.
Another 30 would die or be found dead nearby in coming days.
"Those horses looked like they died while they were
walking and just fell over," he said.
He returned again later as part of work crews sent to
investigate the deaths. He watched doctors conduct in-the-field
autopsies. He helped bury some horses.
Soon afterward, Baranowski came down with a 104-degree
temperature, extreme aches and pains all over, and "I felt like
my head was going to explode."
Baranowski says it was the beginning of health problems
that have never ended and have disabled him.
He wonders if whatever killed the horses has also been
killing him slowly and has contributed to his severe form of
arthritis and the lung cancer.
The trouble is, the Army concluded that the horses likely
died merely of thirst, even though most were found only a few
yards from new troughs full of water from springs that had been
covered and piped. The Army says that confused the horses enough
to stop them from drinking the water. (Others have disagreed).
The Army says extensive testing ruled out every other
suspected cause of death. It insists no chemical or biological
agents were tested on Dugway ranges at the time — and that such
deadly agent testing in the open air ceased after a 1969
accident there that killed 6,000 sheep in nearby Skull Valley
when nerve agent VX floated off the base.
"I don't believe it," said Baranowski, 48, of Scott's
Valley, Calif., of the Army's conclusions.
Months ago, he contacted the Deseret Morning News,
because of its past investigations of Dugway testing and
mishaps, to see if it could help prove or disprove his
suspicions.
Army documents obtained through a Freedom of Information
Act request, interviews with experts and other evidence give no
definitive proof either way. Some bits of evidence suggest
something besides thirst killed the horses and hurt Baranowski.
Others suggest the opposite or that it is a mystery unlikely to
be solved.
['Image'] Deseret Morning News archivesTwo of the 50 wild
horses found dead on Dugway Proving Ground. Signs from the dead
Any keys to solving the mystery likely are rooted in what
Baranowski, Army officials and others discovered 29 years ago
while investigating the dead horses.
Baranowski describes what he saw — and why he thinks
something besides thirst killed them. He even identifies a
germ-war agent he thinks might have been responsible for the
deaths: Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE).
Baranowski says maybe the biggest sign that thirst did
not kill the horses is that "many of the horses died right by
water." Army maps show most were within yards of a trough of
water filled by water trickling in from a newly piped spring.
He adds that he once worked as a cowboy and then found
that it is difficult to prevent a thirsty horse from drinking.
"They will drink almost any water. It's born into their brains,"
he said.
Also, he says, a sign that something more exotic killed
them is that some horses "had volcano-type sores all over their
bodies with all kinds of nasty-looking fluids coming out of
them."
He says several appeared to have lost bowel control or
had diarrhea and out of their rear ends "was string-like,
hardened fecal matter."
Baranowski also says as he drove Army scientists around
the base at the time, "they had told me that they were working
on some very nasty stuff" — but he is unclear whether that was
only in labs or also in field tests (despite Army assertion they
ended).
He notes he and others were constantly drilled in the use
of gas masks and other protective gear, so he expects exotic
agents may have been in use in the field.
Documents show that some Army scientists' notes written
early in the investigation seem to agree that dehydration did
not kill the horses, even though the Army later would reject
those initial speculations.
That came as the base's veterinarian wrote about one
still-alive-but-weak colt he found when he arrived. He wrote
that it showed no evidence of severe dehydration because he
failed to see "sunken eyes and tenting up of the skin" on the
colt.
He did see, however, that "oral mucous membranes are
ashen gray rather than pink, indicating presence of a toxin." It
died a few minutes after it was examined.
The veterinarian also wrote that he found that "some
carcasses have a bloody froth coming from the nostrils." Animals
were found to have widespread internal bleeding.
He wrote that an early autopsy on another colt found that
it had widespread hemorrhaging in the brain. It also had the
same ashen gray mucous and eye membranes that the veterinarian
earlier said indicated the presence of a toxin.
The veterinarian wrote that after that autopsy, he and
others decided to collect blood to test specifically for VEE,
which is a deadly disease and potential germ-warfare agent that
Dugway has said it has used in laboratory tests but not in
open-air range tests.
What is VEE?
It is no wonder doctors suspected VEE. Signs of severe
VEE for animals, according to scientific texts, include brain
hemorrhage, diarrhea, weakened state and death. VEE epidemics in
recent decades in Central and South America have killed hundreds
of thousands of horses and livestock and hundreds of humans.
It is a suspected biological warfare agent because it
disables large numbers of people for an extended time in a
battlefield area. It is also easily genetically manipulated,
making vaccinating against it difficult.
Of note, congressional hearings in 1969 (after the Skull
Valley sheep kill incident) revealed that tests showed that
animals on private farms near Dugway had been exposed to VEE, a
disease that at the time had not been seen in the United States
outside Florida and Louisiana. Army officials have contended
that is naturally occurring in Utah, however.
Baranowski says he remembers overhearing Army doctors
talk about VEE while examining dead and dying horses (which
doctors' notes from the time confirm), and he wondered what it
was. He suspects he learned about its human effects first-hand.
Within days, "I had a 104-degree temperature. Everything
in my body severely ached, especially the joints. My head felt
like it was going to explode," he said.
Some of that could be symptoms of VEE, including that it
appeared between a day and a week after possible exposure. That
is the normal incubation time for VEE.
