***************************************************************** 02/15/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.39 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Xinhua: Westinghouse reiterates bidding commitment 2 [DU-WATCH] House Of Lords To Hear Key Test Case From Iraq War 3 Independent: The politics of fear (or how Tony Blair misled us over 4 [IACBoston] Stop War On Iran Campaign 5 [NYTr] IRAN: US war drive makes diplomatic advance 6 [NYTr] Are Americans Sold on anti-Iran Nuclear Hysteria? 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Foreign Minister to Meet With EU 8 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Sets Rules to Back Iran Nuke Plan 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian President Visits Uranium Plant 10 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Asks for $75M for Democracy in Iran 11 IRNA: President tours Natanz Nuclear Facility 12 Xinhua: Europe urges UN's involvement in Iran nuke issue 13 IRNA: Russia voices strong opposition to sanctions against Iran 14 IRNA: Iranian, Venezuelan parliaments call nuclear arms int'l threat 15 AFP: Russia hints domestic Iranian uranium enrichment a possibility 16 AFP: Iran ready to counter any US aggression 17 Xinhua: DPRK: US hostile policy blocks solving nuclear issue 18 Deseret News: N. Korea, Pakistan called world's top nuclear threats 19 Guardian Unlimited: Republicans Criticize Bush Mideast Policy 20 US: Guardian Unlimited: Special report: America's Long War 21 Sacramento Bee: Military, spy whistle-blowers allege retaliation - 22 US: The NewStandard: Nuclear Whistleblower Inquiry Findings Disappoi 23 US: The NewStandard: Bush Administration Spent $1.6B on Propaganda 24 US: Independent: Terror threat: The great deception 25 US: thebulletin.org: To tell the truth 26 US: ABC News: A surge in whistle-blowing ... and reprisals 27 thebulletin.org: Grid-locked | 28 Deccan Herald: N-deal will only serve proliferation NUCLEAR REACTORS 29 US: Fredericksburg.com: desiring the sirens' call Nuclear plant warn 30 Rediff: Experts concerned over Indo-US nuke deal 31 Platts: AECL official: Canada to begin building new nuclear before U 32 US: Platts: US to continue support for near-term new nuclear build - 33 US: APP.COM: Nuclear power is regenerating interest | 34 US: APP.COM: If cooling towers are required, plant might close 35 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek has brought jobs and money to Lacey 36 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek reports loud bang was harmless | 37 US: APP.COM: Nuke plant critics say they're stifled 38 Xinhua: Power giants team up for nuclear plant 39 US: NRC: Grid Reliability and the Impact on Plant Risk and the 40 Creamer Media's Engineering News: SA to spend $94m on nuclear energy 41 US: PRN: Exelon Nuclear to Launch Tritium Inspection Program at Its 42 US: WAVY.COM: North Anna neighbors worry nuclear drills aren't effec NUCLEAR SECURITY 43 US: UPI: NRC plans new nuclear security rules 44 US: UPI: Whistleblower says NSA violations bigger NUCLEAR SAFETY 45 US: [du-list] Nuclear Workers benefits at risk 46 US: Las Vegas SUN: CDC says studying nuclear testing fallout problem 47 US: Rocky Mountain News: 'Truth is out,' say ex-mayor about verdict 48 US: Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats neighbors win lawsuit; defense 49 US: Guardian Unlimited: Colo. Landowners Win $554M in Nuclear Suit 50 US: Deseret News: CDC posts final report on fallout study 51 CTV Toronto: Radiation and fumes pose threat to Ont. residents 52 US: The NewStandard: EPA to Further Relax Weak Toxin Rules - 53 US: NRC: NRC to Continue Heightened Inspections at Honeywell Althoug 54 US: baltimoresun.com: CSX to pay $2 million to Baltimore - 55 US: DenverPost.com: Flats plaintiffs due $554 million 56 US: DenverPost.com: Flats decision a "no-brainer" 57 US: thebulletin.org: The bioterrorist cookbook | 58 US: Denver Business Journal: Rocky Flats judgment more than half a b 59 US: Port Townsend Leader: Letter: DU ordnance requires special handl 60 US: KOLD: CDC issues final report on studying fallout problems 61 US: UPI: Rocky Flats jury award hits $352 million 62 US: Rocky Mountain News: A breakdown of the Rocky Flats verdict NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 63 US: NIRS says dump is radioactive bullseye 64 US: Guardian Unlimited: Utah Delegation Backing Wilderness Law 65 US: Las Vegas SUN: EPA criticized Nevada for slow cleanup at mine, c 66 US: Deseret News: Alliance opposes N-waste changes 67 BBC: Sellafield in breach of EU 68 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: We must step up our opposition to Yucca 69 US: Platts: NEI wants nuclear waste fee to remain at current level 70 US: Salt Lake Tribune: PFS nears desert N-dump license 71 US: Salt Lake Tribune: PFS story correction 72 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmaker Pulls Goshute Resolution 73 US: The Dispatch: Stop Playing Perchlorate Games, Olin 74 Pahrump Valley Times: New Yucca office director named 75 US: Daily Herald: Legislature makes move to allow it to override a v 76 US: New Scientist: Trains the best way to carry US nuclear waste - 77 KVBC: Richard Bryan to lead Yucca Mountain opposition 78 KLASTV.com: DOE Wants Yucca to be The World's Nuclear Repository 79 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca Mountain essential to the nation PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 80 DOE: DOE Initiates Series of Liquefied Natural Gas Public Education 81 Hanford News: Carrying a heavy load 82 PRN: Jury Awards Over One Half Billion in Environmental Damages to 83 Houston Chronicle: Rockwell Verifies Gov't to Pay Damages ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Xinhua: Westinghouse reiterates bidding commitment www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-16 09:03:58 BEIJING, Feb.16 -- US-based Westinghouse Electric Co has reiterated to Chinese authorities its unchanged commitment to technology bidding for two nuclear power plants in Zhejiang and Guangdong provinces, sources say. This follows an announcement that the US-based nuclear company is being acquired by Japanese firm Toshiba Corp. Three foreign nuclear companies, Westinghouse and another two firms from France and Russia, are in the running for a bid deciding the technology used to construct four nuclear reactors at the two sites. Toshiba, Japan's biggest maker of nuclear power plant equipment, last week announced it would pay US$5.4 billion to buy Westinghouse. The move triggered doubts whether that would affect an important bid that could total US$8 billion, in which Westinghouse is involved. Westinghouse recently sent a letter to authorities stressing the Toshiba buyout would not change its development strategy in China's booming nuclear power-generation industry. A senior advisor from State Nuclear Power Technology Corp of China (SNPTC), who declined to be named, confirmed this to China Daily, saying: "We got the letter a few days ago." SNPTC is a government-designated body that carries out talks with foreign nuclear reactor builders. Westinghouse and Toshiba yesterday were not immediately available for comment. The international bidding was originally planned to be completed by the end of last year, but a source involved in the talks earlier disclosed to China Daily that the negotiation would be delayed to the first half of this year, because of disagreements over technology and price. China has used nuclear technologies from France, Canada and Russia in building its nuclear plants in Guangdong, Zhejiang and Jiangsu. If Westinghouse wins the bid, it would be its first nuclear project in China, the world's second-biggest energy consumer after the United States. (Source: China Daily) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 [DU-WATCH] House Of Lords To Hear Key Test Case From Iraq War Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:07:41 -0600 (CST) ----- Original Message ----- From: James Venables To: James Venables Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:55 AM Subject: [DAAW] Fwd : House Of Lords To Hear Key Test Case From Iraq War ~~~FORWARDED MESSAGE~~~ Press release, 6th of February 2006. For immediate use From Margaret Jones and Robbie Manson HOUSE OF LORDS TO HEAR KEY TEST CASE FROM IRAQ WAR Starting on February the 20th, the Law Lords will begin debating a question of great importance for the future of political activism in the UK, and for how the British courts in future deal with international law. Their Lordships are asked to decide: Is a British court allowed to rule on whether a war started by a UK government is a crime ? The hearing brings together the appeals of nineteen people who took direct action against the Iraq war - including 14 already convicted Greenpeace defendants. Five independent activists whose trials are still pending, are also appealing. The 'Fairford Five' seek to know what arguments they are allowed to use in their defence against charges of conspiracy and criminal damage. In March 2003, Paul Milling and Margaret Jones, Phillip Pritchard with Toby Olditch, and Josh Richards, all tried to prevent or delay the take-off of American B-52 bombers from Fairford air force base in Gloucestershire. These bombers were waiting to launch the attack on Iraq that would begin the Iraq war. In the case of Milling and Jones, the action involved disabling a fleet of bomb carriers and other support vehicles used to supply the B-52 bombers. All five say they were justified in their actions, because they aimed at preventing the commission of a far greater crime - that of 'aggression', of starting an unprovoked war against another country. Lower courts have so far denied them this defence argument, saying that the alleged crime of attacking another country is a matter for international law, which cannot be ruled on in a British court. In earlier pre-trial hearings, the Fairford Five have been told they may say in their defence that they feared individual war crimes would be committed in Iraq - but not that the Iraq War itself would be a crime. They will stand trial at Bristol Crown Court later this year. The week-long hearing before the Law Lords is expected to take place before a panel comprising. Lord Hoffman, Lord Rodger, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance, and Lord Bingham of Cornhill. More information on points of law: Robbie Manson at Foresters Solicitors: (0208) - 521 5999 Mobile: 0781 268 1083 Home: (01239) - 821066 For more information on the Fairford actions: Margaret Jones (0117) - 94 66 885 -- James Venables [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] ***************************************************************** 3 Independent: The politics of fear (or how Tony Blair misled us over the war on terror) By Peter Oborne Published: 15 February 2006 HOW TONY BLAIR MISLED THE NATION On 28 February 2005, with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill being discussed in Parliament, Tony Blair made the following comment to listeners to Women's Hour: "What they [the security services] say is that you have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts - you have got to give us power in between just surveying them and being sure enough to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt. There are people out there who are determined to destroy our way of life and there is no point in us being naïve about it. " Anyone listening to the Prime Minister's remarks must have felt that, within days of the Prevention of Terrorism Act being passed, the "several hundred" individuals plotting to wreak devastation through Britain would have been under lock and key. And yet that is not the case at all. Nearly a year has gone by and yet no more than 17 individuals have been made subject to control orders. The Prime Minister's suggestion that the security services were demanding new powers in order to deal with a new category of terrorist suspect turns out to have been nonsense. His figure of " several hundred" terrorists plotting mayhem seems to have been plucked out of thin air. THE POLITICISATION OF TERROR In the immediate aftermath of the 7 July outrages the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, was swift to make contact with his opposite numbers the shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, and the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten. Parallel lines of communication were developed between their staff members and cemented by a regular exchange of letters and e-mails. There seemed to be a real chance that some good could come out of the calamity of the London bombings: politicians of all parties coming together to fight a ruthless common enemy. By the start of August, there was a general agreement that everything was on course for announcements at the party conference season and the passing of an anti-terrorism Act, with cross-party support, by Christmas. Clarke, Davis and Oaten each set off on holiday. They had taken the precaution of sharing contact numbers in case of an emergency. On the afternoon of 4 August, both Oaten and Davis were surprised to receive a call from the Home Office minister Hazel Blears. Oaten was in St Tropez when he took his, while Davis was in the north of England. According to both, Blears gave the impression that the call was little more a formality. She told them that there would be an announcement on terrorism by the Prime Minister the following day, but it would not go further than had already been agreed between the three parties. The following day, in his monthly Downing Street press conference, the Prime Minister went far beyond anything agreed, or even discussed with, the opposition parties. He dramatically announced a "12-point plan" which put forward new measures which he surely knew that the opposition parties could not support. This 12-point plan at once shattered the harmonious working relationship between the three main parties. Charles Clarke, it must be said, rebuts any suggestion that he was put under pressure from Downing Street or kept out of loop, saying: "I was on holiday in America at that time, and I was on the phone to the Prime Minister a great deal during that time, right up to the statements that he actually made. I was fully involved, fully supported it and thought it was the right thing to do." Be that as it may, there are grounds for speculation that 10 Downing Street had seized control of the terrorism agenda from the Home Office. The context is important: the Prime Minister had been confronted by a concerted campaign in the tabloid press for new anti-terror laws. He may well have concluded that the thoughtful, consensual strategy worked out with the two main opposition parties came at too great a political cost. He may have decided that it was more profitable to give an impression of acting tough. That was the impression gained by many MPs, including his own supporters. John Denham, a former Home Office minister and chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, described the proposals as "half-baked". He told me later: "There must be concern that the Government agenda is sometimes driven by public and media pressure in this area, rather than a concern for what is most effective." Tony Blair's terror initiative showed numerous signs of having been cobbled together in a hurry. Some of the measures proved ill thought-out and unworkable. However, it may have achieved the result that the Prime Minister, who left the following day for the West Indies to stay at Cliff Richard's holiday home, wanted. For days before the plan was announced, he had been under heavy pressure from a tabloid campaign, led by The Sun, claiming that holidaying politicians were not taking the terror threat seriously enough. On 3 August, The Sun raged against holidaying MPs: "LET'S HOPE THE BOMBERS ARE ON HOLIDAY TOO". On 5 August an open letter from Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of The Sun, was headlined: "DEAR MPs, SIX WEEKS HOLIDAY IS ENOUGH FOR ANYONE". Then on 6 August, as Tony Blair flew to the West Indies with his family, The Sun headline was much more reassuring: "VICTORY FOR SUN OVER NEW TERROR LAWS." RICIN In early 2003 just as the Government was seeking to persuade the British people to wage war against Saddam Hussein in order to prevent him distributing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, the police made a significant announcement. They had, they said, foiled a terrorist ring in its attempt to launch a chemical attack in Britain using the deadly poison ricin. According to a press release from Scotland Yard issued in the names of the deputy chief medical officer, Dr Pat Troop, and Assistant Commissioner David Veness of the Metropolitan Police, ricin had been found in a flat in Wood Green, north London. The Government latched on to the news. On 7 January, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and the Health Secretary, John Reid, issued a joint statement stating that "traces of ricin" had been found. The Prime Minister joined in by warning that the discovery highlighted the dangers from weapons of mass destruction, adding: "The arrests which were made show this danger is present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge." It is unusual, and potentially prejudicial, for ministers to comment on upcoming court cases. Nevertheless, as the ricin case moved towards trial, ministers continued to regard the ricin trial as an important publicity resource. In due course, the trial judge was provoked into warning the Home Secretary to curb his public remarks for fear of prejudicing the case. No ricin was ever found in the Wood Green flat - just a small number of ingredients for the manufacture of ricin. The announcement from David Veness and Pat Troop that "a small amount of the material recovered from the Wood Green premises has tested positive for the presence of ricin poison" was misleading: the tests were only capable of indicating that ricin might be present. But they did not establish its presence. On 7 January, chemical weapons experts at the government research facility at Porton Down carried out more accurate tests into the presence of ricin. These tests established that there was no ricin. Curiously, Porton Down apparently did not pass on this information to the British Government until late March. And apparently the Government never asked for the results of this definitive test. The existence of ricin continued to be proclaimed for over two years. OLD TRAFFORD In April 2004, the British people were alerted to an amazing coup. They learned how the police had seized a terrorist gang just as it prepared to launch an audacious bomb attack on Old Trafford stadium on match day, an attack which could have killed thousands of people. It was a national sensation. And yet there was not a shred of truth in the story. Unlike in the ricin case, the Government cannot be blamed. The police and, to an extent the media, are responsible for the invention. On the morning of Monday 19 April 2004, more than 400 officers from four police forces, many of them armed, raided half a dozen houses, flats and businesses in and around Manchester. They arrested eight men, one woman and a 16-year-old boy. They were held for several days and intensively interrogated. In due course the suspects were released. No charges were ever laid. The newspapers, by contrast, had no doubt about what the story was. The front page of The Sun proclaimed: "MAN U SUICIDE BOMB PLOT". On pages four and five the paper claimed: "EXCLUSIVE: MAN UTD SUICIDE BLASTS FOILED". Once the story had started to run, it was further fuelled by the Manchester police. Rather than issue a cool denial, they played it up by holding a press conference. The accompanying press release read: "We are confident that the steps that we have taken to date have significantly reduced any potential threat in the Greater Manchester area." With the weekend fixtures looming, it went on: "Greater Manchester Police and Manchester United Football Club have put in place extra security measures to reassure the public about the safety of both matches." The police and security services have, very properly, refused to discuss what intelligence led to the raids of 19 April being made. But the police interrogations of the suspects shed a ray of light. One of the suspects, a Kurd, suffered so badly from having his name linked to a terrorist plot that he wants to remain anonymous. He told me how Old Trafford had cropped up in his interrogation: "I was in the police station and the interview stopped, like a rest, and somebody, they bring in the coffee and they ask me what you like? I say I like the football. Oh, who do you support? They ask me just like a friendly, who do you support? I say Manchester United. Oh, how long you support Manchester United? I said a long time I support Manchester United, when I was tiny, I was small, you know and all my family supported Manchester United ... they asked me, have you been football ground? I said, of course I've been to the football ground. Two years ago, long time ago, I can't remember." These questions were surely prompted by the discovery, at the anonymous suspect's flat, of Manchester United paraphernalia: a poster of Old Trafford, and ticket stubs the suspect had kept as souvenirs of his only visit to the ground, when he had gone with a friend to watch United play Arsenal the year before. The two friends had bought their tickets from touts, which meant that they sat at different parts of the ground. The Sun reported that the bombers planned to sit at different parts of the ground, in order to cause maximum damage with their bombs. This claim can only have been based on the fact that the old ticket stubs found by the police were for seats in different parts of the stadium. This information had not been made public, so The Sun could only have obtained it from the police. The Kurds I spoke to had come to Britain in order to escape the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. Perhaps their most meaningful emotional connection with Britain was a love for Manchester United, which was why they kept the souvenirs in their flat. The Manchester police discovered nothing else suspicious. Nevertheless the police probably viewed the Manchester United souvenirs as potential evidence of a bomb plot. This evidence was then prematurely leaked, through unofficial police sources, to the press. Manchester police then encouraged the story to run by issuing public statements that, while falling a long way short of giving outright confirmation, could be read as corroborating the story. Disgracefully, the Greater Manchester Police refused to launch an investigation into the numerous leaks. The reporting of this incident was inflammatory and misleading. It caused needless alarm among millions of TV viewers and newspaper readers. It stirred up anti-Islamic prejudice. It ruined the lives of several of the suspects. They lost their homes, their jobs and their friends as a result. They have never received a personal apology, either from the police or from the press. MUSLIM WORKING GROUPS In the wake of the London bombings, the Prime Minister made a series of announcements aimed at averting another catastrophe. One of the most visible was the setting up of seven task forces to investigate Muslim extremism and to recommend initiatives for tackling it. This was a considerable enterprise by any standards, requiring deep learning and insight, and generous resources. But Tony Blair's task forces into the roots of Muslim extremism were given six weeks to do their business. They seem to have met just three times before reaching their conclusions. One of the Muslim leaders involved, the Liberal Democrat peer Kishwer Falkner, told us: "When we agreed to be on the working groups and we were told what the deadlines were, we were taken aback. We spoke to one another and queried whether we were just being set up as a tokenistic exercise, because it didn't seem to me, in the middle of August, when half the country is on holiday, that two or three meetings of a couple of hours each would set right a host of intractable and difficult long-term problems to do with how we co-exist, how we integrate with each other. Falkner feels that the recommendation of her working parties were second-guessed by the Prime Minister's 12-point plan, announced just two weeks after the working parties were set up. She says she was: "... completely dismayed, within days of being set up, to discover in the speech the Prime Minister made on 5 August, that he was proceeding full steam ahead with a raft of measures without waiting for us to come up with our recommendations, or indeed our analysis of the problems. And the raft of measures was completely counter to reducing alienation and extremism. In fact, if anything, it was going to increase alienation in terms of the Muslim community. Her criticism was echoed by Haras Rafiq, co-founder of Bridges TV (UK), a Muslim television organisation which will start broadcasting later this year. He told us: "The brief was to find ways or find a solution to the problem of extremism and radicalisation within the Muslim community. Now let's just reflect on that. Find a solution for extremism and radicalisation in the Muslim community in the UK, that's a huge piece of work. It isn't something that can be tackled, you know, in the space of a month, two months. The whole process smacked to me a little bit of presentationalism and to be seen to be doing something rather than actually producing an effective and constructive piece of work." It is hard to regard these task forces as a great deal more than some shallow spin from the Government. In the three years before the London bombings, the Government had commissioned two major enquiries into the problems of Muslim segregation and extremism - Ted Cantle's report in the wake of the Bradford riots and a government report of 2004, Young Muslims and Extremism - and largely dismissed both. The idea that Tony Blair's h urriedly formed and short-lived Muslim working groups could provide a better analysis than either of these two earlier studies was absurd. CONCLUSION The Government has persistently failed to tell the truth either to itself or to the British public about the terror threat in Britain. These failures of diagnosis have led to failures of response. An example is the Prime Minister's denial that there is a connection between the Iraq war and domestic terrorism. That denial is not merely false. It also inhibits the kind of deep understanding of the motives of Muslim terrorists which the Prime Minister presumably wants. The defeat in the House of Commons of the Government's proposals for 90 days detention without trial for terrorist suspects was represented at the time as an indication of Tony Blair's political weakness. This analysis missed the point. That Commons defeat signalled a national crisis in public trust in politicians, the police and the security services. Consider this: the Prime Minister of the day, fully backed by the police, had thrown his weight behind a measure he described as crucial for national security and the fight against terrorism. And yet it was comfortably rejected by MPs. This collapse in trust has come about because few people now believe what the Prime Minister, the security services and the police tell us about security matters. This dissonance is a massive problem. Britain today faces a threat from international and domestic terrorism which is far more dangerous and insidious than anything it has confronted before. We need to trust our politicians, our police, and the media. But that trust has been betrayed. This is an edited extract taken from The Use and Abuse of Terror - The Construction of a False Narrative on the Domestic Terror Threat, published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. Peter Oborne is also presenting a Channel 4 documentary 'Dispatches: Spinning Terror' on Monday at 8pm. Also in this section © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 4 [IACBoston] Stop War On Iran Campaign Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:24:50 -0600 (CST) *Join Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Howard Zinn, Harold Pinter, Bishop Filipe C. Teixeira, George Galloway, Ramsey Clark, Tony Benn, and others in an * * ****International Campaign to *STOP *the War on Iran before it starts! * *StopWarOnIran.org* ** Click *here* to Send emails to Bush, Cheney, Congress, the UN, and the media saying No War On Iran! ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Stop the war on Iran before it starts!* *Sign the statement * It is with grave concern that we observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran. The media is filled with reports of an alleged nuclear threat posed by Iran and the assumed need for the U.S. to take military action. These reports recall the *Help place this ad in major newspapers across the U.S.* *Donate to help get the word out * StopWarOnIran.org, a grassroots effort, has launched a massive public education campaign to oppose the drive towards a new war against the people of Iran. As part of this effort, we need your help to place this full page ad in major newspapers across the U.S. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" stories issued in the months leading up to the war on Iraq. In the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration asserted that Iraq possessed massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that it was capable of launching an attack - nuclear, chemical and biological - on the U.S. within 45 minutes. President Bush said that the U.S. had to attack immediately, and could not "wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." We all know now that this propaganda campaign was a complete fabrication created to justify a war of aggression. Now we see reports that are all too similar being made to justify military action against the people of Iran. Taking Iran to the UN Security Council is a prelude for unilateral action. Just as in the case of Iraq, none of the claims made by the U.S. government stand up to unbiased scrutiny. Iran has submitted to the most intrusive and humiliating inspections, above and beyond what is required by Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). None of the inspections have found any evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. There is only one government that has used nuclear weapons against civilian populations, and that same nation has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction on the planet. Most dangerous and incredible it is at this very moment developing a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons that it intends to use, not merely to threaten. That country is, of course, the United States. Shouldn't any real discussion of the dangers of nuclear weapons include the weapons stockpiled by the Pentagon and the history of U.S. aggression and interventions? Iran has suffered greatly at the hands of the U.S. We recall the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. M. Mossadegh and returned the Shah to the Peacock Throne "the proudest achievement of the CIA". For 25 years the Shah ruled Iran with an iron fist for the benefit of U.S. oil corporations before the people of Iran, in the millions, overthrew his tyranny at a terrible cost in lives. For the past 27 years U.S. sanctions have impeded Iran's right to development and brought great suffering to the people. It is essential that all voices opposed to the devastation of a new war in the Middle East speak out now. We urge an immediate end to Washington's campaign of sanctions, hostility, and falsehood against the people of Iran. We oppose any new U.S. aggression against Iran. We need funds for human needs, not endless war for empire. *Initial Signers* (add your name) *Bishop Thomas Gumbleton*, Detroit Archdiocese, Founding President of Pax Christi* * The Most Rev. Filipe C. Teixeira*, OFSJC, Diocesan Bishop, Diocese of Saint Francis of Assisi, CCA * Michael Parenti*, author * Ramsey Clark*, former U.S. Attorney General *Howard Zinn*, author, historian *George Galloway*, MP, Britain *Tony Benn*, MP, Britain *Harold Pinter*, 2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature *Margarita Papandreou*, former First Lady of Greece *Ardeshir Ommani*, co-founder of American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) *David Sole*, President UAW, Local 2334*, Detroit *Steve Gillis*, President, USWA Local 8751* *Elena Everett*, Chair, NC Green Party*, Co-Chair, GPAX (Green Party Peace Action Committee)* *Dirk Adriaensens*, coordinator SOS Iraq, exec. committee Brussells Tribunal) *Hani Y. Awadallah*, President, Arab American Civic Organization *Axis of Logic* *Dr. Barbara Nimri Aziz*, Executive producer of RadioTahrir-WBAI-NY *Brian Barraza*, AMAT, Association of Mexican American Workers *Sharon Black*, All Peoples Congress *Jean Bricmont*, Brussels Tribunal *Brookline PeaceWorks* *John Catalinotto*, Editor Metal of Dishonor *Ed Childs*, Chief Steward, Unite Here Local #26* *Michel Collon*, writer, publicist, Stop USA *Heather Cottin*, Freeport Community Worklink Center* *Tiphaine Dickson*, attorney *LeiLani Dowell*, Queers for Peace & Justice *Gregory Elich*, author, researcher ***Leslie Feinberg*, Nat'l Lgbt Caucus Co-chair, National Writers' Union/UAW*, Jersey City, NJ *Sara Flounders*, International Action Center *Lenora Foerstel*, Vice Pres. Women for Mutual Security* *Tiokasin Ghosthorse*, First Voices Indigenous Radio *Peter Gilbert*, FIST - Fight Imperialism, Stand Together *Farrukh Sohail Goindi*, Foundation for Democracy-Pakistan *Teresa Gutierrez*, NY Committee to Free the Cuba 5 *Samia Halaby*, Defend Palestine, NYC *Klaus Hartmann*, Chairman, German Freethinkers Association *Jesse Lokahi Heiwa*, QueerJustice.org *Imani Henry*, Playwright/Performer *Nellie Hester Bailey*, Harlem Tenants Council *Sherif Hetata*, MD, novelist,International Coordinating Committee of the Mediterranean Social Forum* *Larry Holmes*, Troops Out Now Coalition *Yoomi Jeong*, Korea Truth Commission *Berta Joubert-Ceci*, Philadelphia International Action Center *Charlotte Kates*, NJ Solidarity Activists for the Liberation of Palestine *Khadouri al-Kaysi*, Committee to Support the Iraqi People *Nada Khader*, Director of WESPAC* Foundation *Beth Lamont*, NY Humanist Society* *Dustin Langley*, No We Wont Go counter-recruiting network *Robert Merrill*, Ph.D.,Professor, Maryland Institute College of Art*, Baltimore, MD *MLK, Jr. Bolivarian Circle*, Boston *Monica Moorehead*, Millions for Mumia *New England Human Rights for Haiti* *Erik-Anders Nilsson*, Jersey City Peace Movement *Eleanor Ommani*, American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) *John Parker*, LeftBooks.com *Pam Parker*, shop steward, Washington/Baltimore Newspaper Guild(WBNG) #32035 *Rostam Pourzal*, Iranian Cultural Association*, Washington DC *Ralph Poynter*, New Abolitionist Movement* *Minnie Bruce Pratt*, Lesbian Author/activist, National Writers Union*, Jersey City, NJ *Anne Pruden*, 1199 SEIU delegate* *Milos Raickovich*, composer, New York *Gloria Rubac*, Steward, Houston Federation of Teachers, Local 2415* *Nawal El Saadawi*, Writer and Psychiatrist, President, Arab Women's Solidarity Association*, *Njeri Shakur*, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement *Nana Soul*, Artists and Activists United for Peace *Annie & Buddy Spell*, Covington Peace Project, Covington LA *Lynne Stewart*, attorney *Lynne Stewart Defense Committee* *Johnnie Stevens*, Peoples Video Network *Brenda Stokely*, New York City Labor Against the War *Mark Lewis Taylor*, Professor of Religion & Culture, Princeton Theological Seminary* *Nadja Tesich*, Author, Playwright, Poet *Usavior*, Artists and Activists United for Peace *Tony Van Der Meer*, Prof. Univ. of Massachusetts, Boston* *Klaus von Raussendorff*, Association for International Solidarity*, Germany *Michael Tarif Warren*, attorney *Dave Welsh*, Delegate, San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO* *Walter Williams*, People Judge Bush *How Your Can Help:* *Sign your name* *Make a donation * *Download Lies, Lies, Lies - Bush, Iraq and Iran * *Download the Stop War on Iran petition ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **StopWarOnIran.org * *StopWarOnIran@StopWarOnIran.org * -- ******************************************* Troops Out Now Coalition Boston: 617-522-6626 iacboston@iacboston.org http://www.iacboston.org National Office: 212-633-6646 http://troopsoutnow.org Anyone can subscribe. Send an email request to IACBoston-subscribe@organizerweb.com To unsubscribe IACBoston-unsubscribe@organizerweb.com Subscribing and unsubscribing can also be done on the Web at http://www.organizerweb.com/mailman/listinfo/iacboston ***************************************************************** 5 [NYTr] IRAN: US war drive makes diplomatic advance Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:49:54 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Green Left Weekly - Feb 15, 2006 http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/656/656p17.htm IRAN: US war drive makes diplomatic advance by Doug Lorimer Following two years of intense lobbying by the US government, an emergency meeting of the governing board of the UN's Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a resolution on February 4 requesting IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei to report on Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council after the next regular IAEA board meeting, scheduled for March 6. The next day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad informed the IAEA that in retaliation his government would cease its voluntary implementation of an additional protocol to Iran's 1974 nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The additional protocol, which Iran has not ratified and is therefore not legally bound to abide by, allows IAEA inspectors to make spot checks on Iran's nuclear facilities. According to a report on Iranian state television, Ahmadinejad informed the IAEA that his country would henceforth only abide by its legal obligations under the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its ratified safeguards agreement. The February 4 resolution, which was presented by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) with Washington's backing, was voted for by 27 of the board's 35 member-countries, including the five permanent members of the Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US). Three countries (Cuba, Venezuela and Syria) voted against, while five (Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa) abstained. While reported in the Western corporate media as "referring" Iran to the Security Council for possible punitive "action", the resolution, at the insistence of Russia and China, requests ElBaradei to "report to the Security Council ... all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to" the following steps that the IAEA board "deems it necessary" that Iran undertake: * "re-establish full and sustained suspension of all [uranium] enrichment-related and processing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the agency. * "reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water; * "ratify promptly and implement in full additional protocol" to its current nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Neither the NPT nor Iran's safeguards agreement requires Iran to comply with any of these demands. Non-fulfilment of them therefore does not put Iran in "non-compliance" with its international treaty obligations, the only legal grounds for the Security Council to authorise punitive "action". Associated Press reported on February 5: "In recent days, the diplomatic debate at the United Nations on the issue has focused on two words -- 'reporting' Iran to the council or 'referring' it. "The distinction reflects a fundamental difference in view. The Russians and Chinese do not mind if the council is informed of the IAEA's dealings with Iran, but they do not want the IAEA to 'refer' Iran to the council. That, they believe, would give the impression that the IAEA was washing its hands of Iran and asking the council to take the lead." "We and China can accept informing of the Security Council, which is quite normal", Russia's UN ambassador, Andrey Denisov, told AP. "That is the right of the Security Council to get any information it needs. But not referral, not official submitting, not handing it to the Security Council." However, John Bolton, Washington's UN ambassador, told reporters that "there is no difference" between having the IAEA board "report" or "refer" Iran's case to the Security Council. He added: "It's been the view of the United States that the Iran clandestine nuclear weapons program should be on the agenda of the [Security] Council. That has been our view for three years." For several years now, Washington has alleged -- without being able to provide any evidence -- that Iran's research into the production of low-enriched uranium (uranium containing at least 5% of the rare, fissionable, uranium 235 isotope) as a fuel for nuclear energy production is a cover for a secret program to make a nuclear weapon. Weapons-grade enriched uranium is extremely difficult to produce, as it requires at least 25 kilograms of uranium with a U-235 concentration of at least 90% to make a nuclear weapon. Washington's case against Iran is based on the same sort of lies and misinformation that US President George Bush peddled in the lead-up to his March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Providing an example of how US officials publicly distort the facts to make their case against Iran, in testimony given on February 2 to the US Senate intelligence committee, US national intelligence director John Negroponte claimed that "Iran conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement". In fact, Iran has yet to begin operations of its planned "uranium enrichment program". It has only conducted research into how to make low-enriched uranium as a nuclear fuel, research that it was not required to report to the IAEA under its safeguards agreement. Under the unratified additional protocol to its safeguards agreement, which it voluntarily agreed to abide by in December 2003, Iran was required to provide full disclosure of all its nuclear-related activities since its safeguards agreement came into effect in 1974. As a result of these disclosures, the IAEA learned that Iran had imported small quantities of fissionable materials, with a total U-235 content of 0.13 kilograms, and had engaged in laboratory-scale activities involving those materials that ought to have been reported to the IAEA, but were not. Washington used this minor technical breach by Iran to pressure the IAEA board to adopt a resolution in September 2004 finding Iran in "non-compliance" with the additional protocol. Since then, however, Iran has provided full disclosure on these activities, thus meeting the requirements of the additional protocol. In 2004, the IAEA also learned about similar unreported activities by South Korea. However because South Korea is militarily allied to the US, neither Washington nor its EU allies have pushed for the IAEA board to report or refer South Korea to the Security Council. Washington's goal in getting Iran referred to the Security Council is to prepare the way for a future Iraq-style US-led invasion of Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter. In January 2005, renowned US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that in interviews with past and present US intelligence and military officials, "I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran". Hersh was also told that the White House had ordered the Pentagon to update its invasion plans for Iran. Writing in the January 16, 2005 New Yorker magazine, he reported: "Strategists at the headquarters of the US Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran." As was the case with the US invasion of oil-rich Iraq, the aim of a US invasion of Iran will be to install a pro-US government that will enable the big US oil corporations to take control of Iran's nationalised oil industry. This will give the US capitalist rulers a stranglehold over Persian Gulf oil exports, and thus the dominant position in the world oil market. The biggest obstacle facing Washington in implementing this plan is that its military is bogged down in neighbouring Iraq, trying -- unsuccessfully -- to defeat a large-scale war of guerrilla resistance by patriotic Iraqis. Invading and occupying Iran, a country with almost four times the territorial area and three times the population of Iraq, would place far greater strain on the already overstretched US Army. According to a 136-page study for the Pentagon by Andrew Krepinevich, a retired US Army officer, the US Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to defeat the anti-occupation insurgency. Some major army divisions are serving their second year-long tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times. In addition to the strain on the US Army of having to impose prolonged multiple tours of duty, the Iraqi insurgency has also forced the US military to refuse to release around 50,000 soldiers whose service contracts have expired. "As the war in Iraq drags on, the army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force", US defence analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think-tank told Reuters on January 28. "When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you're edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism" toward a conscript army. Reactivation of the draft would be highly unpopular, unless Washington, using the UN as "legal" cover, can convince the majority of the US public that it is necessary to defeat an imminent threat of direct nuclear attack upon US cities. This is why Washington needs to portray Iran as posing just such a threat. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 6 [NYTr] Are Americans Sold on anti-Iran Nuclear Hysteria? Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:49:59 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit UPI via Info Clearing House - Feb 14, 2006 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11913.htm Americans think Iran may use nukes By United Press International 02/14/06 (UPI) -- A USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll says Americans not only think Iran will develop nuclear weapons but also use them against the United States. The poll done over the last weekend also says Americans fear the Bush administration will be "too quick" to order military action against Iran, USA Today reported Tuesday. The poll said eight out of 10 respondents predicted Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to attack the United States or Israel. Six out of 10 respondents said Iran itself would deploy nuclear weapons against the United States. On Prophet Mohammed cartoons, six out of 10 said the European newspapers that published them acted irresponsibly. But, by a 3-to-1 margin, they blamed the resulting furor on Muslims' intolerance of different points of views, the newspaper said. The poll said 55 percent showed lack of confidence in the administration's ability to handle the situation in Iran. President Bush's approval rating dipped to 39 percent, showing the State of the Union address and other subsequent speeches did not help lift the president's ratings. The majority of the respondents (55 percent) also said the war in Iraq was a mistake. Only 31 percent, the lowest so far, believed the United States and its allies are winning in Iraq. ) Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Foreign Minister to Meet With EU From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday February 15, 2006 5:46 PM By ROBERT WIELAARD Associated Press Writer BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki will meet Monday with the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee, a spokesman for the panel said. The idea for the visit came from Iran and showed a readiness in Tehran to ``return to a dialogue'' with Europe, the spokesman, Thomas Bickel, said Wednesday. The committee ``will meet with Mottaki in a special session Monday evening'' starting at 1730 GMT, he said. On Tuesday, the EU told Iran it wanted to normalize relations, but reiterated Tehran's nuclear ambitions and shaky human rights record were making that impossible. Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, had a lengthy telephone conversation with Mottaki on Tuesday evening. Plassnik told him that the 25-member bloc hoped for positive developments, but it depended on Iran addressing all the EU's concerns, the bloc said in a statement. The EU and the United States object to Iran's decision to enrich uranium. The EU-Iran relationship has soured in recent months after anti-Israel comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and attacks against EU diplomatic missions in Tehran following the publication of cartoons in Denmark depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Iran announced it has resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium, showing it was determined to proceed with its atomic development despite international moves to restrict it. Iran maintains its nuclear program is designed solely to generate electricity, but the United States and Israel claim the program is a cover for producing an atomic bomb. Iran insists that as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which provides for peaceful nuclear development, it is entitled to enrich uranium for nuclear reactors. It has threatened to withdraw from the treaty if it was not allowed to exercise that right. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Sets Rules to Back Iran Nuke Plan From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday February 15, 2006 4:46 PM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Russia's foreign minister said Wednesday that Iran must eliminate international concerns it could use its nuclear program to make weapons before Moscow will support Tehran's right to domestically enrich uranium. ``Generally and in principle when confidence in the Iranian nuclear program is re-established ... we could come back to the possible implementation of the right that Iran has to develop a nuclear energy sector full scale,'' Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Vienna. He declined to confirm news reports that Russian officials planned to meet with their Iranian counterparts in Moscow on Monday to discuss a plan that would move enrichment - which can make either atomic fuel or the fissile core of nuclear warheads. But Lavrov suggested that - over the longer term - the Russian offer, which would strip the Iranians of direct control of enrichment, was contingent on Tehran accepting a full and indefinite moratorium on plans to enrich uranium domestically. ``We are prepared to continue these negotiations, but ... Iran has to return to the moratorium'' on enrichment, he told reporters. Russia over the past two months has come to play an increasingly active role in U.S.-backed European efforts meant to pressure Iran to return to a freeze on enrichment activities, and its offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program has become a centerpiece of international efforts to defuse tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran insists it is permitted to enrich under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but its critics say it forfeited that right because of serious international doubts about whether its nuclear ambitions are peaceful. Iran officially ended a freeze on enrichment and related activities Jan. 10, when it removed IAEA seals on equipment and began uranium conversion to make the gas that, when spun in centrifuges, yields enriched uranium. On Tuesday, the Iranians confirmed they had gone even further, saying they had started to introduce gas into several centrifuges in a small-scale operation representing the final stage of enrichment. Although Lavrov refused to be drawn an any date for talks with the Iranians on the issue, Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency cited a Russian Embassy official in Tehran that the two sides will meet in Moscow on Monday on the issue. The Iranian government informed Russian officials about their intention to participate in the negotiations on Feb. 20 - four days later than originally planned, the ITAR-Tass news agency quoted an embassy official as saying. ``The Russian side has agreed to this,'' the Russian diplomat said on condition of anonymity. The two sides had initially set Feb. 16 as a date for talks in Moscow. But after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 4, Tehran suspended some cooperation with the U.N. watchdog agency and said it would resume small-scale enrichment of uranium. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian President Visits Uranium Plant From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday February 15, 2006 10:01 PM AP Photo XHS105 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the Natanz uranium enrichment plant Wednesday, a day after Tehran confirmed it had resumed small-scale enrichment there last week, the official news agency reported. Ahmadinejad's visit to the plant in central Iran is widely seen as a gesture of support and a morale boost for scientists involved in Iran's uranium enrichment program. Activities at Natanz had been suspended since October 2003. ``What enemies fear is not production of an atomic bomb, because in today's world atomic bombs are not efficient,'' Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the Islamic Republic News Agency. ``The main fear and concern of enemies is the self-reliance and knowledge of the Iranian nation and the fact that Iranian youth are acquiring peaceful nuclear technology.'' Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh and other top officials of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran accompanied the president on his visit, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. ``The success of the Iranian nation in acquiring peaceful nuclear technology will help the country to make progress in all fields,'' Ahmadinejad said. Iran insists its nuclear program is designed solely to generate electricity. Many Western nations, led by the United States and Israel, fear Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons and have sought to stop Iran from enriching uranium. On Feb. 4, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council and called on its government to suspend all enrichment-related activities. Instead, Iran suspended certain aspects of its co-operation with the IAEA. On Wednesday, a Russian Embassy official confirmed that Russia and Iran would hold talks in Moscow on Monday on Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Tehran. Moscow has offered to host Iranian enrichment in Russia, where it would have better oversight - a proposal meant to ease an international standoff over Tehran's nuclear program. Also, a spokesman for the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee said Iran's foreign minister would meet the panel on Monday, a possible indication that Tehran was prepared to return to a dialogue with Europe. Iranian officials announced Tuesday that enrichment had resumed last week at Natanz but that large-scale enrichment, as required for producing fuel for nuclear reactors, had not resumed. Aghazadeh, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said resumption of uranium enrichment was limited to ``a few centrifuges.'' Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium. Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel for reactors and further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons. Iran had 164 centrifuges in Natanz sealed by the IAEA in 2003. The seals were removed last month when Iran resumed nuclear research. Iranian officials have indicated that Tehran may possess up to 2,000 centrifuges. For a large-scale enrichment, Iran has to build up to 60,000 centrifuges. Iran insists that as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which provides for peaceful nuclear development, it is entitled to enrich uranium for nuclear reactors. It has threatened to withdraw from the treaty if it was not allowed to exercise that right. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Asks for $75M for Democracy in Iran From the Associated Press [UP] February 15, 2006 3:31 PM AP Photo DCMC102 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress on Wednesday for $75 million this year to build democracy in Iran, saying the U.S. must support Iranians who are seeking freedoms under what she called a radical regime. The money, to be included in an emergency 2006 budget request the White House is expected to send to Congress as early as this week, will be used for radio and satellite television broadcasting and for programs to help Iranians study abroad. ``The United States wishes to reach out to the Iranian people and support their desire to realize their own freedom and to secure their own democratic and human rights. The Iranian people should know that the United States fully supports their aspirations for a freer, better future,'' Rice testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Over the past two years, Rice said, the State Department has invested more than $4 million in projects aimed at empowering Iranian citizens in their call for political and economic freedoms and in the current budget year will invest at least $10 million in such efforts. The $75 million is in addition to that money, which Congress already has approved. Rice said the United States is working with non-governmental organizations to develop a support network for political dissidents and human rights activists while paying for programs that train labor activists and help protect them from the ``radical regime'' in Tehran. The United States has not had diplomatic ties with Iran since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Iran and maintains broad economic sanctions against the Islamic regime. She said the State Department is working with the Treasury Department to ensure barriers are open that allows the United States to pay for scholarships and fellowships for Iranians. ``Through its aggressive and confrontational behavior, Iran is increasingly isolating itself from the international community,'' Rice said. An Iranian official said Tuesday that his country has resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium, putting that nation on a path that others fear could be a step toward producing fuel for an atomic bomb. The U.S. and many European countries are maneuvering to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council in hopes of pressuring Tehran into backing away from its nuclear program. ``They have now crossed a point where they are in open defiance of the international community,'' Rice said. She declined to detail what sanctions the United States is pursuing, although she did acknowledge that the United States has analyzed the impact of oil sanctions on Iran. Whatever the result, Rice said, the international community must be united in a punishment that sends a strong message to the Iranian regime without hurting the Iranian people. ``You will see us trying to walk a fine line in actions we take,'' Rice said. In addition to Iran, senators were expected to pepper Rice with questions on a host of international issues, many of which have arisen since she last appeared before Congress in October. Those include an impending takeover of the Palestinian government by Hamas, an Islamic group that won a decisive majority in Palestinian legislative elections last month. ``We will continue to insist that the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace,'' Rice said. On Tuesday, United States and Israeli officials denied reports that they were plotting ways to topple the militant group's incoming government unless it renounces its violent ideology and recognizes Israel's right to exist. Also on the agenda during the hearing was the political and economic situation in Iraq. In Iraq, the fledgling democracy's leading Shiite bloc has chosen Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to serve another term and lead the country's new government. The U.S. wants al-Jaafari to form a national unity government with Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds, hoping that will rein in the violence that has raged since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003. Although lawmakers acknowledge progress politically in Iraq, some express frustration over what they say is the administration's lack of adequate action on repairing Iraq's oil production infrastructure and fully restoring its water and electrical power. Rice was to appear before the committee on Tuesday, but the session was postponed a day because of Senate floor votes. --- Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to this story from Washington ^--- On the Net: Department of State: http://www.state.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: President tours Natanz Nuclear Facility Tehran, Feb 15, IRNA Iran-Ahmadinejad-Nuclear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday toured various sections of Natanz Nuclear Facility and was briefed on the progress made by Iranian experts in making access to nuclear technology for peaceful use. A report released by the Presidential Office Media Department said that after the tour the president delivered a speech at the gathering of the administrators in charge of the facility. Turning to the ongoing hue and cry aiming to deprive Iran of its right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, he noted that what the enemies are afraid of is not production of nuclear bomb, given that in the world of today, nuclear weapons are of no use. "They are rather concerned over and panicked by self-sufficiency and knowledge of the Iranian nation and the progress of youth in the nuclear field," he added. Stressing that the achievements of the Iranian nation in the field are irreversible, Ahmadinejad said that with their participation in the great rallies of Bahman 22 (February 11) they proved to the world that they support the Iranian experts and young scholars involved in nuclear activities. The chief executive appreciated the sincere efforts of domestic nuclear experts and said, "Though your main concern is to produce nuclear fuel, your attempts to this end will result in more precious outcomes. Ahmadinejad pointed out that access to advanced knowledge and technologies as well as restoration of self-confidence of the young generation are some of the results of such efforts. "The feeling that despite all deprivations and threats, the Iranian nation has made one of its greatest achievements on account of its knowledge and potentials, gives momentum for a big leap in all fields." The president added Iran's access to peaceful nuclear knowledge will cause the country to achieve progress and development in all fields. Appreciating the progress made by the country in the field of peaceful nuclear technology, the president said, "There is no end to the work and we can always increase the speed of progress and decrease the side expenses by innovation, initiatives and inventions." 2326/1391/1771 ***************************************************************** 12 Xinhua: Europe urges UN's involvement in Iran nuke issue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-16 08:56:25 BRUSSELS, Feb. 15 (Xinhuanet) -- The European Parliament (EP) adopted in Strasbourg on Wednesday a resolution, calling for UN Security Council involvement in Iran nuclear issue. The resolution affirms that this issue must be resolved in accordance with the rules of international law, and considers that the involvement of the UN Security Council is "a necessary step. " Through the resolution, the EP expressed its "deep concern" regarding the present attitude of the Iranian authorities to Iran's nuclear program, notably to the removal of seals at several nuclear installations, and its decision to resume enrichment-related activities. The resolution says that the EP supports the IAEA Board of Governors' decision to ask the Director General of the IAEA to report to the UN Security Council and elaborate on all the reports and resolutions adopted by the IAEA in relation to this issue. The EP considers that the involvement of the UN Security Council "constitutes a necessary step in order to assess the present situation," and that such move would "prevent a further deterioration of the present situation." "In accordance with the IAEA resolution, it is necessary for Iran to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, to reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, to ratify promptly and resume full implementation of the Additional Protocol and, in general terms, to implement the transparency measures requested by the IAEA Director General," said the document. The EP also reiterated its condemnation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threatening remarks against Israel, saying that they "are not conducive to trust in the intentions of the Iranian Government to adopt a peaceful and constructive role in the Middle East." It also called on Iran to "refrain from any threat against any state and to act with respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter." The EP's resolution is legally non-binding within the European Union (EU), but it is of political significance within the 25-member bloc. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 IRNA: Russia voices strong opposition to sanctions against Iran Vienna, Feb 15, IRNA Iran-Russia-Nuclear Russian Foreign Minister voiced here Wednesday his country's strong opposition to any possible sanctions against Iran. Sergei Lavrov who is in Austrian Capital for talks with the European Troika -France, Britain and Germany- said in a press conference that sanctions have never resolved any row. "On the contrary sanctions have always been an impetus for intensifying disagreements," He added. "If we want Tehran to honor its commitments to the international community and continue with its transparent nuclear program, then the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should resume its activities in Iran," the Russian Foreign Minister underlined. "We should also urge Iran to return to the negotiating table," he said. The Austrian Foreign Minister, whose country is the current rotating head of EU, also called on Tehran to take advantage of remaining time till the UN National Security Council takes up Iran's nuclear dossier. He also said that all efforts should be focused on diplomatic means to resolve the nuclear row. In related news, Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Gholam-Reza Ansari here Tuesday assessed Russia's proposal for joint uranium enrichment with Iran as "constructive". Ansari's remarks were part of his address to reporters at the Russian State Duma (lower chamber of Parliament). "The proposal has the potential of resolving the issue if its shortcomings and disadvantages are removed" he said. "If the two countries' experts hold talks to discuss details of the offer they can undoubtedly find solutions to its shortcomings," he added. He was optimistic on the outcome of talks scheduled to be held between the Iranian and Russian delegations on Feb 20 to discuss Russia's proposal to diffuse the crisis over Iran's nuclear activities. ***************************************************************** 14 IRNA: Iranian, Venezuelan parliaments call nuclear arms int'l threat Part II) Caracas, Feb 16, IRNA Iran-Venezuela-Nuclear The Iranian and Venezuelan Parliament Speakers have, keeping in mind the broad violation of the oppressed Palestinian nation's most natural human rights, emphasized the need for launching bilateral and multilateral efforts aimed at backing up the righteous ideals of the Palestinian nation. They also asked the international organizations, and particularly the United Nations to spend more serious efforts aimed at supporting the legitimate rights of Palestinians. The two countries' Parliament Speakers expressed their satisfaction over the existence of excellent political relations between Iran and Venezuela and emphasized the need to respect the international laws and regulations. They also asked for improvement of economic, educational, health, employment, and food security in their counties, and for adopting measures to uproot poverty, achieve trade ties with the world based on justice, and preserving the environment, ethnic and cultural diversity in their societies. The communique reflects the two Speakers' belief in need for improving the living standards of the world nations through boosting international cooperation, and their proposal for multilateral measures aimed at the purpose. It adds, "Any unilateral move by countries aimed at exertion of their hegemony is a serious threat against international peace and security and seriously condemned." The Iranian and Venezuelan Parliament Speakers agreed on the point that multilateral exchange of opinion in Latin America is a positive move toward solving that region's problems and asked for implementing the comprehensive bilateral economic-social-cultural agreement signed in the year 2004. ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: Russia hints domestic Iranian uranium enrichment a possibility - Wed Feb 15, 2:46 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hinted that Russia could back Iran" /> Iran's enriching uranium on its own if Tehran convinced the international community it does not seek nuclear weapons. But he stressed that this could only come after Iran re-establishes good faith with the UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), which insists that Iran suspend work on enrichment, the process that makes nuclear fuel but also atom bomb material, as a "confidence-building measure." Moscow backs the IAEA call and is proposing a compromise under which Iran would enrich uranium in Russia to keep it from obtaining the technology needed for making nuclear weapons. "When there is enough time to re-establish confidence and re-establish transparency, we could come back I believe also to the possible implementation of the right that Iran indeed has to develop a nuclear energy sector full-scale," Lavrov told a press conference in Vienna. Russia is trying to find a diplomatic way out of a crisis in which the IAEA has reported Iran to the UN Security Council based on Washington's charges that the Islamic Republic is secretly developing the bomb. Lavrov is to meet March 6-7 in Washington with his US counterpart Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceto discuss international concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the Russian foreign ministry said Wednesday. He said it was clear that for Moscow's compromise proposal to happen, "Iran has to resume its moratorium for enrichment on its own soil." But he also warned that UN Security Council sanctions against Iran would only escalate the crisis. "Sanctions would not help. They never help to find a solution to a problem. Sanctions are just a prelude to further exacerbation," Lavrov told the press conference after meeting with Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik. Iran insists that its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity and that its right to enrich uranium is guaranteed in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has however said there are doubts about Iran's peaceful intentions and has reported it to the Security Council, which can take punitive action. The agency has also called on Iran to cease all enrichment work, cooperate with IAEA inspectors and return to talks with the European Union" /> European Unionon guaranteeing that its nuclear program is peaceful. Plassnik, whose country holds the EU presidency, said Iran should abandon uranium enrichment, which it resumed this week in defiance of the IAEA. The Security Council will hear a report from the IAEA in March on Iran's nuclear program before deciding what measures to take. "We urge Iran to reverse this step," Plassnik said about enrichment. Russia is to meet with Iran next week to discuss the Russian compromise proposal. Lavrov stressed that the proposal is "part of a package" that includes Iran suspending enrichment. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Iran ready to counter any US aggression Wed Feb 15, 1:06 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranis ready to counter any US aggression with offensive action, the head of the elite Revolutionary Guards warned, as Washington unveiled new plans to promote democracy in the Islamic republic. The State Department's announcement that it was seeking 75 million dollars from Congress to undermine the clerical regime's tight grip on power upped the stakes amid a worsening international row over Iran's nuclear programme. "We have worked on all defensive and offensive scenarios for any possible attacks," Revolutionary Guards chief General Yahya Rahim Safavi told state television. Washington's European allies have stressed that military action against Iran is not an option and Safavi said he did not foresee a US-led strike for now. "Currently there is no military threat against our country, and the United States and Israel" /> Israelare only talking about our nuclear programme as part of psychological war in order to escape from their defeat in Iraq" /> Iraqand Palestine," he said. However, earlier this month, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Washington did not rule out using military force against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. "All options, including the military one, are on the table," Rumsfeld told German financial newspaper Handelsblatt. "There is a genuine possibility that these weapons could fall into the hands of people who behead innocent people and blow up children." Iran drew new US anger Tuesday with the announcement that it had resumed limited uranium enrichment -- a process that makes reactor fuel but can also be extended to make the core of a nuclear weapon -- despite renewed warnings from world powers. The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyvoted on February 4 to report the Islamic republic to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme and is due to meet again on March 6. Safavi had already warned late last month that in the event of a US-led attack, Iran was ready to use its ballistic missiles, which have the capacity to strike Israel as well as coalition targets in the Gulf. "Iran has a ballistic missile capability of 2,000 kilometers (1,280 miles). We do not intend to attack any country, but if we are attacked we have the capability to give an effective response," he said. Washington did not immediately specify how it intended to disburse the new money to promote democracy in Iran. Unlike many countries in the region, the Islamic republic does hold regular elections for public positions, albeit with all candidates first vetted by an unelected watchdog body dominated by regime hardliners. The most high profile opposition group is the rebel People's Mujahedeen, which has largely fallen from Western favour because of its close links to the ousted Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam Hussein. Most of the group's fighters are currently cantoned in Iraq under US supervision, but Tehran accuses Washington of complicity in terrorism for its failure to hand over the militants, who have claimed responsibility for a string of attacks in Iran in the past. Iran also accuses the United States' principal Iraq ally Britain of fomenting separatist violence in its mainly Arab Khuzestan province, which borders British-patrolled Iraq. However Washington's strong line against Tehran ran into new opposition Wednesday from Moscow, which has close ties with the Islamic republic and is helping to build its first nuclear power station near the Gulf port of Bushehr. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that even sanctions against Iran risked being counter-productive. "They never help to find a solution to a problem. Sanctions are just a prelude to further exacerbation," he told a news conference in Vienna. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 Xinhua: DPRK: US hostile policy blocks solving nuclear issue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-15 21:43:10 PYONGYANG, Feb. 15 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Wednesday said the Korean Peninsula's nuclear issue could never be solved if the United States persisted with its hostile policy against the DPRK. "All the issues between the DPRK and the United States including the nuclear issue can never be settled as long as the U.S. invariably pursues an an achronistic hostile policy toward the DPRK," Yang Hyong-sop, vice-president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, said in a report at a national meeting to celebrate DPRK leader Kim Jong-il's 64th birthday, due on Thursday. Yang said the peninsula's position was now in an unpredictable phase due to the United States' hostile policy against the DPRK. "The U.S. applying of financial sanctions to the DPRK is against the spirit of the joint statement adopted at the fourth six-party talks," Yang said, adding that the United States "also fabricated 'human rights issues' and 'illegal dealing' which badly tarnished the international image of the DPRK." The aim of the United States is to overthrow the system of the DPRK, Yang added. "The army and people of the DPRK will mobilize all the potentials they have built up with the might of Songun (the country's military-first policy) and thus wipe out the aggressors to the last man at any cost if the U.S. ignites a war of aggression," Yang warned finally in his report. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Deseret News: N. Korea, Pakistan called world's top nuclear threats [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, February 15, 2006 Lecturer to say focus on Iran, Iraq leaves real perils untouched By Stephen Speckman Deseret Morning News There wasn't a real nuclear threat in Iraq, and there isn't one currently in Iran. Instead, two other countries and one man in particular are on the worry radar of weapon proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione. On Thursday Westminster College will host a lecture by Cirincione, director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. His speech is titled, "Looking for weapons in all the wrong places: How we got it so wrong in Iraq and how we can get it right in Iran." North Korea has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has an unstable government, armed fundamentalist Islamic groups and material to build at least 30 nuclear weapons. And nuclear terrorism is as close as Osama bin Laden being able to get his hands on the enough of the right materials to build a bomb, according to Cirincione. "Those are the more urgent threats," he told the Deseret Morning News. A question that lingers is why the United States and its allies aren't doing more to address those threats, Cirincione added. One answer is that so much attention in the Middle East these days is focused on overlapping agendas that include interest in oil, Israel and a regional transformation — starting with Iraq — into a more democratic society, according to Cirincione. "So far, the results have not been good," he said of the latter. The vision of a politically transformed Middle East, he said, is dying on the battlefield of Iraq and the process itself is proving more costly and complicated than anyone imagined. What people in this country still don't understand, Cirincione said, is that just prior to declaring war on Iraq, there was no intelligence that could confirm the presence of any weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence assessment at the time, he added, did not determine the decision whether to go to war — it was the decision to go to war, Cirincione said, that determined what the intelligence assessment should be. "They saw Saddam as a threat that had to be removed," Cirincione said of senior officials in the Bush administration. The real threats Saddam Hussein did pose at the time, he added, were that he had a military force that was a threat to neighboring countries, that he could be a threat again to Israel and that he was already a threat to his own people. Now Iran's leader is rattling cages, but the country is still at least five years away from being able to enrich enough uranium and develop enough technology to produce nuclear weapons, according to Cirincione, who said he is worried about how heated the rhetoric is getting on both sides of this issue. "Iran is not a nuclear bomb crisis — it's a nuclear diplomacy crisis," he added. One key at this point, Cirincione said, is continued isolation of Iran and the support of Russia, China and India in that effort. "It's going to take time for that to work," he said. But in an action/reaction, dominoes-will-fall kind of scenario painted by Cirincione, military conflict could become reality in Iran without a weapons threat if the rhetoric and response boils over. He recalled World War I as a lesson in the context of how to handle Iran. "I'm very worried," he said, "about that situation with Iran right now." © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Republicans Criticize Bush Mideast Policy From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday February 15, 2006 6:46 PM AP Photo WCAP101 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican senators criticized the Bush administration Wednesday over its policies in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's first testimony on Capitol Hill in months exposed her to a tough grilling from some members of her own party. ``I don't see, Madame Secretary, how things are getting better. I think things are getting worse. I think they're getting worse in Iraq. I think they're getting worse in Iran,'' Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told Rice as she appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rice also had a tense exchange with moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., over the pace of progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace and the implications of the Hamas victory in Palestinian legislative elections last month. Typically soft-spoken, Chafee tersely questioned whether the United States could have prevented Hamas from coming to power. ``Opportunities missed,'' Chafee lamented after rattling off a list. ``Now we have a very, very disastrous situation of a terrorist organization winning elections.'' Rice said she agrees it's a difficult moment for the peace process, but responded: ``I don't think the United States of America is responsible for the election of Hamas. No I don't.'' ``If Hamas will take the signals being given it by the international community as to what it will take to govern, it could, in fact, be a more positive development,'' Rice added. Though the moderate Chafee and Hagel, a frequent GOP maverick, are less conservative than many of their Republican colleagues, their criticism underscored a widespread frustration in Congress with the difficult problems the United States is facing across the Middle East. Rice tried to take the offensive by announcing an administration request for $75 million this year to build democracy in Iran, saying the U.S. must support Iranians who are seeking freedoms under what she called a radical regime. The U.S. and its European allies are confronting Iran over its nuclear program. But Tehran has remained defiant and said this week that it is resuming small-scale uranium enrichment, which many countries fear could be an early step toward production of fuel for a nuclear bomb. ``They have now crossed a point where they are in open defiance of the international community,'' Rice said. She declined to detail what punishment the United States is pursuing, although she did acknowledge that the United States has analyzed the impact of oil sanctions on Iran as part of a broad review of all available tools and has a ``menu of options'' available. ``You will see us trying to walk a fine line in actions we take,'' Rice said. The money Rice wants for Iran, to be included in an emergency 2006 budget request the White House is expected to send to Congress as early as this week, would be used for radio and satellite television broadcasting and for programs to help Iranians study abroad. At one point, Rice and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., interrupted one another as they argued about U.S. policy in the Middle East, where the Democrat accused the Bush administration of having a ``tin ear'' to Arab views. Boxer, who was one of Rice's most persistent critics during a contentious confirmation process last year, also recalled Rice's warning before the 2003 Iraq invasion that the world could not afford to let the ``smoking gun'' of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction become a ``mushroom cloud.'' ``That was a farce and the truth is coming out,'' Boxer said. Rice plans a trip to the Middle East next week, including stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where the issue was sure to arise. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., challenged Rice over whether she was involved in leaking classified information or authorized the leak of such information to the press. ``I have always acted lawfully within my duties as national security adviser and now as secretary of state,'' Rice said. ``I believe the protection of classified information is our highest, one of our highest duties.'' And, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the panel, said ``I'm not hopeful'' of a unity government in Iraq. ``The policy seems not to be succeeding,'' he said. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., pressed Rice on an issue related to her previous job as Bush's national security adviser: the president's domestic spying program. Rice said she supported the program because the president had the authority and the program was necessary to prevent terrorism. ``I frankly felt that we were blind and deaf at the time of September 11th and that our highest obligation was not to be blind and deaf again,'' she said. --- Eds: Associated Press reporter Liz Sidoti contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Special report: America's Long War US introduces radical new strategy Simon Tisdall, Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor Wednesday February 15, 2006 The Guardian Concern is growing in Europe about US plans to involve governments in an expanded, all-out campaign against Islamist extremism from north Africa to south-east Asia, using beefed-up special forces, hi-tech weaponry and more intrusive surveillance and intelligence gathering. The Pentagon plan, designed to fight what it describes as "The Long War", envisages "long-duration, complex operations involving the US military and international partners, waged simultaneously in multiple countries round the world". The post-Iraq rethink, known as the Quadrennial Defence Review, was published last week, and calls on existing allies such as Nato and "moderate" governments in the Muslim world "to share the risks and responsibilities of today's complex challenges". Measures proposed, to be funded through $513bn (£295.6bn) in US defence spending for 2007, include boosting the number of special operations forces and unmanned drones used for surveillance and targeted assassinations, the creation of special teams trained to detect and render safe nuclear weapons anywhere in the world, and a long-range bomber force. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, in north Africa this week, said the US was increasing cooperation with Algeria and others, including through possible arms sales, to help create "an environment inhospitable to terrorism". Echoing the US thinking, Jack Straw, said while on visit to Nigeria yesterday: "The terrorist threat to and from Africa is likely to grow in the next 10 years. "The biggest risk is not of a generation of homegrown African terrorists. It is the ability of external terrorists to use Africa as a base from which to launch attacks on African and western interests in Africa and beyond." European governments are still digesting the contents of the US report and are expected to give full responses in the next few weeks. But initial reaction appears to be one of caution. The Ministry of Defence said yesterday it had been consulted by the Pentagon as the review was drawn up and was pleased to see references to working with allies. As the consultation took place, Royal Marine commandos arrived at their base in southern Afghanistan yesterday at the start of a mission described in the Commons by government opponents as confused and unclear. But British commanders expressed concern that increased attacks on suspect terrorists using drones - in which decisions are made rapidly by secret watchers based thousands of miles away - could have legal implications. They also highlighted potential infringements of sovereignty and the bypassing of political controls and of established rules of engagement. Lord Garden, a retired air marshal and the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman in the Lords, said there was a "widening gulf" between US and European approaches: "The US wants the Europeans to do more at the hard end while Europe sees Nato as a post-conflict stabilisation organisation." Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has backed the idea of Nato moving beyond its borders, as it has in Afghanistan. But she suggested there should be limits on future military operations. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary general, said: "Nato is not a global policeman but we have increasingly global partnerships." The French government, anxious not to reignite pre-Iraq tensions with Washington, reacted cautiously. Michèle Alliot-Marie, the French defence minister, said: "The key word is complementarity in our actions and not to expect the submission of one to the other." The report proposes increased training and financing of security forces in the Muslim world for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations, and relaxation of arms export controls and national legal regulations. It also projects a big propaganda effort. US analysts, including former Pentagon staff, said the plan reflected a positive evolution in US strategic thinking that contrasted with past unilateralism. "Previously the emphasis was 'we'll do what we have to do, and it's nice to have allies', but now it's seen as essential to what we are trying to do," said Carl Conetta, a military specialist at the Massachusetts-based Project on Defence Alternatives. But Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University, a columnist for the openDemocracy website, said the long war "is hugely convenient in that it simplifies everything into a 'them and us' global confrontation ... This is clearly a global war and the world as a whole is involved, whether or not it wants to be." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 21 Sacramento Bee: Military, spy whistle-blowers allege retaliation - sacbee.com Witnesses tell lawmakers their careers were ruined because they didn't lie for superiors. WASHINGTON - Military and intelligence officers told spellbound lawmakers Tuesday that their careers had been ruined by superiors because they refused to lie about Able Danger, Abu Ghraib and other national security controversies. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, wearing a crisp olive Army uniform with the Bronze Star and other awards, delivered his first public testimony about his central role in Able Danger, a Pentagon computer data-mining program set up long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to penetrate the al-Qaida terrorist network. Shaffer told a House Government Reform subcommittee that he and other intelligence officers and contractors working on the top-secret program code-named Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, but were prevented from passing their findings to the FBI. "I became a whistle-blower not out of choice, but out of necessity," Shaffer said. "Many of us have a personal commitment to ... going forward to expose the truth and wrongdoing of government officials who - before and after the 9/11 attacks - failed to do their job." Shaffer contradicted recent statements by Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, who denied having met with Shaffer and other Able Danger operatives in Afghanistan in October 2003. "I did meet with him," Shaffer said. "I have the business card he gave me. I find it hard to believe that he could not remember meeting me." The commission set up by Congress to probe the Sept. 11 attacks didn't mention the Able Danger project on al-Qaida in its final report in July 2004. When former Able Danger operatives began to talk with reporters and lawmakers about the program last year, the commission's chairman and vice chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, released a statement saying the panel had looked into the work of Able Danger and found it "historically insignificant." Shaffer was to testify today at a separate House Armed Services subcommittee hearing devoted to Able Danger. Spc. Samuel Provance, also dressed in Army green, said he was demoted and humiliated after telling a general investigating the Abu Ghraib scandal that senior officers had covered up the full extent of abuse during interrogations of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Iraq. "Young soldiers were scapegoated while superiors misrepresented what had happened and tried to misdirect attention away from what was really going on," Provance said. The Abu Ghraib interrogations caused an international uproar in 2004 after the release of photographs of Iraqi prisoners in sexual and other abusive positions. Provance made a new allegation about the Abu Ghraib controversy, saying that U.S. forces had captured the 16-year-old son of an Iraqi general under Saddam Hussein, Hamid Zabar, to pressure the general into providing information. "I was extremely uncomfortable about the way General Zabar had been treated, but particularly the fact that his son had been captured and used in this way," Provance said. "It struck me as morally reprehensible, and I could not understand why our command was doing it." Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., chairman of the national security subcommittee that held the hearing, told Provance: "It takes a tremendous amount of courage for someone of your rank to tell a general what they may not want to hear." Asked what his current military duties are, the former computer specialist replied, "The only thing I've been doing since being demoted is picking up trash and pulling guard duty." Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst who was a New York Times source for its reporting on domestic wiretapping, told of having been classified as mentally ill and then fired in connection with an earlier episode at the espionage agency. Tice said he would have to testify in closed hearings about the details of the eavesdropping program, which President Bush authorized soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. But under questioning by lawmakers, Tice suggested that other NSA programs also raised concerns for him. "Some of the programs that I worked on I believe treaded on illegalities and, I believe, unconstitutional activity," Tice said. In one of the hearing's most dramatic moments, Tice read aloud the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures" without a court warrant. Tice also read an NSA policy that limits the signals agency to monitoring foreign communications. "As intelligence officers, we take an oath and swear to protect the Constitution," Tice said. Michael German, a veteran FBI agent, said he was punished after reporting his bosses in Tampa, Fla., for having altered documents in a counterterrorism investigation. "They produced false documents and literally took white-out to change official records," German said. Richard Levernier told the committee the Energy Department pulled his security clearance after he complained that the agency was glossing over security problems at nuclear weapons sites. "These agencies are out of control," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. "If we don't take action, we're all in trouble." Shays said he convened the hearing because military and intelligence employees don't have the same whistle-blower protections the government affords other federal workers or even employees of private firms. "Whistle-blowers in critical national security positions are vulnerable to unique forms of retaliation," Shays said. "There is nothing top secret about gross waste or the abuse of power." About the writer: + The Bee's James Rosen can be reached at (202) 383-0014 or jrosen@mcclatchydc.com. [The Sacramento Bee] Unique content, exceptional value. ***************************************************************** 22 The NewStandard: Nuclear Whistleblower Inquiry Findings Disappoint Critics - + 2/15/06 by NewStandard Staff Four years ago, Energy Department veteran Richard Levernier went public with details of what he said were serious security flaws at the nation’s nuclear weapons and research facilities, losing his security clearance as an apparent direct result. Last week, a federal investigation found that Levernier’s criticisms cast legitimate doubts "upon the agency’s confident expression of its readiness to defend the nuclear research facilities and nuclear assets within its custody." But the investigation, which was headed by a controversial Bush appointee, failed to make a final conclusion on the validity of Levernier’s claims or to address the propriety of his demotion. The US Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency tasked with investigating whistleblower complaints within the federal government, quietly released the findings of its investigation into the issue early this month. OSC said that while it could not determine the accuracy of the Energy Department’s official claims and responses addressing the security of the nation’s nuclear facilities, "when viewed against the widespread criticism, [those claims] do not seem to provide a complete and accurate picture of DoE’s security program." The OSC recommended "continued oversight of and inquiry into DoE’s security program" and did not reach a conclusion on whether the stripping of Levernier’s security clearance and transfer to a different office were done in retaliation for publicly airing his safety concerns. "This case underscores the significance of issues that whistleblowers raise," OSC head Scott Bloch said: "There are abiding concerns about whether we are doing enough to safeguard nuclear stockpiles and facilities." As previously reported by The NewStandard, Bloch has been under fire from his own workers and a public-employee advocacy group over alleged whitewashing of whistleblower cases. In a series of staged attacks and surprise security inspections conducted while he was head of Energy Department security inspections, Levernier found idle guards, unwatched posts and lax protections at facilities across the country, according to background in the case provided by the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a progressive nonprofit organization that assists whistleblowers. After going public with the information and filing formal complaints about four specific areas in which he found the Energy Department’s security practices dangerously lax, Department superiors removed Levernier from his post, revoked his security clearance and relocated him to a basement office, according to GAP information. Levernier ran Energy Department nuclear security inspections from 1995--2001. GAP criticized the Special Counsel for not arriving at a stronger conclusion in the case. "[Bloch] has made our country less safe by letting DoE off the hook with a report that resolves absolutely nothing about nuclear weapons vulnerability," the group’s legal director, Tom Devine, said in a statement. Devine is serving Levernier’s attorney. Along with four other whistleblowers who allege that superiors retaliated against them for their actions, Levernier offered testimony before the national security subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform yesterday. The hearing addressed strengthening protections for whistleblowers. © 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS . ***************************************************************** 23 The NewStandard: Bush Administration Spent $1.6B on Propaganda Efforts - + 2/15/06 by Michelle Chen The public-relations gloss that has long wrapped the Bush administration is fast becoming a blemish on the White House, according to lawmakers who have uncovered some $1.6 billion in federal funds spent on promoting various administration-sponsored programs. A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s research and auditing body, tracks more than 340 contracts negotiated between several government departments and PR, advertising and media firms from 2003 through the first part of 2005. The study, requested by the House of Representatives Democratic leadership, found that from 2003 to mid-2005, the administration racked up some $1.4 billion in contracts with advertising agencies to broadcast positive messages about its policies and initiatives. Another $200 million went to public-relations companies, and $15 million were spent building connections with media outlets. Individual members of the press received a total of $100,000 in promotional contracts. Seizing on the study’s results as a chance to broach accountability issues in the administration, Representative Henry Waxman (D-California) said in a statement that the report showed the White House was spending taxpayer dollars on a self-serving "propaganda effort." The study surveyed a total of seven departments, including Interior, Commerce, and Defense, and gathered information primarily through questionnaires sent to department personnel. Though the exact nature of the expenditures is not always clear from brief project descriptions, the money apparently went to push an array of sometimes controversial White House programs, including efforts to research and promote the benefits of marriage, and campaigns to publicize the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act to seniors. The bulk of the money went