"Someone with a 104-degree temperature and explosive
headache is certainly consistent with VEE," said Dr. Scott C.
Weaver, a VEE expert and director for tropical and emerging
infectious diseases for a biodefense center at the University of
Texas Medical Branch.
However, he said the aches in the joints reported by
Baranowski would be unusual for someone with VEE. "There is
often severe body and muscle pains. But persistent aches in
joints is not typical," he said
Doctors told Baranowski they did not know what he had. "I
was just sent to bed. The fever only lasted for about a day.
They said they never figured out what was wrong," he said.
He adds that he has tried to obtain his old medical
records from the time but was told they do not exist.
Baranowski says he has never been the same physically
since the horses' deaths.
"About a month and a half later, I had severe pains in my
joints and all over again. It was not in the muscles, just the
joints. It became worse and worse and worse until I had to quit
working. . . . I have always been in pain since," he said.
He says years of arthritis-like problems followed, with
varying diagnoses by many doctors. He is now diagnosed with
arthritis mutilans, a severe form of the disease.
"My bones are disappearing and my cartilage. My pelvis is
slowly being eaten away. Bones and cartilage missing in my feet.
It's degenerative. I can still get around, but it's difficult. I
am taking morphine and methadone" for the constant pain, he said.
Baranowski also had lung cancer. He acknowledges he
smokes, which could have caused it.
He has been free of it for five years after surgery that
removed a third of a lung and subsequent chemotherapy.
Still, Baranowski says he believes the arthritis and
cancer could have been caused by whatever killed the horses,
whether it was VEE or something else.
"Nobody else in my family ever had arthritis or cancer,"
he said. "A Web site for veterans at Dugway surveyed how many of
them are sick. A lot reported cancer, and a lot had arthritis."
Weaver, however, says scientific literature has never
showed any links between VEE and arthritis or cancer.
But, he said, "Other viruses in the same group can cause
arthritic problems."
Weaver said a blood test could be conducted to see if
Baranowski has VEE antibodies. A positive result would prove he
was exposed to it or was vaccinated against it.
Baranowski says he received many inoculations at Dugway
and cannot remember for what they were. Nor can he find medical
records from the time.
Weaver says a negative result from such a blood test
could be ambiguous. He says some people exposed to the disease
long ago do not necessarily have antibodies in their blood now.
The test is also performed only by a few labs, such as at
the Army's Fort Detrick, Md., and a Centers for Disease Control
lab in Fort Collins, Colo. Baranowski says he is on disability,
does not have money for such tests and receives free medical
care through veterans hospitals. But he is trying to interest
his doctors in such a test.
The Army's case
The Army built its own case, with extensive test data
shown through hundreds of pages of documents released to the
Morning News, about why it concluded that thirst killed the
horses and that nothing exotic infected them.
But the documents also show that officials at the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, the agency technically responsible
for wild horses on the base, didn't buy the Army's explanations,
but it could not come up with any better reason for the horse
deaths.
Two days after the dead horses were discovered — and as
the news was first reported and attracted national attention —
Dugway held a meeting of scientists to discuss what tests it
should run and what possible causes of death it should explore.
They decided to cast a wide net. They would test blood
and tissues of dead horses for nerve and germ warfare agents and
other germs and toxins. They would also test the area's water,
soil, plants, mosquitoes and ticks for disease-causing problems.
They would examine rodents and other animals in the area for
signs of similar disease. The group also decided that as often
as possible, it would have outside labs duplicate work done by
Dugway "to assure reliability and credibility of results."
Documents say that the tests for chemical and germ
warfare agents, including VEE, were negative. Other animals in
the area, mostly rodents, seemed to show no signs of whatever
had affected the horses. No poisons or toxins in amounts that
could cause sickness or death were found in the water, soil or
plants of the area.
Tests for VEE and related forms of encephalitis were
performed with Army-provided blood samples by Dugway itself, the
Utah State Division of Health and the Centers for Disease
Control. They jointly concluded "there is no evidence that the
horses suffered from a viral disease, or that they had suffered
from a prior infection with the listed encephalitides."
Documents noted that horses that die of VEE also tend to
wander in circles and thrash at the ground, but the Dugway
horses did not exhibit those symptoms.
The Army shifted to look at, and conclude, that a shock
syndrome killed the horses and led to the bleeding and other
problems found. They would conclude that dehydration caused it,
even though the horses were near a good supply of water.
The Army noted that the deaths happened at a time of
drought. The horses' normal water supply at Wig Mountain had
dried up before the herd searched for water at Orr Springs, so
it said the horses were already dehydrated and weak when they
arrived there.
The BLM had just covered the spring to protect it. Water
was piped to a trough nearby. Also, the BLM had put some short
wooden stakes with flags attached around the trough. And it had
piled stakes of creosoted poles (with a strong oily smell)
nearby for a planned future corral.
Army crews found no horse tracks around the new water
trough but found dying horses pawing nearby at moist soil,
seeking water beneath. When crews poured water from trucks on
the ground, they said the horses drank heavily (killing some of
them from drinking too much).
The Army said tests showing "elevated hematocrit and
serum proteins" in the horses were also "indicative of
dehydration."
So, Lt. Col. George B. Reddin Jr. with the Army's
veterinary corps wrote the Army's official conclusion that the
weakened horses were "unable to locate water at the springs and
unable to smell water from the man-made sources because of the
creosote piles" and "alteration of the normal environment."
He wrote that they appeared to die from a shock syndrome.
He said tests ruled out all possible causes for that, except
dehydration. And the Army figured that must have been caused by
their failure to find the water amid the changes at Orr Springs.
BLM vs. Army
Documents show that conclusion upset the BLM, which had
piped the spring and left the stinky poles nearby. It didn't
appreciate the Army blaming it for the horse deaths.
Several memos mention a meeting at Orr Springs between
Dugway officials — including its commander, Col. Adelbert Toepel
— and local BLM officials Ron Hall and Paul Howard, where they
strongly disagreed with the Army's theory.
"Mr. Hall made the statement that if a horse was thirsty,
he would drink any place that there was water, referring to the
horse trough," a memo by Dugway official Richard Davis says.
The Army official also complained in the memo that Howard
"had his mind already made up and was not interested in anything
anyone had to say or show him."
Another Dugway scientist, Max Green, wrote in a memo,
"Paul Howard and Ron Hall had their minds made up before they
ever got there. . . . (Howard) knew all the answers to
everything. Had no respect for anyone, was very rude."
Another memo about that meeting by yet another Dugway
official, Dave Maxwell, complained the BLM officials "were blind
to the obvious."
He said when Dugway officials asked Howard why the BLM
had put the new trough over a hill from the original spring
site, he said it "was because the horses trailed through and
over the hill. Sounds to me like a CYA statement, because one
doesn't have to be much smarter than one of those horses to
determine that the horses didn't and would not walk over that
hill."
Maxwell urged the Army to contact some higher-up BLM
official for support of the Army position but "only if he is
capable of an unbiased opinion."
The BLM officials were not the only ones to ever question
the Army's conclusion. Watchdog groups, such as Downwinders, and
some horse experts have, too, through the years — as have wild
horse protection groups.
For example in 1988, Richard Sewing, director of the
Cedar City-based National Mustang Association, told the Deseret
News that his group had piped several springs, and "we've never
had experience any place where the horses backed away from the
water, so I would tend to think something else killed them."
However, Sewing recently told the Morning News that has
changed — and an instance of wild horses being confused by water
guzzlers occurred on a military range in Nevada.
"Yes, horses walked right by it (a guzzler) when it was
full of water. They were looking for natural springs and ponds.
Yes, they did have horses die of thirst when water was
available. They didn't know what it was," he said.
He adds that wild horses "have a tendency to paw at
things," and it is a bit tough to get them to drink out of an
open trough instead of water in the ground. He also notes that
horses are sometimes much slower than other wildlife, such as
elk, to find new water sources that his group develops.
Conclusion
Baranowski himself has read the Army documents, seen the
test results and weighed the arguments. He still doesn't believe
the Army.
"I think I was poisoned by whatever killed those horses,"
he said.
When asked if he believes thirst killed them, he laughs
until he coughs uncontrollably. "I saw those bodies. . . . They
were sick, not thirsty. How many times do 50 horses just keel
over all at once for thirst?"
He says the government has been dishonest before about
testing in Utah, and he still believes that it has not told the
full story about the 1976 incident. His suspicion is deeper
because the Army has told him his old medical files do not
exist. "It's like the X-files," he said about the TV series
where alien-related proof disappears.
Also, he has a theory about why he seemed to be the only
human who became sick at the time — at least the only one he
knows about.
"I was the first person they sent out there. The way I
see this is, if there was anything I contracted from it, it was
probably gone by the time others arrived," he said. "I'm
thinking that whatever killed the horses just got loose and
dissipated before it hurt others."
Baranowski says he would like better proof, but he
acknowledges finding it appears unlikely. He lists his reasons,
too, which are only partially altruistic.
"I don't want anything like this to happen to anyone
else. The government should not hide things from the public. . .
. And I would like the Army to give me money for what will
probably be the short rest of my life," he said.
He says he is in the process of filing a VA claim seeking
total disability. Currently, the VA has given him a 10 percent
disability for hearing problems likely resulting from explosives
and other loud noises when he served at Dugway.
"My counselor at the VA has said the documents you
obtained should help," he said.
E-mail: lee@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
37 Bismarck Tribune: Uranium mine cleanup tagged at $22 million
Online - Bismarck, ND
www.bismarcktribune.com
By LAUREN DONOVAN Bismarck Tribune
NORTH CAVE HILLS, S.D. - Tomorrow is not soon enough for a
massive cleanup of old, cancer-causing uranium mines south of
Bowman.
A rancher who has already had kidney cancer said he's pleased
with plans by the U.S. Forest Service to clean up 12 mines in the
Cave Hills south of Bowman in South Dakota.
But Randy Feist, who lives near open uranium pits where signs
warn that more than one day exceeds recommended exposure, said
he'd like the process to go faster than the half-life of some of
the toxins breaking down out there.
The mines have been there for 50 years and abandoned for 40.
In the meantime, though, they've put him and other nearby
ranching families at grave risk for cancer and other illnesses
related to the exposed uranium, byproduct gases and heavy metals
like arsenic and thorium.
"It should have been done yesterday," Feist said.
About a half-dozen ranch families have odds as high as one in 25
for cancer because of exposure and because they routinely eat
meat from cattle that graze pastures around the mines.