toward brightening the image of the military, with the Defense Department spending over $1 billion on media contracts. That chunk far outpaced the second-biggest spender, the Department of Health and Human Services, which doled out some $300 million. The Pentagon’s public-relations priorities included a contract worth over $1 million to fund public-outreach speakers to promote the Army, as well as the development of story ideas for reporters "in support of Soldiers in the Global War on Terror." The Air Force budgeted a $179 million contract for a national and local "advertising partnership" to recruit new military members. The records of Air Force contracts are also peppered with smaller promotional perks, such as prize giveaways and T-shirts and hats displaying the Coca-Cola logo, which totaled tens of thousands of dollars. The Department of Homeland Security spent approximately $24 million on contracts to market itself. This included no-bid contracts with ad agencies in 2004 and 2005, worth about $6.5 million, for the development of the "Ready Campaign" – which involved public service announcements "designed to educate and empower Americans about how to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks." The GAO acknowledged that the scope of the study was far from comprehensive, since the researchers did not independently review individual contracts, and the accuracy of the questionnaire responses could not be verified because "[t]here are no known accurate government-wide contract databases with which to compare" the findings. In the Defense Department in particular, different military branches reported contract expenditures with varying levels of detail. According to a fact sheet issued in tandem with the GAO report, the top contractor hired by the White House was Leo Burnett USA, which received contracts worth $536 million over the study period. In addition to the government, Leo Burnett counts Philip Morris, Walt Disney, McDonald’s and Visa among its clients and controls advertising agencies in 82 countries. The company branded the "Army of One" ad campaign, though the Defense Department last December broke ties with the company by signing a deal with a new ad agency worth an estimated $1.35 billion over five years. Several House members requested the GAO report last year, after information about the intricate White House public-relations "machine" began to surface in the news. Raising questions of government transparency and conflict of interest, media watchdog groups and some officials expressed outrage over reports that prominent columnist Armstrong Williams was bankrolled by the administration to write articles praising the No Child Left Behind education program. A similar scandal over "covert propaganda" erupted in reaction to the administration’s "video news releases," or generic newscasts presenting a positive spin on government programs, which were then used verbatim by mainstream media outlets. While many of the promotional projects listed in the study disclose the government as the source of the information, the report reveals several media contracts – one worth nearly $650,000 – to help create these non-attributed video news releases, giving unequivocally positive coverage to topics like tighter airport security regulations. The Food and Drug Administration spent $20,000 in 2004 on the development and distribution of such news releases to warn consumers about the potential physical and legal problems of purchasing medical products on the Internet. In the past, the GAO has challenged the legality of clandestine White House public-relations efforts. But the administration’s legal counsel has issued statements defending the practice, arguing that the non-sourced news releases were legitimate public-education tools since "there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint." But the findings of this most recent GAO study turn less on legal issues and more on the question of whether the White House can justify the public cost of its self-promotion. Following the release of the report, the media reform group Free Press issued a statement calling for a deeper investigation and full exposure of the administration’s media operations. Spokesperson Craig Aaron said, "We must ensure that taxpayer money isn't being spent by the White House to secretly manipulate the American public." © 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS . ***************************************************************** 24 Independent: Terror threat: The great deception As MPs vote today on another security bill, we reveal how the public was misinformed and manipulated over the war on terror By Ben Chu Published: 15 February 2006 Today, The Independent publishes detailed analysis of how Tony Blair manipulated the serious threat of terrorism facing Britain to suit the Government's political agenda. It argues the Prime Minister has repeatedly misrepresented security intelligence to the British people, pandered to the right-wing media, and scuppered a golden opportunity to achieve a cross-party consensus on terrorism in the wake of the London bombings of 7 July. The revelations come in an extract from the Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet by the journalist Peter Oborne. The Use and Abuse of Terror is an examination of the actions of the Government, the police and security services in the heightened state of alert since 11 September 2001. It investigates how the Government and security services have exploited the scare stories in recent years, including "ricin poison plot" arrests and a "plan to bomb Old Trafford". Mr Oborne analyses - with the help of first-hand testimony - the twists and turns of government policy and comes to his damning conclusion: "New Labour has set out to politicise terror, to use it for narrow party advantage. Few people now believe what the Prime Minister, the security services and police tell us about security matters." © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 25 thebulletin.org: To tell the truth [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists] By Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver January/February 2006 p. 72 (vol. 62, no. 01) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [S] upreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that there are "half a dozen futures that seem to me equally probable, and among them is the possibility of civilization cutting its own throat." The catalyst for such an outcome might very well be the bureaucratic impulse to hide incompetence, embarrassment, and abuse. Today, when a U.S. national security employee, intelligence official, or member of a law enforcement agency reports wrongdoing, he or she has virtually no protection against retaliation. They are confronted with a choice between career and conscience--for there is little in history to make them confident about their continued employment should they speak out against illegal dealings or activities that put us all at risk. In the 1980s, CIA employee Richard Barlow discovered that Pakistan, with the blessing of the Reagan and Bush I administrations, was able to buy restricted nuclear technology-related items in the United States. Barlow also unmasked a coordinated attempt by the U.S. intelligence community to lie to Congress about Pakistan's activities. The result? His security clearance was suspended, and he lost his job. The Reagan and Bush I administrations covered up Barlow's discoveries because, at the time, they needed Pakistan's help to fund and supply the Afghans in their bloody fight with the Soviets. This was not merely a problem restricted to the presidencies of that era. The then-Democratically controlled Congress steadfastly refused to address the dangerous issues that Barlow raised and was only too happy to try to move them out of the public eye. We are now paying the price for this shortsightedness--what Barlow had discovered was an early incarnation of physicist Abdul Qadeer Khan's illegal, international nuclear proliferation network. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, has been under house arrest since February 2004. In October 2005, President George W. Bush declared that "The United States . . . has exposed and disrupted a major blackmarket operation in nuclear technology led by A. Q. Khan." But that disruption should have come nearly 20 years ago, when Barlow first raised the alarm. Khan's underground network could have been halted before he leaked nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. In light of what happened to Barlow, is it likely that anyone would come forward in similar circumstances now? His case is hardly unique, a fact attested to by the very existence of our organization, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Our members include Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who reported that Operation Able Danger had information on 9/11 terrorist Mohammed Atta's cell well before the attacks. (Shaffer was subsequently labeled untrustworthy, in part because he admitted to taking government dime pens out of an embassy when he was a high school intern, and his security clearance was revoked.) And then there's Sandalio Gonzalez, a 32-year law enforcement agent, who was forced into retirement for questioning--in an internal memorandum--the federal government's complicity in up to 15 murders in Mexico. Bureaucrats are playing ducks and drakes with our lives. It is crucial to take measures to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers and to encourage accountability within national security agencies. Retaliation against whistleblowers should be criminalized. The precedent for such legislation already exists, in that the judicial system prosecutes people for obstruction of justice and for witness tampering. To further safeguard the rights of conscientious federal employees, agencies and administrators who retaliate against whistleblowers should be made liable for civil damages, much as they are presently liable for damages in the event of racial or sexual discrimination. And, in order to obviate the painful choice between career and conscience, employees terminated or punitively reassigned for reporting wrongdoing should be awarded their full retirement as if they had continued on in employment. When national security employees charged with securing the well-being of the nation feel confident in reporting malfeasance, the nation as a whole will be much safer. Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI language specialist, is founder and president of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. William Weaver, associate director for academic programs at the Institute for Policy and Economic Development at the University of Texas-El Paso, is the coalition's senior adviser. January/February 2006 p. 72 (vol. 62, no. 01) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ***************************************************************** 26 ABC News: A surge in whistle-blowing ... and reprisals Congress is eyeing tricky questions on blowing the whistle in wartime. By Gail Russell Chaddock WASHINGTON Dissent often carries a price in official Washington, especially in the war years of the Bush presidency. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the number of insiders alleging wrongdoing in government - either through whistle-blower channels or directly to the press - has surged, as have reprisals against them. That's the message from this week's congressional hearing on protections for national security whistle-blowers - the first in more than a decade. "The system is broken," says Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut, who chaired the House Government Affairs subcommittee hearing. Disclosures of flawed prewar intelligence, secret prisons and prisoner abuse, and warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency have launched a debate on the conduct of the war on terror within Congress and the American public. Critics say some of those disclosures also compromised national security. "At the Central Intelligence Agency, we are more than holding our own in the global war on terrorism, but we are at risk of losing a key battle: the battle to protect our classified information," wrote CIA director Porter Goss in The New York Times last Friday. The struggle over dissent in dangerous times is not confined to national security matters, however. It appears to be settling deeper into the federal bureaucracy, where government scientists and even analysts at the scholarly Congressional Research Service - who are not actually blowing any whistles but who are staking out positions that deviate from the administration's - report efforts to control their contact with the press and public. If whistle-blowers and others "do not see an option for dissent within the system, then the system is in bad shape," says Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. "Secrecy has become a growth industry. It makes it harder for ordinary citizens to ask questions and to hold officials accountable." The lips-stay-sealed climate is felt most acutely, at least these days, by those in national-security fields. Indeed, a Justice Department investigation is under way to discover who divulged the existence of warrantless eavesdropping by the NSA - a probe that may yield criminal charges against the individuals responsible. Richard Levernier is one who went public with his security concerns - and feels he's paid a heavy price. He first reported security breaches at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons sites to management. Seeing no changes, he released an unclassified report to the media. While government investigators found his concerns credible, he lost his security clearance. Four years later, he's unemployed and, he says, unemployable. "I spent my whole life in the nuclear security business. And you can't get a key to the men's room without a clearance," says Mr. Levernier, one of five whistle-blowers who spoke Tuesday before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. Army Spc. Samuel Provance was demoted after disobeying an order not to speak to the press about prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. "Young soldiers were scapegoated, while superiors misrepresented what had happened. I was ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with it," he told the House panel. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer lost his security clearance after testifying to the 9/11 Commission and Congress about Operation Able Danger, a program that he says tagged four 9/11 hijackers before the attacks. Former FBI special agent Michael German and former intelligence officer Russell Tice also testified that they felt they'd been retaliated against for speaking out about problems, and both lost their security clearances. "Security clearance revocation is the new harassment of choice against national security workers," says Thomas Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit public-interest law firm in Washington that assists whistle-blowers. While federal workers have had whistle-blower protection since 1989, a 1999 US court ruling requires these workers to have irrefutable evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse to be eligible for protection. Last year, House and Senate committees each passed bills that strengthened protections for whistle-blowers, but neither bill has come to the floor for a vote. Only the Senate version includes national security whistle-blowers. Outside the realm of national security, James Hansen, the top climate scientist at NASA, spoke out about efforts by the NASA press office to screen his speeches and limit his contact with the press. In response, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) of New York, chairman of the House Science Committee, backed Dr. Hansen. "Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation," he wrote to NASA administrator Michael Griffin. Mr. Griffin e-mailed all NASA employees, affirming that staff should not alter, filter, or adjust scientific work. But Hansen says the issue is not yet resolved, citing a pending investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee challenging the scholarship of other scientists working on global warming. When lawmakers on the House panel asked what other issues they should heed, watchdog groups cited the case of Louis Fisher, a senior analyst at Congressional Research Service. His office door is papered with book jackets from his works, many of them on congressional-executive relations. When Mr. Fisher spoke publicly about a report he wrote on national security whistle-blowers, CRS managers warned him not to take positions on issues before Congress. "CRS researchers are instructed from the time they're hired that their role is an educative one, not an advocative one," Daniel Mulhollan, CRS director, wrote in an e-mail statement. "If CRS is to serve all members of Congress it must be understood to be equally valuable to those on competing sides of an issue." The warning set off protests from political scientists and public-interest groups. "The CRS has been severely compromised," says William Weaver, a political scientist at the University of Texas in El Paso and a founder of the National Security Whistle-blowers Coalition. Says Fisher himself: "For the last 33 years my job was to defend legislative prerogative and constitutional government, and suddenly that's a bad thing to do. There are mixed signals inside this [CRS] house. People are hunkered down." www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science ***************************************************************** 27 thebulletin.org: Grid-locked | [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists] North Korea needs energy. But can the parties negotiating a solution to the nuclear crisis come up with a viable way to plug in the North? By Peter Hayes, David von Hippel, Jungmin Kang, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Richard Tanter, and Scott Bruce January/February 2006 pp. 52-58 (vol. 62, no. 01) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [N] ighttime satellite images sparkle with the bright city lights of South Korea and Japan, while neighboring North Korea remains shrouded in darkness. The country's energy needs are dire: 23 million people struggle to get by on 2 gigawatts of energy (less power than the amount consumed by a single U.S. city of 1 million people). North Korea's energy shortage likely contributed to its mid-1990s famine, when electric irrigation pumps and threshers stopped working. Factories throughout the country stand idle, and homes sometimes receive as little as two hours of electricity per day. Many have come to rely on candles and wood-burning stoves. Small wonder, therefore, that the recent "breakthrough" at the September 2005 round of six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program hinged upon a commitment from the five other parties--the United States, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and China--to provide the North with energy assistance. Pyongyang, in turn, has agreed to a set of principles that would lead to the North "abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs" and returning to the global nonproliferation regime. But how will this energy be provided? Immediately after the September announcement, North Korean officials stated that the only form of energy assistance that mattered to them was the provision of light water nuclear reactor technology--a demand that U.S. negotiators branded as unacceptable. [1] South Korea, however, has offered an alternative--instead of building power plants in the North, Seoul would directly supply 2 gigawatts of electricity through power lines spanning across the demilitarized zone (DMZ). This proposal, however, is fraught with both technical and political difficulties. If the South's plan serves as the basis for the next round of six-party talks, then any final agreement is likely to be built upon very wobbly foundations. The six parties should instead consider adopting a short-term, alternative package of energy assistance that would provide more energy services faster, cheaper, and at lower risk. Doing this would give immediate substance to pledges to supply energy assistance--substance that has been sorely lacking from attempts to provide the North with energy aid up until this point. A shock to the system Thirty miles north of the city of Sinpo, on the eastern coast of North Korea, sit the dormant foundations of two under-construction nuclear reactors. After roller-coaster confrontations with Pyongyang in 1994, the United States, along with South Korea, Japan, and the European Union (EU), agreed to provide the North with energy assistance as part of a deal to freeze its existing nuclear programs and to provide for the continuity of inspections at its nuclear facilities. Included in the October 1994 deal, known as the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, was the construction of the two 1-gigawatt light water nuclear reactors and the promise to provide large U.S. shipments of heavy fuel oil (HFO). [2] Although the framework held for eight years, the type of energy assistance that the parties settled on proved counterproductive. The North Koreans had difficulty absorbing the fuel oil, as only one large power plant in the country was designed to use HFO as a full-time fuel. The HFO sent to North Korea also contained significant amounts of sulfur and other impurities that reportedly accelerated the corrosion of heat exchangers in North Korean power plants designed to use coal, thereby reducing their generating efficiency and capacity. [3] The North ended up dumping some of the HFO in trenches because it couldn't store or use it all. In late 2003, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)--the U.S.