Deer hunters and Plains Indians who come to the hills for
religious ceremonies also are at high risk.
The uranium was mined during a big nuclear push by the Atomic
Energy Commission, which died off as quickly as it had started.
Mine operators at that time were under no legal obligation to
reclaim or cover up the mines.
The Forest Service talked to about 25 local men and women at a
meeting in Buffalo, S.D., Thursday night. About half were the
same people who showed up late in the spring to hear the bad
news from an environmental risk report that led to the plan for
a cleanup.
Agency personnel showed them detailed plans for each of the mine
pits, some acutely contaminated with uranium byproducts and
heavy metals.
Besides Feist, two others at the meeting have had brain cancer.
Another woman said her family is loaded with thyroid problems.
An attorney, who passed out business cards after the meeting,
accompanied one of the brain cancer victims.
The cleanup will cost at least $22 million and take several
years. It's possible work could start next year, the Forest
Service said.
The process requires some procedural work before it will get
final approval and funding.
The meeting in the Buffalo community hall was held so locals
could comment on the cleanup plans. The Forest Service also is
taking steps to get Kermac Corp., formerly Kerr-McGee, to help
share in the cost of the cleanup. The company mined eight of the
12 pits back in the late '50s and early '60s.
Bill Rotenberger ranches near one of the pits on Forest Service
land, which has eroded onto his land.
"It scares the heck out of me," Rotenberger said. "I know for a
fact where the sediment from the mines has moved a mile."
In what was news to the audience, the Forest Service said it and
the Environmental Protection Agency recently started work on an
agreement to survey where and how much toxic contamination has
moved from the mines onto private land.
Locals, like Feist, said sediment from the uranium mines has
moved down drainages, which empty into local rivers and dams.
"They can't wipe up the whole floor," Rotenberger said. "How do
you leave your home?"
The mines are scattered across several sections and 225 acres of
Forest Service land in the Custer National Forest. The Forest
Service said the mines would be graded over with dirt spoil
piles that were heaped up during the original mining. The toxic
soils will be buried as deep as possible. In some cases,
sediment ponds will be constructed to contain run off. In
others, where the contamination is acute, the soil will be
removed to deeper mine pits for burial.
Harold Smolnetaar, a local rancher and former coal miner, said
he wanted assurance the spoils soil used to cover the mines also
isn't contaminated.
He said other cleanups have had to be redone because toxins
remained at the surface.
The agency said it will verify contaminants while the work is in
progress, control any dust and make sure the contractors wear
proper safety gear.
One resident said the mine pits have had 50 years to "heal up
and now you're going to stir it all up again."
Dean Wagner, a Harding County Commissioner, said Kermac should
not be held responsible for a mess on government land that was
mined for the government.
The Cave Hills' mines aren't the only old uranium mines in
Harding County.
There's a large abandoned mine near Ludlow, S.D., north of the
Cave Hills, that's on a hilltop right above the school.
Harding County Commissioner Bob Johnson said the county and
probably the state of South Dakota can't afford to clean up
other mines in the county.
Johnson said the county will watch how the Forest Service
proceeds.
"There are a lot of questions here. This is all new," he said.
Feist, whose cancer is gone for now, and who claims to be
feeling good a year after treatment, said it doesn't matter to
him in what order the uranium pits are covered up, even if it
takes years.
"I don't care where they start - just start," he said.
*****************************************************************
38 Taipei Times: Lawmakers go on nuclear waste tour at Nevada facility
www.taipeitimes.com/
Sat, Aug 27, 2005
CNA , LOS ANGELES
A group of Taiwanese legislators paid a visit to a permanent
nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada Thursday in an effort
to collect tips on handling radioactive waste.
Accompanied by officials from the US Department of Energy, the
lawmakers, headed by Legislator Chiu Yung-jen (ªô¥Ã¤¯) of the
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), spent several hours touring
the Yucca Mountain Repository, located about 160km northwest of
Las Vegas, and being briefed by the facility's authorities.
According to these authorities, the nuclear waste dump is built
in an area not only far from densely populated cities but also
an area where geological conditions is stable, making it
suitable for storage of hazardous materials.
So far, they said, the Department of Energy has spent US$8
billion developing the underground dump, which is planned to be
fully completed in 10 years. After it is finished, the Yucca
Mountain Repository will be used to store all nuclear reactors
and radioactive waste that is currently stored in 131 smaller
facilities scattered across the US. It is estimated that it will
remain safe for 10,000 years.
Nuclear power plants provide about 20 percent of the
electricity used in the US.
Chiu said the visit by the legislators, all members of the
Legislative Yuan's Science and Information Technology Committee,
is aimed at emulating the US experience and working out a policy
that will solve Taiwan's nuclear waste problems once and for all.
State-run Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) has in recent years
prepared to remove over 97,000 barrels of low-level radioactive
waste from Lanyu (ÄõÀ¬), which lies off the southeastern Taiwan
coast, as the lease on its storage site has expired.
The waste, produced by Taipower's three nuclear power plants
over 20 years, is scheduled to be inspected and repacked by the
end of 2010.
Taipower has contacted authorities from home and abroad for the
treatment and disposal of its nuclear waste over the past
several years, including Russia, North Korea and Taiwan's
outlying islet of Wuchiu.
After the visit to Yucca Mountain, Chiu and his group proceeded
to the Hoover Dam, also in Nevada, to see whether Taiwan can
borrow any ideas from the dam that can help Taiwan streamline
water conservation and related efforts.
This story has been viewed 506 times.
Copyright © 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
39 Gallup Independent: Shirley seeks help on mining ban;
Navajo president, governor hold private meeting on uranium mines
August 26, 2005:
Diné Bureau
WINDOW ROCK — Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. met
Tuesday in Santa Fe with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to ask
his help in keeping the ban on uranium mining and processing
intact.
According to Communications Director George Hardeen,Richardson
and Shirley held a private meeting in the Governor's Cabinet
Meeting Room, where President Shirley told the governor that a
Canadian company has opened a uranium mine development office in
Santa Fe in hopes of resuming uranium mining at Church Rock on
the Navajo Nation.
The New Mexico Business Weekly reported Aug. 9 that Strathmore
Minerals Corp. of Canada had announced the opening of its
office.
It also was reported that Strathmore officials met with Gov.
Richardson's office to discuss its plans, and that the company
hoped to gain state approval to reopen its Church Rock and Roca
Honda uranium mines in McKinley County. The mines were purchased
by Strathmore from Kerr-McGee Nuclear and Rio Algom.
Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI) also plans to mine uranium in Church
Rock through in-situ leach technology. "The Navajo Nation as a
government and a people has said we're not going to have uranium
mining on Navajoland or in Navajo Country," Shirley told
Richardson. "We'd like to see that law stick."
The Navajo Nation Council passed the Diné Natural Resources
Protection Act, 63-19, on April 19. Banning uranium mining was a
major plank in President Shirley's campaign platform three years
ago, Hardeen said, and continues to be a significant issue for
his administration.
"We've been through too much," Shirley said of the 65-year-old
legacy of uranium mining. "We just don't want it."
The president said the governor assured him he would not take
any action without first consulting the Navajo Nation.
Thousands of uranium miners and their families have become ill
or died through exposure to uranium mining, contaminated water,
tailings and dust. Years of efforts to have them receive
compassionate compensation for their illnesses led to more
delays, denials and disappointment, Hardeen said.
In June, President Shirley delivered a statement to UNESCO the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
seeking international support for the ban on uranium mining and
processing.
In an hour-long meeting at UNESCO headquarters in Paris with
Ahmed Sayyad, assistant director-general for External Relations
and Cooperation, President Shirley discussed the need to protect
Navajo sovereignty through respect for the Diné Natural
Resources Protection Act of 2005.
President Shirley said he believed "the powers that be committed
genocide on Navajoland by allowing uranium mining"
Friday
August 26, 2005
All contents property of the Gallup Independent.
Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com
*****************************************************************
40 Gainesville Times: I-3 should not be built just to carry nuclear materials -
gainesvilletimes.com
Opinion - Sunday, August 28, 2005
Our views
Hundreds of people have met in three states recently for the
purpose of stopping Interstate 3, which is proposed to run
through the mountains of Northeast Georgia.
So far, the only people who have spoken out publicly in support
of an I-3 route study are the U.S. senators and representatives
who made sure the funds for it were included in the $286 billion
transportation bill signed this month by President Bush.
No one has offered a valid reason for building such an
expensive, damaging interstate route, and officials are not
anxious to provide one. But we finally think we know one
plausible, but disturbing, motive.
First, we asked Sen. Saxby Chambliss. He indicated that
justification for the highway is because "80 percent of the jobs
in this county are within 10 miles of an interstate system."
This may be true, but it's also true that we've all traveled
hundreds of miles on an interstate when we saw nothing except
asphalt.
For example, I-16 from Macon to Savannah was opened 25 years
ago, yet it was at least 10 years before gas stations with
restrooms finally were built at the exits. It still has only a
gas station now and then.
One disturbing scenario as the impetus for I-3 came out at the
Thursday meeting of the Georgia Stop I-3 Coalition in Cleveland.
Dr. Elizabeth Wells, who coordinated the meeting, was completely
fair and attempted to hear as many opinions as possible. A
survey paper given to each attendant first asked why I-3 was
supported, then why it was opposed.
No one there spoke out in support, and the crowd responded with
loud cheers to statements of opposition.
The natural beauty of the mountains, the lifestyle and the
wildlife are among the reasons the highway is opposed.
More than halfway into the Cleveland meeting, the probable
reason was mentioned. John Clarke, introduced as a builder,
raspberry grower, researcher and chairman of the Stop I-3 North
Carolina coalition, talked about the route being used to
transport nuclear materials.
He said his research revealed that the route is not going from
Augusta to Knoxville but from one nuclear laboratory to another.
This statement was not emphasized at the meeting. Nevertheless,
as troublesome as it is to consider, this could well be the
reason that such an extremely expensive highway is being
proposed.
If you want to do your own research, you will see that the
Savannah River Site nuclear plant is located about 25 miles
south of Augusta on the South Carolina side of the Savannah
River. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is located about 25
miles west of Knoxville. An announcement that billions of
dollars may be spent to construct a direct highway route from
one nuclear research site to another probably never will be
made. But logic says that this is the reason for the plan.
The energy bill, which was passed at the same time as the
transportation act, funds studies for alternative energy
sources, which includes anything other than petroleum. On the
Web, the Savannah River Site, www.srs.gov,states: "A team led by
the Savannah River Technology Center is embarking on a study
that could ultimately lead to the extensive use of
hydrogen-based energy sources as an alternative to expensive and
polluting fossil energy."
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory site, www.ornl.gov,says: "ORNL
is an international leader in a range of scientific areas that
support the Department of Energy's mission ..."
There is no doubt that we want a better and cheaper energy
source. Our whole economy is built on fossil energy, which once
was more affordable. Fossil fuel has almost tripled in price in
three years, and eventually, its supplies will be depleted.
We can understand that a direct route between Oak Ridge and
Augusta might be beneficial to the nuclear research labs, but
look at what is destroyed in the process. Is the expense of the
route and the benefits worth it? We don't think so.
First of all, money can be spent more safely by building
bioenergy plants that manufacture fuels from peanut oil or corn.
Secondly, U.S. 441 from Knoxville through Rabun County is being
widened to four lanes. If a route is needed to avoid the traffic
congestion in Atlanta, U.S. 441 connects with I-20 far east of
Atlanta, which then travels to Augusta. These routes already are
in place.
The upcoming study for a four-lane highway directly from Oak
Ridge to the Savannah River Site should look only at the U.S.
441 four-lane and save a lot of taxpayer money.
It is important that we all write our government officials, from
the federal to the state level, and let them know our views on
constructing I-3 through Northeast Georgia.
Originally published Sunday, August 28, 2005
Copyright ©2004 The Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
41 Salt Lake Tribune: Envirocare receives approval to expand
Article Last Updated: 08/27/2005 01:18:03 AM
State regulators have given approval to double the size of
Envirocare, the Tooele County landfill that accepts low-level
radioactive waste from out of state.
In a letter dated Thursday, the state Division of Radiation
Control and Utah Radiation Control Board gave its blessing to
Envirocare expanding into 536 acres north of its present
facility. But to use the new land for disposal of the
radioactive waste, the company must still gain approval from the
Utah Legislature and the governor.
The division gave preliminary OK to the expansion in July,
then held a 30-day comment period that included a public hearing
on Aug. 9.
"No new information has been identified that changes the
previous decision to approve the amendment application," Dane
Finerfrock, director of the state Radiation Control Division,
wrote to Envirocare in announcing the approval.
Finerfrock said that as new facilities are proposed for the
expanded section of Envirocare, the company must submit a
"comprehensive and detailed" application.
Envirocare is one of three sites in the United States
licensed to take commercial low-level radioactive waste. The
Utah facility also counts on federal cleanup waste for about
half of its revenue.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
42 PTI: India to import natural uranium if supply is assured - Kakodkar
outlookindia.com | wired
URANIUM
LALITHA VAIDYANATHAN MUMBAI, AUG 28 (PTI)
Will India import natural uranium in the coming years? "Yes,
provided a continuous life-time supply is assured by the
suppliers", according to Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission Anil
Kakodkar.
"India is willing to buy natural uranium from other countries
provided the life-time supply is guaranteed by the suppliers,"
Kakodkar told PTI.
Kakodkar made it clear that the current reserve of natural
uranium available in the country could only support 10,000 MW
programme.
"With availability of uranium from outside, one could also
think of expanding Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor programme
beyond 10,000 MW," he said.
"Natural uranium from outside will be much cheaper than what we
spend to produce from Indian mines as the uranium content in
ores from Indian mines is less than 0.1 per cent while in the
mines abroad, it ranges from 1 to 15 per cent," he said.
Moreover, all these external supply will be under international
safeguards and "we have absolutely no problem in it," Kakodkar
said.
However, "we will continue to expand our indigenous mining and
processing of natural uranium in Jharkhand and in other places
for the PHWR reactors," he said.
For Tarapur Unit 1 and 2 located near here, Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Limited imported low-enriched uranium from
China in 2000 which lasted for five years while uranium imported
from Russia in 2003 will last upto 2007, according to Chairman
and Managing Director NPCIL S K Jain.
In 1969, The General Electric of US supplied Uranium when they
built India's first two boiled water reactors at a rated
capacity of 210 MW each which now run at a re-rated capacity of
170 MW and are already under safeguards. Following Pokharan I
and subsequent sanctions, the US reneged on its commitment to
supply the fuel. However, after an agreement between the US and
India during the Reagan Administration, France stepped in.
But France too stopped supplies in 1992. The French fuel lasted
till about 1995 when India was forced to negotiate with China.
Therefore, India had to look for suppliers who will supply
natural uranium to expand its PHWR programme besides the
low-enriched uranium for the boiling water reactors of Tarapur
and any future imported plants. Russian fuel is cheaper than
Chinese, he added.
Even though India is not a NPT signatory, it has in practice
observed Article One of the treaty which bars transfers. The
Indo-US agreement this July only formalizes and reinforces
India's commitment.
India already has an impeccable record of safety and export
control regime and the July agreement is linked to the enactment
of strengthened export control legislation, nuclear officials
said.
©Outlook Publishing (India) Private Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
43 Australian: Nuke fuels more risky than waste
[August 29, 2005]
Amanda Hodge
NUCLEAR waste may be a political hot potato but the radioactive
material powering medical, laboratory and industrial machines
around the country poses a greater security threat.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation chief of
operations Ron Cameron said yesterday that "small radioactive
sources" had gone missing in Australia before, but not for
several years.
In light of new terrorist threats, the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority was working on new
guidelines for the secure storage of material which could be
used with malicious intent, such as in dirty bombs.
Federal regulations already dictate who may own and operate
irradiators such as cobalt sticks used within sterilisation
plants and industrial radiography.
But Dr Cameron said that "increasingly regulators are asking for
information about security and how they're used and where
they're kept".
"Generally, sources in our country are well licensed and under a
good regulatory regime, which is about to become tougher when
the new code of practice is issued requiring people to secure
sources for security as well as safety," he said.
States are also reviewing their rules for the ownership and
storage of nuclear waste and radioactive material within their
borders.
A spokeswoman for the NSW Department of Environment and
Conservation confirmed yesterday that it was working with other
states and the commonwealth through the counter terrorism
committee to toughen its guidelines.
Dr Cameron said much of Australia's radioactive waste was
classed as low-level and unsuitable for dirty bombs.
Australia has about 3200 cubic metres of low-level radioactive
waste - 80 per cent of which is generated at Lucas Heights, in
southern Sydney.
Intermediate-level waste could be used to make such a bomb, but
much of it (400 cubic metres) was stored at Lucas Heights under
lock and key and 24-hour guard by Australian Federal Police.
A further 100 cubic metres was stored in hospitals, universities
and other licensed sites around the country.
Australia does not use radioactive sources in its X-ray
machines. But caesium 137 and cobalt 60 were regularly used for
X-rays and radiation therapy overseas and several of those had
gone missing in previous years.
In one such example, five people died and an entire Brazilian
village was contaminated several years ago after scavengers
removed cobalt from a radiation therapy machine stored in a shed
behind a hospital.
© The Australian
*****************************************************************
44 Seattle Times: N-plant construction lull worries industry
Sunday, August 28, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
By Shannon Dininny The Associated Press
[Enlarge this photo]
JACKIE JOHNSTON / AP
The U.S. Department of Energy plans to slow construction at its
nuclear-waste treatment plant at Hanford following a new seismic
study that found the federal government had underestimated the
impact a severe earthquake could have on the plant.
RICHLAND Amid blowing dust and miles of sagebrush, giant
construction cranes sat still one recent day at the Hanford
nuclear reservation silent sentinels over the government's
largest construction project.
The goal is to build a one-of-a-kind plant to treat highly
radioactive waste left from Cold War-era nuclear-weapons
production. Achievement is a long way off.
Once completed, the plant will be massive 12 stories tall and
the size of four football fields. Its problems have been large,
as well.
The U.S. Department of Energy, which manages the site, has
encountered endless problems since the contract was awarded in
1998. Billions of taxpayer dollars already have been spent, yet
the project is only about 30 percent complete.
Now, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plans to slow
construction following a new seismic study that found the
federal government had underestimated the impact a severe
earthquake could have on the plant. Agency officials have
repeatedly refused to say how much the price tag already at
$5.8 billion will rise, or when the plant may open as a result.
Regardless, industry insiders contend problems with the Hanford
plant come with repercussions far beyond rural Washington.
"This plant is the world's largest and most expensive
environmental-remediation project, and there's a lot of focus
and attention in Congress on DOE's ability to manage this
project," said Tom Carpenter, nuclear-oversight program director
for the Government Accountability Project, a whistle-blower
group critical of the Energy Department.
"If this project were to fail, I think Congress would finally
recognize this is the wrong agency to manage these types of
projects," Carpenter said. The waste-treatment plant has long
been considered the cornerstone of cleanup at the highly
contaminated Hanford site, which was created in the 1940s as
part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic
bomb.
Using a process called vitrification, the plant will turn
decades-old radioactive waste into glasslike logs for permanent
disposal in a nuclear-waste repository.
The waste, about 53 million gallons, is brewing in 177 aging
underground tanks at Hanford. Nearly 150 of the tanks have a
single-wall construction, and some are known to have leaked into
an aquifer, threatening groundwater and the Columbia River,
which is less than 10 miles away. Many tanks have outlived their
design life, which makes retrieval of the waste a top priority.
"Without the 'vit' plant, we don't clean up Hanford," said Jay
Manning, director of the state Department of Ecology. "The
problem is going to get worse. It's not going to get better. The
plant is the critical step that has to happen."
The operating deadline already has been pushed back three times
from the original deadline of 1999. The Energy Department has
levied fines against and withheld part of the fee for contractor
Bechtel National over safety concerns. A watchdog group released
a report last year concluding that the plant has a 50 percent
chance of a chemical or radiological accident a report the
Energy Department disputed.
Critics argue the current slowdown could have been avoided if
the federal government had conducted a more thorough seismic
review.
In addition, the plant is being designed as it is being built
the design is about 75 percent complete a method that has
proven costly.
The price tag on the plant has grown from $4.3 billion to the
current $5.8 billion, and Energy Department officials have said
the cost will grow at least an additional 10 percent due to the
seismic issue and other construction problems.
Congress has estimated the new cost could be as high as $10
billion a number closer to the $15.2 billion estimate former
contractor BNFL Inc. proposed in 2000. The Energy Department
fired the company shortly thereafter, pushing the operating
deadline from 2007 to 2011.
The latest slowdown leaves state officials believing the problem
is more about money than safety. This is the fourth try for the
plant, Manning said, and every time the cost goes up, the
federal government decides to go back to the drawing board and
revisit the approach.
Manning said he understands that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
does not want to have to go to Congress twice to explain the
rising cost of the plant. Giving elected officials another
chance to question the viability of the project is dangerous, he
said.
"What we really have heartburn with is stopping construction or
even significantly slowing it down," Manning said. "This would
be a colossal waste of taxpayer money if we were to change
course dramatically or abandon this plant entirely. It would be
the absolute worst thing we could do."
Abandoning the waste-treatment plant is not an option, said
Joonhong Ahn, associate professor of nuclear engineering at the
University of California, Berkeley. The waste needs to be
removed and treated for long-term storage, and the process needs
to happen at Hanford because of the large volume and high
radioactivity of the waste, he said.
"DOE's hand is full," he said.
Energy Department officials have said they remain committed to
the plant. Mistakes may have been made, but only a review can
determine that, and a slowdown will allow the design process to
get further ahead of construction, said Deputy Energy Secretary
Clay Sell.
"Stopping the construction is only going to cost money, so I
don't think that's a credible criticism of what's going on,"
Sell said. "The dollars matter, but we are not going to build an
unsafe plant."
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
45 New Mexican: Ex-LANL computer is focus of investigation
By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
August 27, 2005
A surplus computer from Los Alamos National Laboratory sold at
a public auction is at the center of a federal investigation
into whether classified information was on it, and why readable
files were not removed before its sale, authorities say.
KOB-TV of Albuquerque reported Thursday night that one of its
photographers bought an Apple computer several weeks ago. "In
the computer ... we found documents labeled classified," KOB
reported.
A Los Alamos spokesman said there is "little to no chance"
classified information is on the computer and the station
"misserved the public" and "jumped to erroneous conclusions."
Lab spokesman Jim Fallin said Friday that the computer "never,
never would have used or produced classified information, nor
was the computer ever in a classified area."
Federal agents responded to the news report, FBI Agent Bill
Elwell said, and are looking into whether classified information
is indeed on the computer.
"In the interest of national security, the photographer said,
'Sure, you can go ahead and take it if you need it,' " Elwell
said Friday afternoon.
The investigation is ongoing, and Elwell declined to elaborate.
KOB reported the computer contained e-mails, time sheets and
internal memos, according to a transcript of the Thursday 10
p.m. newscast.
"I was just amazed," the unidentified photographer said in the
newscast. "I thought maybe it was a drive that wasn't used and
that's why they left it in there. But when I powered it on, it
was unexpected to see that there was information still left in
there."
But Fallin said lab security experts tracked down the computer's
origin Friday and used a backup system to determine there was no
classified information on it. He said there's a chance "there
might be some file we didn't look at" on the computer that was
sold.
"We are convinced at this point that there is little to no
chance of any classified information being on this unclassified
computer," Fallin said.
The television images of what was described as classified appear
to come from unclassified memos to all lab employees, lab
Director Robert Kuckuck said in a separate memo Friday.
Fallin said the computer was purchased by the lab in 2002 and
salvaged in late July. It was sold by Bentley's auction house in
Albuquerque, he said.
The lab sells about 3,000 surplus computers a year as a public
service, Fallin said.
But lab procedures "call for removal of hard drives and other
memory devices from computers prior to public sale," Kuckuck
said in the memo.
"We are looking into why it is that this unclassified computer
did not have its hard drive removed or sanitized," Fallin said.
An investigator for a government-watchdog group questioned how
the lab would know classified information is not on the
computer. "I'm telling you, there can be a lot of sensitive
information on the unclassified side," Pete Stockton of the
Project on Government Oversight said Friday.
"They just have to simply be more careful about it."
Santa Fe New Mexican.
*****************************************************************
46 lamonitor.com: Lab probes computer story
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
An Albuquerque television station reported last night that a
used computer purchased at auction was said to contain
classified information.
A LANL spokesman said this morning the lab was investigating,
but that it was highly unlikely the computer had classified
information.
A 10 p.m. news segment, reported by Mindy Mizelle on KOB-TV said
a news photographer from the station purchased the machine and
was surprised to find that it contained a hard drive. He was
further surprised to find that it contained data.
The report said the hard drive contained memos and time sheets
from the laboratory, some of which were marked classified.
LANL Director of Public Affairs Jim Fallin said this morning
that it was more and more apparent as they checked into the
records that the computer was used for training purposes, and
that any documents presumed to be classified were, in fact,
simulated documents for training purposes only.
Rhonda Aubrey, news director at Channel 4, said the station
stood by their story.
"Several documents said they were classified, but whether or not
they really are classified is not for us to say," she said.
Fallin said the Apple computer was purchased in 2002 and
recycled in 2005. Lab officials were looking at a mirror image
of the hard drive and all the documentation. They were reviewing
all the documentation and had the entire history of ownership,
Fallin said.
The computer was used for training in the environment, safety
and health program, which is not classified and does not handle
classified information.
It is the policy of the laboratory "to sanitize, deGuasse and
remove hard drives. That should have been done," he said. "We
will have to figure out why that wasn't done."
Aubrey said the local news team there would probably be a
follow-up report.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************