-led consortium building the two nuclear reactors--suspended construction in response to U.S. allegations made public in October 2002 that North Korea had a secret uranium enrichment program. Yet, even if the reactors had been completed, the North Korean electricity grid could not have supported them, as the grid is far too small and simple to run such large and potentially hazardous units. [4] During the negotiations of the Agreed Framework, North Korean grid experts warned their leadership not to accept any reactors larger than 400 megawatts. American negotiators also knew about the grid constraint but chose to ignore it. The parties were driven by irresistible political logic to proceed with a bad project that could never have worked. [5] In order to kick-start the stalled talks, on July 12, 2005, South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young announced that South Korea had offered to supply 2 gigawatts of power to North Korea if it dismantled its nuclear weapons program. [6] (Although a gigawatt of electrical power can sustain only a small U.S. city, it would go a lot further in North Korea, where households have few, if any, appliances and perhaps one or two lights.) South Korea's offer is benchmarked to the Agreed Framework's energy assistance plan and is designed to substitute for the power output of the two light water reactors. Rather than building nuclear reactors on North Korean soil, the current offer entails running power lines from South Korea to the North, with delivery of electric power possibly beginning as early as 2008. South Korea already supplies a small quantity of electricity to the Kaesong industrial zone north of the demilitarized zone, which houses South Korean industry and forms a "grid island" separated from the North's electricity grid to ensure reliable, high-quality power.Officials from the South's Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy estimate that supplying an additional 2 gigawatts of electricity would cost a few billion dollars--about $1.5-$1.7 billion to install the new transmission lines and transformer substations between Yanju in South Korea and Pyongyang, and more than $1 billion per year for generator fuel and to operate and maintain the transmission facilities. Seoul has said that it will pay for the plan with its $2.4 billion of unspent commitments from the total $4.6 billion cost of the KEDO light water reactor budget. [7] It is unclear who would pay for annual operation costs after South Korea funds the first year. The plan met with immediate skepticism in South Korea. The opposition Grand National Party, concerned about upsetting consumers with prospective tax or electricity rate increases, criticized the plan's potential cost. [8] Indeed, the South Korean government would likely impose a tax or rate surcharge to pay for this aid, and low-income South Korean power consumers might grouse that they are paying higher tariffs to send free electricity to the North. South Korean officials have not disclosed the specific destination of the electrical power, or even if they have discussed the relevant technical issues with the North. Given the near collapse and unreliability of the North's power system, it is safe to assume that only large industrial plants and major cities in the Pyongyang-Nampo region--and possibly industrial cities on the east coast, such as Hamhung--could absorb 2 gigawatts of electricity within the next five or so years. This constraint implies that a transmission corridor would be set up across the DMZ north of Seoul and directed straight toward Pyongyang. It can also be assumed that South Korea would build two high-voltage transmission lines (capable of carrying either 345 or 220 kilovolts) from the DMZ to Pyongyang, so that if one line had a forced outage, the remaining line should be able to transmit 2 gigawatts of electricity. Mismatched grids A daunting obstacle confronting Seoul's proposal is the significant disparity between the electrical grids of the North and South. North Korea's unified electrical grid dates back to approximately 1958. Built to support Stalinist-style heavy industry, the grid collapsed along with the industrial economy in the 1990s when it was abandoned by the former Soviet Union.The Ministry of Electric Power and Coal runs the transmission and distribution system, as well as its 62 power plants, 58 substations, and 11 regional transmission and dispatching centers. The grid's total reported generation capacity as of 1990 was about 8-10 gigawatts, with the higher total including numerous small power plants of uncertain operability. At present, the system operates not as a unified grid, but as a largely disconnected hodgepodge of regional and local grids running on different frequencies, with an estimated operable generation capacity of only 1-3 gigawatts. Most of the North's main transmission lines are rated at either 220 or 110 kilovolts. Other bulk transmission lines are rated at approximately 66 kilovolts, with lower voltage lines used for local distribution. By Western standards, the North's system is arcane and subject to regular power outages. Voltage and frequency fluctuations within the grid are orders of magnitude greater than international standards, and electricity supplies, depending on the area, vary from nonexistent to occasionally interrupted. (Supplies in Pyongyang are the most reliable.) Making matters worse, responses to outages are cumbersome and slow, often resulting in cascading outages and further delays in restoring power. Connections between the elements of the transmission and distribution system were, as of the early 1990s, operated by telephone and telex, without the aid of automation or computer systems. An early 1990s U.N. project installed some control equipment at select control centers and a singlepower plant in the Pyongyang area, yet few other upgrades have been undertaken. By contrast, South Korea's power system is roughly 30 times larger than North Korea's current operable system. Its generating capacity is about 60 gigawatts. [9] The South plans to increase its total installed capacity to about 80 gigawatts by 2015 through investment in new plants, including about 10 gigawatts of renewable energy (especially wind power). [10] Moreover, the South's transmission and distribution system is much larger and more complex than the North's. The system includes about 25,000 kilometers of transmission lines--plus an additional 10,000 kilometers are slated to be constructed in the next decade. A network of345-kilovolt lines form the backbone of the system, while local systems operate on 154-kilovolt or 66-kilovolt lines (the latter are being phased out). A 765-kilovolt line, now under construction, will allow industry to ship bulk power from generation plants in the south of the country to Seoul and surrounding areas, which account for more than 42 percent of the total load. [11] Due to reactive power losses and the locations of power plants, transmission lines, and demand centers within South Korea, there are physical limits on the South-North transfer of electricity by long-distance transmission lines that could have a major impact on South Korea's ability to supply energy to the North. [12] Exceeding these limits can trip circuit breakers and shut down the South Korean grid. In 2001, South Korean experts estimated that the maximum load that could be drawn from the South Korean grid and sent to the North was about 0.5 gigawatts, or about one-quarter of what has been offered. Although the North's supply and demand of electric power has since grown, South Korea's ability to transmit power to high-demand centers, such as Seoul, has not grown commensurately, making it unlikely that its grid can supply more than was estimated in 2001. Given the vast disparity between the two grids, it is not only difficult but downright hazardous for South Korea to simply transmit pure power to the North. The two grids operate on different frequencies (in parts of the North, at least), with divergent standards, such as voltage fluctuation and reserve capacity, and with completely distinct engineering and safety cultures. South Korea cannot afford to put its own grid at risk of forced outages, operating as it does 20 nuclearpower reactors, due to instability propagated from the North Korean grid. Safety analyses of light water reactors identify forced outages as one of the main pathways to a meltdown accident. If power is to be drawn off the South's existing grid without putting it at risk, the South needs to either build power plants north of Seoul to better balance supply and demand in the grid or build unconnected power plants that supply power directly to the North. A third option--to free up generating and transmission capacity by reducing demand in the Seoul area--would not be politically palatable in the South. South Korean officials told the Joong-Ang Daily on July 18, 2005 that they intend to expand power generation in the Seoul and Incheon region to achieve the necessary balance in the South's grid and have already advanced completion of a 0.8-gigawatt generating unit at Incheon's Yeongheung Thermoelectric Power Plant to June 2008. Officials also said that they intend to add an additional 2 gigawatts of separate generating capacity at this plant in order to supply the power needed for the North, as well as to add other capacity (such as reopening the Seoul Thermoelectric Power Plant in Dangin-dong) in order to keep up with growing demand around the capital city. However, independent Korean transmission experts have criticizedthese plans, saying that they were already under way and aimed at solving existing transmission congestion problemsinside the South. New plants are needed, they say, to supply 2 gigawatts to the North. [13] To ensure South Korea's grid reliability without incurring the expense of current converters that would protect it from the instability of the North's grid, South Korea's state-owned Korean Electric Power Corporation appears to be assuming that the two grids will be run separately for the foreseeable future. Ground to cover Grid interconnection is highly political and difficult to achieve between friendly neighbors, let alone enemy states divided by many fundamental issues. [14] Before connecting their grids, North and South Korea would have to confront several potentially showstopping issues that include: the high front-end political cost of negotiating how their systems will connect; realistically funding the full cost of the 2 gigawatts; negotiating operating standards; and achieving the trust needed to share dispatch and control authority in a system that requires intimate and instant coordination. (A South Korean power authority study conducted in the mid-to late 1990s avoided these issues by assuming that the North's grid was absorbed into the South's by "swallowing it alive.") From North Korea's perspective, an even bigger problem is that South Korea could arbitrarily shut off the supply of electricity by "flipping a switch." Given South Korea's notoriously volatile politics, such a fear is not irrational. One way to ameliorate this potential would be if South Korea and Russia connected their grids by building a tie-line across North Korean territory.This would enable the North to siphon off power when and where it is needed rather than absorb a bulk power transfer on a political timeline and would buffer North Korea against South Korean political manipulation. [15] Cost considerations could also affect the success of the South's offer. A rough analysis suggests that the entire project will likely require far more investment than the stated ceiling of $2.4 billion. According to our estimates, the capital cost for a 2.12-gigawatt electric gas-fired power plant would be $1.1 billion; the cost for 100 kilometers of cross-DMZ and 400 kilometers of high-voltage transmission lines would be $580 million; and the cost to refurbish half of the North's transmission and distribution system would be $1.8 billion. The total capital investment needed to produce this system, which would be able to deliver 2 gigawatts of usable power to the North, likely would be at least $3.4 billion. With fuel expenses, the subsequent annual operation and maintenance cost would be at least $1.1 billion. Hidden costs in the renovation of the North's distribution system--including additional transmission infrastructure and an upgrade of end-use equipment--as well as increases in fuel cost (a possibility that recent increases in international oil and gas prices underscore), would likely drive annual costs closer to $1.5 billion or more. By comparison, South Korea currently invests on average about $3 billion per year in its own new generation and transmission capabilities. South Korean officials recognize the uncertainty in theirestimates, particularly because so little is known about the North's distribution system. [16] But they are also aware that continued instability in North Korea threatens to undermine the South Korean economy. Even a small reduction in South Korea's $900 billion gross national product would be far more costly than the power offer. If other countries were to offer additional investment to meet the cost of rehabilitating and reconstructing the North's power system, it would make the South's offer more meaningful. Japan is the only candidate for such a major role because of its obligation to pay reparations to the North, similar to those paid to South Korea in 1965, for damages inflicted during colonialism and World War II. But Japan is not about to commit any resources while its bilateral agenda with the North remains unresolved, especially in relation to the return of "abductees," Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea after the Korean War. Closing a deal For any energy assistance program to succeed, continued negotiations should be based on mutual interest. South Korean and U.S. officials often assert that so little is known about the North's energy economy that it is difficult to set priorities. Yet, North Korean energy experts have stated clearly their energy and electricity priorities in formal communications with KEDO, in EU-sponsored meetings, with officials working on energy- and grid-related U.N. projects, and through private and technical channels. [17] North Korean energy experts maintain that it is crucial for assistance to move from short-term fixes to long-term development. They've explicitly stated the desire to increase the North's energy security by decreasing its reliance on coal, diversifying resource use, exploring for crude oil, undertaking international natural gas projects, and developing nuclear power--a similar course to Japan and South Korea. They also have a laundry list of specific energy goals: restore and repair existing thermal and hydroelectric plants; build new hydroelectric plants; repair, integrate, and improve voltage and frequency on the North's transmission and distribution network; add modern control facilities; rehabilitate and modernize coal production; adopt energy-efficient technologies in industrial and commercial sectors; and develop renewable energy systems. Given the North's energy predicament, these are not irrational choices. The earliest a South-North arrangement would begin providing bulk power to North Korea is 2008, which is light-years away for Pyongyang. The trick to delivering energy aid in a meaningful time frame is to shift from large-scale, intergovernmental projects to a basket of diverse, small-scale, rapidly implemented (less than a year), and relatively cheap options that match these priorities. South Korea should repair North Korean coal-fired power plants that can be fixed economically. More broadly, the fastest way to increase the North's power and coal supply is to reduce waste. Improving the energy efficiency of lighting, motors, boilers, and controls in industry, and installing weather stripping and simple insulation measures in buildings,would enlarge effective supply much faster than building new power plants or running power lines to the North. [18] Should the six-party talks lead to actual North Korean nuclear weapons dismantlement and the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, realistic energy assistance will become an imperative for nonproliferation efforts on the Korean peninsula. Projects such as South Korea's power plan may be politically necessary for a negotiated outcome, but they are not sufficient to deliver tangible benefits to the North. To provide North Korea with energy development on a meaningful time frame, multiple small projects that offer an array of energy services are preferable to big, symbolic projects whose completion would take years to complete--if ever. 1. See Peter Hayes et al., "Light Water Reactors at the Six-Party Talks: The Barrier That Makes the Water Flow," Nautilus Policy Forum Online 05-78A, September 21, 2005. 2. A gigawatt is a billion watts of power and can be supplied in mechanical, thermal, or electrical form. In this article, all gigawatts are in terms of electrical energy. In North Korea, more than 70 percent of the fuel energy value at the generating plant is lost in producing the electricity, and 15-20 percent (possibly more) of the power that is generated is lost in transmission and distribution. 3. North Korea has only one major power plant designed to use HFO. North Korea used HFO in combination with coal at plants initially designed to use domestic coal. 4. John H. Bickel, Evergreen Safety and Reliability Technologies, LLC, "Grid Stability and Safety Issues Associated with Nuclear Power Plants" (paper, Workshop on Power Grid Interconnection in Northeast Asia, Beijing, China, May 14-16, 2001). This and other cited workshop papers can be found online at nautilus.org/archive. 5. The KEDO reactors could only have operated by being tied into a Russian Far East-South Korean interconnection, or if the South ran two AC lines from the KEDO reactors to the South Korean grid, in effect importing the power from the North. 6. Rhee So-eui, "S. Korea Says Offered to Supply North Electricity," Reuters, July 12, 2005. 7. Private communication with U.S. officials; Joo-hee Lee, "South Korea Offers Power Aid in Return for Nuclear Cleanout, Proposes Light Water Reactor to be Terminated for Assistance," July 13, 2005. 8. Hae-in Shin, "GNP Split on N.K. Energy Assistance," Korea Herald, July 16, 2005. 9. Korea Electric Power Corporation, "KEPCO in Brief," December 31, 2004; see also Dong-wook Park, Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute, "Perspectives on Northeast Asian System Interconnection" (paper, Workshop on Power Grid Interconnection in Northeast Asia, Beijing, China, May 14-16, 2001). 10. Jungmin Kang, "Update on the ROK Energy Sector and the ROK LEAP Model" (paper, Asia Energy Security Workshop, Tsinghua University, Beijing, May 17, 2005). 11. Jong-keun Park, "Power System and Technical Issues in South Korea" (paper, Workshop on Power Grid Interconnection in Northeast Asia, Beijing, China, May 14-16, 2001). 12. Energy transmission requires reactive power to support the motors, generators, and alternators attached to the system, as well as devices such as condensers and capacitors, which normalize electric current flow by releasing energy when drops in voltage are sensed. If a system is not designed to provide for reactive power demand, then this energy will be drawn from the transmission lines and will lead to the grid being overloaded and possibly trigger interruption of supply. See Thomas C. Elliott et al., Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering (New York: McGraw Hill, 1989), p. 4.59. 13. Private communications with transmission specialists. 14. See Karsten Neuhoff, "Economic Considerations: An Overview and Background on Power Markets and Pricing Principles, with Focus on International Trading, Institutional Considerations for International Electricity Trade" (paper, Workshop on Power Grid Interconnection in Northeast Asia, Beijing, China, May 14-16, 2001). 15. See studies on regional and Russian Far East-South Korean grid interconnection, from the Second Workshop on Power Grid Interconnection in Northeast Asia, Shenzhen, China, May 5-8, 2002. 16. Cited in Seo Jee-yeon, "Energy Aid to N. Korea Faces Technical Hitch," Korea Times, July 15, 2005. 17. For example, see North Korean Delegation, "Energy Sector Activities and Plans in the DPRK" (paper, Asian Energy Security Workshop 2005, Beijing, China, May 13-16, 2005); and DPRK Delegation, "Options for Rehabilitation of Energy System and Energy Security and Energy Planning in the DPR of Korea" (paper, Asian Energy Security Workshop 2004, Beijing, China, May 12-14, 2004). 18. For additional information on measures that would improve the provision of energy services in the North while reducing overall energy use, plus estimates of the North's recent trends in energy supply and demand, see David von Hippel, Timothy Savage, and Peter Hayes, "The DPRK Energy Sector: Estimated Year 2000 Energy Balance and Suggested Approaches to Sectoral Redevelopment," March 2003, Nautilus Institute. Peter Hayes is the director of the Nautilus Institute in San Francisco. David von Hippel, Jungmin Kang, and Richard Tanter are research associates at the Nautilus Institute; Scott Bruce is a Nautilus program officer. Tatsujiro Suzuki is project professor at the University of Tokyo. January/February 2006 pp. 52-58 (vol. 62, no. 01) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Sidebar: Out of energy When it comes to energy, North Korea is in bad shape. The nation of 23 million has been in a severe energy crisis since the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union (and later Russia) sharply cut its energy and economic support. Since then, China has similarly cut its energy assistance to the North, including its supply of crude oil. Catastrophic floods in 1995 and 1996 crippled the North's hydroelectric plants, while a lack of maintenance and misuse degraded both its fuel-and coal-fired plants. A crumbling transmission and distribution system, coupled with difficulties in producing and transporting coal, further reduced the available supply of electricity. By 2000, North Korea's total gross supply of electricity had shrunk by nearly 70 percent from 1990 levels. Jonas Siegel 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ***************************************************************** 28 Deccan Herald: N-deal will only serve proliferation Thursday, February 16, 2006 Letters to Editor Washington, Reuters: A landmark new US-India nuclear agreement would enable New Delhi to expand atomic weapons production and encourage Pakistan and China to do likewise, according to critics of the controversial deal...... A landmark new US-India nuclear agreement would enable New Delhi to expand atomic weapons production and encourage Pakistan and China to do likewise, according to critics of the controversial deal. In analyses to be made public on Wednesday, non-proliferation experts expressed grave concerns about a proposed separation plan that would open Indias civil nuclear facilities to UN inspections, while permitting military facilities to remain off-limits. The plan is central to whether the US-India nuclear deal, agreed in July last, goes forward. US business leaders say the deal could open the door to billions of dollars in non-nuclear and civilian nuclear-related contracts, while government officials say the agreement commits India to play a larger role in halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But the two governments are at odds over details, and it is unclear if they can reach an agreement before President George W Bush visits New Delhi in early March. But even if the Bush administration deemed the plan credible and all civilian facilities were placed under permanent international monitoring, the sale of US and other foreign fuel to India would still free-up Indias existing capacity to produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons and allow for the rapid expansion of Indias nuclear arsenal, the experts said in a memo to the US Congress. A sober analysis reveals the non-proliferation benefits of the original proposal are overstated and the damage to the non-proliferation regime is potentially high, said the memo, prepared by Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association and five others. For 30 years, the United States led the effort to deny India nuclear technology because it tested and developed nuclear weapons in contravention of international norms. Both India and its neighbour and Pakistan have refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But Bush now views India, a rising democratic and economic power on Chinas border, as an evolving US ally and the new nuclear deal allowing India to purchase nuclear reactors and fuel is central to that vision. Kimball told Reuters on Tuesday that he believed the deal may fall apart over the separation plan because India wants to exclude a large number of civilian facilities and spent fuel from international inspections. The plan aims to ensure US nuclear technology is never used for military purposes and in theory would make civilian facilities less susceptible to proliferation. But if India buys US and other foreign nuclear fuel and continues to expand its nuclear arsenal, this would force Pakistan to increase its arsenal and encourage China to continue modernising, Kimball said. Leonard Weiss, a chief architect of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act of 1978 when he was staff director of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1977 to 1999, said in his analysis that if the deal enables India to ramp up its weapons production, this was a violation of US obligations under the NPT. Weiss, Kimball and other experts told Congress that 11 operating power reactors in India may have produced as much as 9,000 kilograms of plutonium, which could be processed to make 1,000 nuclear weapons. India has an estimated 50 nuclear weapons now and a goal of 300-400 weapons in a decade, the experts said. WHITE HOUSE SPEAKS Bush looking forward to India, Pakistan visits Washington, UNI: President George W Bush is looking forward to his India and Pakistan visit early March, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan. On whether the President would cancel the visit in view of the violent demonstrations in Pakistan over the cartoons, Mr McClellan, at a briefing here on Tuesday, said, We have full confidence in the Presidents security detail and the job that they do. Regarding the cartoons and the controversy in South Asia, particularly Pakistan, the spokesman said: I think weve expressed what our views are. And the President has made it clear that all governments need to act to prevent violence. There have been some peaceful demonstrations. Peaceful demonstrations are one thing, but theres no justification for engaging in violence. Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G. Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523 ***************************************************************** 29 Fredericksburg.com: desiring the sirens' call Nuclear plant warnings too quiet, residents say Free Lance-Star! More than 60 sirens surround North Anna Power Station, but residents say they aren't loud enough to be heard inside homes. Herman Henriksen and his neighbors in northeast Louisa County are concerned that the emergency sirens around North Anna Power Station are not loud enough to alert residents if the nuclear plant has a problem. One siren, at left, is just over a mile from Henriksen's home in Tall Pines subdivision. Some residents around North Anna Power Station say they can't hear emergency sirens well enough Date published: 2/15/2006 By RUSTY DENNEN At approximately 11:10 this morning, the emergency warning sirens surrounding North Anna Power Station will sound for three minutes. Four times a year, the 67 sirens scattered throughout a 10-mile radius of the Louisa County nuclear power plant are tested in case of the unthinkable--a serious accident or release of radioactivity. Many people living in the emergency zone will definitely hear the sirens. But others, such as Linda Salisbury and some of her neighbors, are worried they may not if there's a real emergency. Salisbury and her husband moved to Tall Pines subdivision in Louisa in June 2004. She was not home during the first few tests. But during the June 2005 test, she sat on her front porch, about a mile from the plant. "I could only barely hear the sirens outside, and not at all inside, where we would be much of the time," she said in a recent interview. She asked around, finding that most of her neighbors also could not hear them. Salisbury contacted Dominion Virginia Power and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and was surprised to learn that the sirens are designed to be heard within about a mile of each horn, but not inside dwellings. Sirens are located in portions of Caroline, Hanover, Louisa and Spotsylvania counties. "If the sirens are not designed to be heard inside a house, how are we supposed to know" if there's a problem, she said. The plant's emergency notification system, which is approved by the NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dictates that in areas more than a mile from any siren, local sheriff's deputies would be dispatched to warn them, using their cruisers' loudspeakers. "How realistic is that?" Salisbury said. "They've all been nice, and we've gotten answers. On paper, it looks good, but it doesn't sound very practical." She added, "We're not anti-nuclear. We knew the power plant was here. It's not an issue of us moving in and saying, 'Don't do this.'" Salisbury said she was troubled to learn that there are gaps in siren coverage within the 10-mile zone because there are many new residents and the Lake Anna area is quickly developing. The popular lake was created in 1972 to cool reactors. Units 1 and 2 went online in 1978 and 1980. Richard Zuercher, spokesman for Dominion's nuclear operations in Richmond, concedes there is not full siren coverage in the 10-mile zone, but that the company has been working on that. Most of the sirens were installed during the 1980s when the area was much more rural. He said they were not designed to be heard indoors. "If a decision is made to sound the sirens, the concept is that the [public] is covered one way or another," he said. Either way, people are instructed to tune to local radio or TV station for more information. The test signal is one, three-minute blast. An actual emergency would be signaled by four separate, three-minute tones, each separated by one-minute intervals. The total time for an emergency sounding would be 15 minutes. "All I can tell you is that we have an approved emergency plan that takes all this into consideration," Zuercher said. "We demonstrate our abilities to respond in an emergency in graded exercises every other year." The next such exercise is scheduled for Dec. 5. He added that in addition to the quarterly tests, "we do tests every month" at the plant "to make sure [siren] connections are working and whether the circuits fully function." Zuercher said there have been a couple instances in which people have called to say they didn't hear the sirens. Chuck Emeigh, one of Salisbury's neighbors, built a house in 1993 and moved there full time in June. "We did hear the last test" in June, he said, after not hearing any of them prior to that. "I'm not sure whether they did something different." Another neighbor, Herman Henriksen offered to have a siren placed on a lot where he is building a house. He's lived in Tall Pines, behind the plant, for about two years. "We heard the siren once last summer, with all the windows and doors open." Part of the problem is that there are no sirens in the subdivision. He suggested more sirens are needed because weather and trees can affect how far away they can be heard. "Maybe they should put them on taller poles," said the retired utility worker. Prior to moving to Virginia, he lived near a nuclear power plant in Limerick, Pa. "You could hear those [sirens] from every place," he said. "Something should be done and there has been talk about the possibility of locating a siren in Tall Pines," he said. Salisbury last summer contacted the Lake Anna Civic Association about her concerns, and the association in turn contacted Dominion, according to Bill Hayden, the president. George O'Connell, who works at the plant, responded that the company had been looking for a siren location on Deerfield Road in Tall Pines, but that residents had not responded to letters. Salisbury filed a formal "allegation" notice with NRC about the sirens and was told that FEMA was responsible for the plant's emergency plan, which includes the siren system. She never heard back from FEMA, which has had its hands full with Hurricane Katrina recovery. Salisbury said last week that her concerns were renewed after reading about a proposal for installing terrorism warning sirens in Northern Virginia. She grew up in New York during the Cold War era and remembers hearing loud air-raid sirens when they were tested. Two Dominion plant representatives did meet her and several other neighbors at Tall Pines last fall, and one contacted her last week after inquiries by The Free Lance-Star. Marc LaFountain, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, which assists in the siren tests, said the backup notification system was put in place because there are spots the sirens can't be heard. "The important thing to keep in mind, is that, with the sirens, we'd be sending out emergency alerts on TV and radio," he said. "We're aware of dead zones and that's why we have the route plan." There have been a few problems with the sirens. Several years ago, a false alarm unnerved people living near the plant when they sounded by accident. In March 2005, the power station briefly lost the ability to activate emergency sirens. That was quickly corrected. On a few occasions, weather and power losses knocked some of them out. Zuercher said the sirens are being upgraded to operate with a backup power source. To reach RUSTY DENNEN: + 540/374-5431 + Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com Date published: 2/15/2006 Fredericksburg.com, 605 William Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 To contact other newspaper departments, please call 540-374-5000. Comments? Send us Feedback, Phone for fredericksburg.com: 540-368-5055 Copyright 2006, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va. ***************************************************************** 30 Rediff: Experts concerned over Indo-US nuke deal News > PTI February 16, 2006 04:21 IST Non-proliferation specialists in Washington have claimed that the Indo-US civilian-nuclear deal will lead to New Delhi expanding its weapons production with implications on Pakistan and China. According to a report, critics of the deal have written to Congress warning that the sale of American and foreign nuclear fuel to India will allow for the rapid expansion of India's nuclear arsenal. They also said that if India buys American and foreign fuel and expands its arsenal base that will lead to Pakistan wanting to expand its arsenal and for China to keep pushing on the modernisation front. The non-proliferation lobby, which is to hold a seminar on the India-US civilian nuclear arrangement, has been consistently making the point that the benefits touted by the Bush Administration are 'overstated'. + Complete Coverage: The Indo-US nuclear tango Further, an argument has been made that if the nuclear arrangement with India enables the latter to rapidly expand its weapons production that will violate American obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The general impression here is that even if the civilian nuclear deal has not run into the kind of turbulence to wreck the prospects it will not be ready in time for President George W Bush's visit to India early in March. Officials are stressing that the civilian nuclear deal is only one part of the US-India cooperation and the success of a Presidential visit ought not to be pegged on this one aspect. Rather Bush's visit ought to be seen in framework of rapidly expanding economic, military and political ties. Ahead of his trip to South Asia, Bush is expected to focus on India at a speech to the Asia Society next Wednesday. 7333: The Latest News on Your Mobile! © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 31 Platts: AECL official: Canada to begin building new nuclear before U.S. Washington (Platts)--14Feb2006 Canada will start building a new nuclear unit before the U.S., predicted Patrick Tighe, vice president, Market & Business Development, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL). Tighe told the Platts' Nuclear Energy Conference in Washington, D.C. today that, with Ontario's commitment to shut its coal plants by 2009, Canada is facing an urgent power crunch. If AECL is to put new power on line by 2015, he said, "We have to start today," and AECL is urging action this year by the Ontario government. He said AECL has built every unit in the last 10 years, in South Korea, China, and Romania, within time and budget, offering its Candu on a turnkey or partial turnkey basis. "We take project delivery risks," he said, terming those risks "significant." He followed several speakers who said management and distribution of risks, including lenders' perceptions of the risk of construction cost overruns like those experienced in the U.S. in the 1980s, will determine financing costs for any new units built in the U.S. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 32 Platts: US to continue support for near-term new nuclear build - Bodman Washington (Platts)--14Feb2006 US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman on Monday said that while the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership eventually could trigger a wave of nuclear plant construction worldwide, he assured an industry audience that the department would continue to support industry efforts to build new nuclear plants in the US in the nearer term. The GNEP, which was unveiled last week in the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget, is designed, among other things, to expand US use of nuclear power, demonstrate more "proliferation resistant" reprocessing, minimize nuclear waste, develop "advanced burner" fast reactors, and establish reliable fuel supply and take-back services. The administration has requested $250-mil in 2007 for the program, which is expected to cost billions of dollars and take decades to complete. "GNEP will not interfere with our plans to see several new plants built in the US," Bodman told industry officials at a Platts conference in Washington. Through the plan, Bodman said, the country could avoid putting un-recycled nuclear waste in the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. "The nuclear waste we dispose of still retains about 90% of its energy, a huge amount of our nuclear waste that we do in fact waste and would waste if we dispose of it in a repository," Bodman said. Bodman asked why the country would "bury" such waste "in a mountain, if there is a better way to deal with," saying "we do in fact think there is." For more information, take a trial to Nuclear News Flashes at http://www.nuclearnews.platts.com. Privacy Notice Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 33 APP.COM: Nuclear power is regenerating interest | Asbury Park Press Online Back Issues:Wednesday, February 15, 2006 BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER The future of nuclear power in the United States is bright or dim, depending on your perspective. No utility has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978, and no plant ordered after 1973 was built, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But the 2005 federal energy law provides incentives for new plants, and President Bush said in his State of the Union speech last month that more money will be invested in "clean, safe nuclear energy" and other technologies. Some companies and groups are considering a number of sites and advanced reactor designs, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry policy group. And the industry anticipates building 12 to 15 new plants by 2015, according to a statement by Skip Bowman, group president. The future "certainly looks very promising," said Jose Reyes, who heads the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State University. "What we see is that many countries are developing these passively safe power plants" that have "a whole new level of safety and reliability." Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst with the environmental group Greenpeace, said nuclear reactors are "so damn expensive" and take a long time to build. New ones won't help control climate change but will create more terrorist targets and produce more radioactive waste, he said. Renewed interest in nuclear power comes amid widespread concern about global warming and climate change linked, at least in part, to emissions of greenhouse gases. Unlike power plants that burn fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. The construction of reactors generates such emissions, however. Nuclear generating capacity in the United States is projected to increase from about 100 gigawatts in 2004 to about 109 gigawatts by 2020 and stay at that level through 2030, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration Web site. A typical plant can generate roughly 1 gigawatt, or 1,000 megawatts, of electricity. Oyster Creek generates 636 megawatts. The 9 additional gigawatts that would be added by 2020 includes 6 gigawatts in new plants spurred by the federal energy law and 3.2 gigawatts of increased power capacity at existing plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. Potential sites for new nuclear reactors include these locations: near New Hill, N.C., near Clinton, Ill., in central Virginia, on the Mississippi River in Mississippi and Louisiana, near Augusta, Ga., and in northeastern Alabama. Risk insurance coverage Still, nuclear power, which generated 20 percent of U.S. electricity in 2004, would produce only 15 percent in 2030, according to federal projections. Coal power is expected to increase its share from 50 percent in 2004 to 57 percent in 2030. But the nuclear industry expects electricity generated by nuclear plants to rise substantially from 2020 to 2030, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Officials were unaware of any proposals for new nuclear plants in New Jersey. Under the federal energy law, risk insurance provisions are aimed at offering financial protection against construction and operational delays beyond the control of a plant's sponsors, according to a November statement by the U.S. Department of Energy. The provisions are "a critical step in laying the foundation for the renaissance of nuclear power in America," Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said in the statement. Each of the first two new nuclear plants would receive up to $500 million in risk insurance coverage to offset the cost of any delays, the statement says. Another four plants would receive coverage of up to $250 million apiece. Riccio, of Greenpeace, said the energy bill provides an "amazing amount of largess to the nuclear industry," but it won't be enough. Spending money on energy efficiency and renewable energy is much more effective in displacing global warming gases than spending it on nuclear power, he said. "The demise of nuclear power is actually a good thing for global warming because a dollar spent on nuclear doesn't go that far," Riccio said. Reyes, of Oregon State, said many companies are looking closely at nuclear plants because they don't emit greenhouse gases. Greater efficiencies Because it has been more than 25 years since the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylvania, public confidence has increased in the industry, Reyes said. Plants are now on line more than 90 percent of the time, a big change from the 1970s, he said. In the 1970s, nuclear plants produced less than 60 percent of the power they were capable of generating, on average, according to the Energy Information Administration. More efficient operations and improved maintenance, including dramatically shorter refueling outages, have led to the increase since then, according to the World Nuclear Association Web site. But Peter M. Sandman, a consultant on communicating risks who lives in Princeton Township, said that despite essentially 20 years of bad news about power from polluting fossil fuels, nuclear power is still having trouble making a comeback. He called it "a stunning inability to earn the public trust." However, David Schanzer, a utility analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott in Philadelphia, said he thinks the future of nuclear power is "outstanding." But "even if everything goes as planned right now, it's going to take 10 years before we get a plant up and running," Schanzer said. Environmentally, nuclear power is the best alternative, he said. But it takes a while to get a license, for plans to take effect, to get the proper equipment, to find a site and get the necessary cooling water, if that's the source of plant cooling, Schanzer said. An advanced, 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant built in 2013 would cost about $2 billion in 2004 dollars, not including interest, according to the 2005 Annual Energy Outlook on the Energy Information Administration Web site. "Gonzo environmentalists" — people who don't want nuclear power because they don't like the idea of it — are one of the biggest obstacles, Schanzer said. The other major obstacle is finding a proper storage site for spent nuclear fuel, Schanzer said. Dr. Donald B. Louria, professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health at New Jersey Medical School in Newark and board member of the antinuclear Nuclear Policy Research Institute, said he thinks the problems of nuclear power are so great that it should not be encouraged, especially at older plants. For example, if terrorists strike plants, "awful things could happen," Louria said. The more the U.S. promotes nuclear power at home, the more other countries will develop plants without the proper safeguards, "so we're going to have more Chernobyls," he said, referring to the world's worst nuclear accident in Ukraine in 1986. And "nobody knows how to get rid of the waste," Louria said. "These are very, very serious problems." Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com [E-mail] ***************************************************************** 34 APP.COM: If cooling towers are required, plant might close | Asbury Park Press Online Back Issues:Wednesday, February 15, 2006 BY TODD B. BATES AND KIRK MOORE STAFF WRITERS Can the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant afford to install costly cooling towers, or would the plant close to avoid the expense? State environmental officials want towers to be built to preserve aquatic life from Barnegat Bay, but the plant's operator, AmerGen Energy Co., said they are costly and unneeded. At a state Department of Environmental Protection public hearing in October, Oyster Creek technician Dave Most said he believed AmerGen will close the site if the state requires cooling towers. "It's not viable as a business case," he said. Most is a newly elected township committeeman in Lacey, where the plant is located. In a 2004 meeting with DEP officials, managers with Exelon, which owns AmerGen, said cooling towers, if required, "would cost $25 million to install and would result in Oyster Creek no longer being financially viable," according to the DEP. A recent AmerGen estimate pegged the cost of building cooling towers at $92.4 million, in 2002 dollars, according to a company document. It said the cost of the towers will far outweigh the benefits. Asked if that cost would make the plant unprofitable, Exelon nuclear communications manager Peter C. Resler said: "That's proprietary information whether or not we would continue to operate the plant." At issue is a draft DEP water intake and discharge permit for Oyster Creek. The DEP prefers that the plant install towers and cut back on 95 percent of the water it draws from Barnegat Bay. But AmerGen officials don't think towers are needed and say they would actually have a greater environmental impact because they would release salt into the air. A nuclear plant with cooling towers releases exhaust heat from its reactor to the air -- mainly by evaporating water -- instead of releasing heated water into a body of water, such as Barnegat Bay. Under the Beach Boulevard bridge spanning the South Branch of the Forked River, water flows west all day in evident defiance of nature and tides. Oyster Creek, which began operating in 1969, withdraws about 1.3 billion gallons of water a day from an intake canal linked to the South Branch for cooling, according to a DEP fact sheet. The water intake and discharge system kills millions of small fish, shrimp and other aquatic species each year, according to estimates cited by the DEP. According to AmerGen, previous studies "suggest that Oyster Creek Generating Station very likely achieves, or nearly achieves," national standards for reducing losses of aquatic life trapped against plant intake screens or entering the plant's cooling water system. "Our concern about the (current) cooling system is simply that it kills too many fish," said Bradley M. Campbell, who was DEP commissioner until he left office Jan. 17. "And it's not a concern limited only to this plant. It's not a concern limited to New Jersey. This has been a long-standing concern. "In a state where our recreational and commercial fisheries are worth billions to our economy, we can't afford to put a fisheries resource at risk from excessive fish kills caused by these structures," he said. The DEP also has given AmerGen the option of upgrading its current system and restoring wetlands. But New Jersey and five other Northeast states have asked a federal appeals court to toss out part of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation allowing power plants to restore wetlands in lieu of installing cooling towers. "I take a skeptical view as to the extent to which mitigation (wetlands restoration) can offset fish kills associated with cooling structures, but it may be that AmerGen or other applicants will be able to make their case on that issue as the record's developed," Campbell said. In the early 1990s, the DEP backed off from demanding that Public Service Electric &Gas Co. build cooling towers to replace the once-through cooling system at its Salem 1 and 2 nuclear reactors on Delaware Bay. A once-through system uses water once and then discharges it into a water body. Instead, the company was allowed to embark on open space preservation and wetlands restoration projects that are still criticized by environmental activists. "Nine-tenths of the environmental groups never supported mitigation in place of best available technology at Salem," said Jane Nogaki of the New Jersey Environmental Federation. Nor would they support it at Oyster Creek, she added. "The plant's once-through cooling is continually killing fish," Nogaki said. "Mitigation can be used to make up for the past, but it can't be used as a bank for future losses." "We got some nice bird habitat out of the deal" on Delaware Bay, said Thomas P. Fote, legislative director for the Jersey Coast Anglers Association. "I don't think it did much for the fish." Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 APP.COM: Oyster Creek has brought jobs and money to Lacey | Asbury Park Press Online Wednesday, February 15, 2006 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN AND KIRK MOORE STAFF WRITERS LACEY — When new vacation home owners in the growing Forked River Beach section tired of swimming or boating during the 1960s, they could always take family and friends two minutes up the road to see the newest tourist attraction. On the bank of an artificial canal linking Oyster Creek and the Forked River, massive concrete footings and the growing shell of a reactor building seemed almost monumental in a small town where only vintage Victorian homes and hotels were more than two stories tall. The Oyster Creek Generating Station grew to dominate Lacey, and not just in size. Revenue derived from the nuclear power plant helped the township build its own high school and maintain a relatively low tax rate that, in effect, became a subsidy attracting new homeowners and families. Although half of Ocean County's municipalities have called for the plant to be shut down or not have its license extended by 20 years, Lacey officials are adamant about keeping Oyster Creek open, mostly because of jobs and revenue. Today in Lacey, where the annual municipal budget is $22.5 million, the township's share of state energy tax revenues from plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. is more than $11.5 million annually, in addition to $1.7 million in local property taxes paid on the 1,416-acre complex, according to the township Tax Assessor's Office. A typical Lacey homeowner pays about $3,600 a year in property taxes; the state average is $5,500. But thanks to a 1997 law, the township's tax rolls won't collapse even if the nuclear plant permanently shuts down tomorrow. "Lacey has developed into what it is because of the power plant," said Gary Quinn, a Lacey committeeman and former mayor. Quinn believes the decision by township leaders to welcome the project in the 1960s paid off. "When the plant came into town, certainly it was smart during that period of time." Lacey's commercial district along Route 9 developed far ahead of similar corridors in nearby Barnegat, Waretown and Berkeley because the plant brought hundreds of workers into Lacey, said Quinn, who owns Eastport Realty and Eastport Builders, here. Many of those workers bought homes in the township, which in turn attracted new businesses, he said. That kick-start has kept the local economy growing over four decades and has helped small businesses remain profitable. Plant laborers, for instance, have shopped at Square Deal Hardware on Route 9 since Oyster Creek's early days, said Bob Concia, a Lacey resident and co-owner of the 31-year-old store. "We used to open up at night if they needed something," he said. Though the amount of business between Square Deal and Oyster Creek has dropped off since the 1970s, Concia said plant workers remain regular customers. They usually drop by several times a day for tools, fasteners and other hardware, he said. Lacey also has benefited economically from the plant's generosity. Recent gifts include 15 acres of vacant land adjacent to the ball fields at Clune Park and $35,000 worth of television broadcasting equipment for the township school district. As the host for a major electrical generation and distribution center, Lacey benefited for many years from state public utility gross receipts and franchise tax revenue collected as a percentage on electric customers' bills. For a time, the tax revenue allowed the Township Committee to make an annual $1 million donation to the local school system, Quinn recalled. Oyster Creek is no longer the cash cow it once was. Lacey's population has grown from 4,600 in 1970 to 26,200 in 2004, and with it, the cost of local services. Quinn said a tax increase would be one likely consequence if the plant closes. The gross receipts tax system was reformed by a 1997 state law that set aside $755 million a year for municipalities from energy taxes. The new formula guaranteed that municipalities like Lacey would continue to receive previous funding levels, and the law added other provisions to prevent state officials from skimming or holding back on payments. Lacey officials still worry the town could lose money if the Legislature changes the energy tax law again, said John Adams, the township business administrator. But state Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, who has represented Lacey in the state Legislature for 24 years, said he's skeptical that the township is in any danger of losing its energy revenue. "Lacey Township will get their $11.5 million, whether or not the nuclear plant is operating," because of the 1997 law, Connors said. "If they (state legislators) were to change it, they'd have to change it for the entire state, and that's not going to happen." Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 APP.COM: Oyster Creek reports loud bang was harmless | Asbury Park Press Online Wednesday, February 15, 2006 06 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LACEY — The Oyster Creek Generating Station let out a loud bang Monday evening that drew police and plant security to the nuclear power plant, fearing the noise could have been an explosion. The bang was the sound of hydrogen igniting after plant operators attempted to turn on a gas filtration system about 5 p.m., said Neil A. Sheehan, a spokesman with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "At no time was the health and safety of the public at risk," said Rachelle Benson, a spokeswoman for plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. But the noise caught the attention of some AmerGen employees in an office building near the reactor. It also drew a hurried response by plant security and township police. Two police officers responded to Oyster Creek after the plant's private security force had reported "a loud unidentified noise." But when the officers arrived, they were told that they were no longer needed, Lacey Police Chief William A. Nally said. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com [E-mail] E-mail Site design by Asbury Park Press/ Contact us USA Today• USA Weekend• Gannett Co. Inc.• Gannett Foundation ***************************************************************** 37 APP.COM: Nuke plant critics say they're stifled Asbury Park Press Online :Wednesday, February 15, 2006 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER When state officials wanted to raise questions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission about possible weaknesses and deficiencies at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, the NRC staff offered a pointed response: No. In a separate petition to the NRC, an activist coalition against the relicensing of Oyster Creek received the same rejection from the agency's staff. State officials and critics of the Lacey plant say they are flabbergasted by NRC rules that bar the asking of all but the most narrow of questions during hearings on proposed license renewals for nuclear power reactors. Oyster Creek, the oldest commercial nuclear plant in the nation, wants to extend its 40-year operating license by 20 years. Without an extension, the plant will close in 2009. "This is sort of a pole vaulter's nightmare," said Paul Gunter, a nuclear power industry watchdog with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington. "This high of a standard has been set to deter public interest intervention." Regulators have yet to deny a license renewal request. Since 2000, the NRC has granted renewals for 39 reactors. An additional 12 are under review. And 27 more renewal applications are expected by 2012, according to an industry trade group. Those three figures taken together constitute nearly three-quarters of the nation's 103 reactors. In their defense, regulators say their mission is to ensure that reactors run safely. Among federal agencies, they say the NRC is one of the most open; nearly all of its findings about the country's 103 commercial reactors are posted on its public Web site. Critics of the license renewal process say NRC hearings give them the opportunity to work with regulators, but they've been challenged with finding issues the agency will consider when deciding whether to extend a plant's license. Bradley M. Campbell, former commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection, who left office Jan. 17, said it was "outrageous" for the NRC staff to recommend denying the DEP's request for a public hearing on Oyster Creek. The NRC staff wants to exclude the public from talking about relicensing issues, he added. The public hearings being sought by the DEP and the activists coalition, Stop the Renewal of Oyster Creek, would be heard before a panel of three administrative law judges. This kind of proceeding, in general, provides those affected by a possible licensing to bring a quasilegal case against the applicant. Before the panel can hear a petition from even a state government, it is reviewed by the NRC staff. The staffers determine if the petition meets certain rules and then forward their opinion to the judges, who either grant or deny a hearing. Plant operators also can submit for consideration their opinion of a petition. The DEP wants the three-judge panel to make these three concerns part of the NRC review of Oyster Creek's 2,400-page renewal application: the plant's vulnerability to a terrorist attack with hijacked airliners, the possibility of reactor vessel components exceeding their designed stress limits, and the availability of critical backup power to keep the reactor's cooling pumps running if there were a blackout. The NRC staff also called for the denial of a separate petition from environmental and nuclear activists, including Gunter. The activists want the same judges to hear concerns over Oyster Creek's drywell liner, a pressure barrier that's been designed to contain radioactive steam. The activists are worried because the vessel has been weakened by rust. The activist coalition includes the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, the New Jersey Environmental Federation, and Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety. NRC staff lawyers and officials from plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. said both the DEP and activists' petitions lacked supporting material and argued points irrelevant to the plant's renewal application. At the same time, regulators reviewing Oyster Creek's license renewal application want to be assured the drywell won't corrode years from now. The NRC and AmerGen agreed last month to measure the drywell's thickness by 2009 and then once every 10 years. What could further complicate business at the NRC is a third petition filed by Brick Mayor Joseph C. Scarpelli and other plant opponents. This "rulemaking petition" — now making its way through a separate bureaucratic course than the hearing petitions — asks the NRC to change its rules to allow more issues to be heard during renewal reviews. But it can take three years for the NRC to decide rulemaking petitions. By that time, the NRC already will have decided on Oyster Creek's license extension. Neil A. Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said the three-year time period is on par with other federal agencies. Gathering information, soliciting input and drafting new rules take time, he said. The NRC Petition Review Board working on the Scarpelli petition will decide if it wants to accept it this summer, Sheehan said. Hurrying the petition to have it in place before the renewal decision would discriminate against other petitioners, he said. "It's also worth noting that it was long recognized that Oyster Creek was going to pursue license renewal, and interested parties could have submitted a rule-making petition when there was still more time left on the plant's current 40-year operating license," he said. The activists want renewal reviews to include checks on security, emergency evacuation plans and the size of surrounding populations. "The fact that the NRC puts these things outside the rules is ridiculous," said Paula Gotsch, a Brick resident and a member of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, or GRAMMES. The group opposes the license renewal for Oyster Creek. Renewal procedures eased To win a renewed license, a plant operator need only show how it can manage environmental impact and age-related degradation of certain safety structures and components. Regulators say existing guidelines are more predictable and stable than those in the 1990s. The amended rules also have increased efficiency, they say. Public meetings, inspections and other benchmarks within the renewal process fit within a tight script that runs 22 months, or 30 months if the NRC grants the kind of hearing being sought by the DEP and the activists. The NRC saves time by relying solely on its staff to decide on plant applications. The five NRC commissioners appointed by the president aren't required to sign off on license renewals, regulators say. This expediency in evaluating renewal applications melds with the Bush administration's interest in increasing the amount of power generated from nuclear plants. State governments have no say on whether a plant should receive a license renewal. Nevertheless, New Jersey officials say they have a responsibility to safeguard the public from potential health threats posed by Oyster Creek and three other reactors in Salem County. For this reason, New Jersey has a team of nuclear experts in the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, part of the DEP. The state has its own experts, in part, to review NRC decisions. NRC's oversight process State and federal nuclear experts have clashed before — over serious issues outside the renewal process. In 2004, Campbell asked the NRC to make officials at the Hope Creek nuclear power plant fix a damaged cooling pump before restarting the reactor. Holding off, he said, would compromise public safety in Salem County. Despite Campbell's stance, the NRC told plant officials they could restart the plant and wait 18 months before fixing the pump, as long as special monitors were installed. Jill Lipoti, director of the DEP's Division of Environmental Safety and Health, has said the Reactor Oversight Process, or ROP, adopted six years ago had "significant flaws." Some rule changes, she said, caused NRC inspectors to miss instances of managers ignoring complaints from workers about unsafe conditions at the Salem 1 and 2, and Hope Creek plants in Salem County. The NRC eventually ordered reforms at the plants, but only after a whistle-blower told regulators about workers not being heard. NRC officials say changes to the ROP have focused inspectors on areas that would pose the most safety risk. Inspectors also now have more opportunities to follow up on trouble spots. "Various state and other regulatory authorities that looked at this have found it to be a good program," Sheehan said. "Some European regulators have tried to emulate the ROP." Congress created the NRC with the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. The agency replaced the Atomic Energy Commission, which had the responsibility of both promoting and regulating nuclear power plants. Today, law forbids the NRC from attempting to make nuclear power the country's energy source of choice. Despite the legal separation of responsibilities and regulators' insistence that they work to protect the public, critics of the agency say the NRC has ulterior motives. Michele R. Donato, a Lavallette lawyer, said she developed that impression last year while representing several environmental groups opposed to the plant's relicensing. "One of the difficulties is that you are dealing with an agency that psychologically thinks of itself as being there to promote nuclear power, rather than to regulate it," she said. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 Xinhua: Power giants team up for nuclear plant www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-16 09:00:04 BEIJING, Feb.16 -- The nation's biggest nuclear reactor builder, China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), will join with one of the country's top five power majors, China Huadian Group, to build a nuclear power plant in East China's Fujian Province. It is the first nuclear project co-operation between China Nuclear and a State-owned power major whose core business is not nuclear power development, China Nuclear said. The two State-owned electricity generation giants yesterday signed a framework agreement for the construction of the new nuclear facility, which could sit as many as six 1,000-megawatt (MW) reactors. The new nuclear plant will be located in Hui'an, in the southeast part of the province near Quanzhou. "The Hui'an nuclear project has been included in China's 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10) (a national blueprint in which China's key projects are scheduled), and the signing of the framework agreement represents the official start-up of the nuclear programme," CNNC said in a statement yesterday. According to the agreement, the two Beijing-based conglomerates will create a joint-venture company for the plant. China Nuclear will be the majority shareholder of the project, and is responsible for constructing and operating the plant. China Huadian will be the second owner, participating in decision-making and project management. A CNNC company official yesterday told China Daily that the agreement signed yesterday is only the start of their partnership. "Further details such as specific shares, total investment as well as the size of the plant in the initial phase will be discussed in further talks," the official said. Technology for the new plant will be decided through international bidding, which means the two firms can choose between Chinese or foreign technologies, another company source yesterday said. "The coming together of the two companies is the beginning of our long-term co-operation in the energy sector, fuelling the country's fast-growing economy," Kang Rixin, president of China Nuclear, said at the signing ceremony yesterday. Kang said China Nuclear's rich experience in building nuclear reactors will combine with Huadian's strong expertise in power project management, making the partnership a "win-win" deal. By the end of last year, China Huadian boasted a total installed power-generating capacity of 38.81 gigawatts (GW), Huadian's president He Gong said. As much as 80.9 per cent of Huadian's power facilities are coal-fired, the remaining hydropower. The company plans to increase the capacity to 60 GW within the next five years and to 100 GW by 2020, Huadian said on its website. Only two companies, China Nuclear and China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, are authorized to build nuclear plants in China. But other power firms such as Huadian and China Power Investment Corp are also striving to gain a share in the huge market, by taking a stake in partnerships with the two nuclear builders. China plans to build as many as 32 more nuclear reactors within the next 15 years, supplying 6 per cent of the country's total power demand, China Nuclear's Kang said. Currently the proportion is about 2 per cent. (Source: China Daily) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: Grid Reliability and the Impact on Plant Risk and the FR Doc E6-2167 [Federal Register: February 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 31)] [Notices] [Page 8004] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15fe06-130] Operability of Offsite Power AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Generic Letter (GL) 2006-02 to all holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operation and have certified that fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel. The NRC is issuing this generic letter to determine if compliance is being maintained with NRC regulatory requirements governing electric power sources and associated personnel training for your plant, the NRC is issuing this GL to obtain information from its licensees regarding: 1. Use of protocols between the nuclear power plant (NPP) and the transmission system operator (TSO), independent system operator (ISO), or reliability coordinator/authority (RC/RA) and the use of transmission load flow analysis tools (analysis tools) by TSOs to assist NPPs in monitoring grid conditions to determine the operability of offsite power systems under plant technical specifications. (The TSO, ISO, or RA/RC is responsible for preserving the reliability of the local transmission system. In this GL the term TSO is used to denote these entities); 2. Use of NPP/TSO protocols and analysis tools by TSOs to assist NPPs in monitoring grid conditions for consideration in maintenance risk assessments; 3. Offsite power restoration procedures in accordance with Section 2 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.155, ``Station Blackout''; 4. Losses of offsite power caused by grid failures at a frequency equal to or greater than once in 20 site-years in accordance with RG 1.155, and 5. Require addressees to provide a written response to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f). This Federal Register notice is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML060380343. DATES: The GL was issued on February 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Not applicable. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Paul Gill at 301-415-3316 or by e- mail asg@nrc.gov or Matthew W. McConnell at 301-415-1597 or e-mail mxm4@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC GL 2006-02 may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. The ADAMS number for the GL is ML060180352. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of February 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Christopher I. Grimes, Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-2167 Filed 2-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 Creamer Media's Engineering News: SA to spend $94m on nuclear energy development South African Industry South Africa will spend R580-million in fiscal 2006/7 on the development of a pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) as it searches for new energy sources, the Treasury said on Wednesday. The country plans to build a PBMR near its only existing nuclear power facility Koeberg, north of Cape Town, as it scrambles to find alternative sources to meet growing electricity, with demand expected to exceed supply by 2007. "Allocations of R600-million and R580-million rand were made in 2004/5 and 2005/6 and a further R580-million is budgeted for 2006/7," the Treasury said. The PBMR is a high-temperature, closed-cycle gas turbine power conversion system and the government sees nuclear fuel as central to meet future energy demands. It hopes for a commercial pebble bed reactor within a decade. The government will own 51% of the total equity in the project, including shares by the Industrial development Corporation and power utility Eskom. The remainder will be held by both local and international investment partners. Parts of the country have been plagued by power failures, largely blamed on poor infrastructure, which the Treasury said was in serious disrepair. These have been worsened by the three-month closure of Koeberg for repairs. About R100-billion will be invested in electricity generation capacity over the next decade, to be shared between Eskom and independent power producers. South Africa's demand for electricity is increasing at an average of 1 000 megawatts a year. Eskom is recommissioning three mothballed power stations, which together with the PBMR will add 5 304 megawatts to the national grid. Eskom will also be a partner on the Inga River hydroelectrical project in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with a budgeted expenditure of R1,6-billion rand over five years, the Treasury said. Author: Reuters E-mail: newsdesk@engineeringnews.co.za Copyright © Creamer Media (Pty) Ltd ***************************************************************** 41 PRN: Exelon Nuclear to Launch Tritium Inspection Program at Its 10 Nuclear Energy Plants Byron Blowdown Line Inspections Begin WARRENVILLE, Ill., Feb. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Exelon Nuclear is launching an initiative across its 10-station nuclear fleet to systematically assess systems that handle tritium and take the necessary actions to minimize the risk of inadvertent discharge of tritium to the environment. The assessments will take place in 2006 and will cover pipes, pumps, valves, tanks and other pieces of equipment that carry tritiated water in and around the plants. The initiative is intended to significantly reduce the possibility of a tritium release of the type that occurred in the past involving the lake "blowdown" line at Braidwood Generating Station near Braceville, Ill. While the Braidwood leak poses no health or safety threat to the environment or the public, "we recognize that inadvertent releases are unacceptable and we are committed to eliminating them," said Exelon Nuclear Chief Operating Officer Charles Pardee. The initiative also will establish new standards for inspections, responses to, and remediation of tritium releases that have the potential to affect the environment or the public. Standards for responses to tritium releases would be modeled, in part, after a recent response at the Dresden Generating Station, where intensified monitoring and inspection detected a small underground tritium leak shortly after it occurred. The small leak, which was confirmed by test data over this past weekend, dripped at a rate of about a half-cup per minute and was discovered within a few weeks after it began. In this case, the suspect pipe was scheduled for replacement as part of a repair and monitoring program undertaken at Dresden. The leak was confined to shallow ground in a small area near the center of the plant property alongside the plant structure and inside the protected security area. It is not expected to approach the edges of the plant property and poses no health or safety threat. "Our purpose is to ensure that we have a full understanding of the health of our systems that handle tritium, and that we have satisfied ourselves, our stakeholders and the communities in which we are members, that our equipment has a high degree of integrity," Pardee said. "Just as important, we want to ensure that we are fully prepared to properly respond to a leak should one occur." Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is found naturally in small concentrations in most surface water. It is produced in higher concentrations in water used in nuclear reactors and is a normal byproduct of commercial nuclear power production. Tritium is typically discharged into the environment under strict federal guidelines. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established a safe drinking water limit of 20,000 picocuries of tritium per liter of water. At Dresden, tritium found in one test well near the center of the plant property measured 500,000 picocuries per liter. Surrounding test wells 10 to 20 feet away showed tritium concentrations of 20,000 picocuries per liter or less, indicating a small area of tritium that dissipates rapidly at the edges. The affected area is believed to be about 30 feet across near the center of the plant's 1,782 acres, adjacent to the plant structure and inside the protected security area. Testing along the site boundary confirmed that no tritium has approached the property edge. The equipment inspection program announced today has already been initiated at the Byron Nuclear Generating Station in Ogle County, Ill., which is similar to Braidwood in its design. As does Braidwood, Byron uses a blowdown line to release tritium to a nearby river -- the Rock River -- as part of normal permitted plant operations. Recent inspections at Byron initiated in response to the Braidwood issue found standing water inside concrete vaults in the ground that are part of the Byron blowdown line, which runs along a strip of company property to the river. The vaults house valves known as "vacuum breakers" that can malfunction and leak. Water in the vaults was tested last week and found to contain a tritium concentration of 86,000 picocuries per liter. Additional engineering work and environmental sampling is being undertaken this week to determine if tritium has migrated into the ground outside the vaults. The Byron tritium concentrations pose no health or safety threat to employees or the public. In addition to the inspection program, a project team comprised of Exelon Nuclear engineers, chemists and environmental scientists, as well as expert consultants, is looking for technological ways to reduce the amount of tritium produced and released at all nuclear plants. The effort is separate from the inspection program. "We owe it to our neighbors and our employees to ensure the environmental integrity of our plants," Pardee said. "We take great pride in the positive environmental attributes of nuclear energy, and we must preserve and enhance the notion that there is no cleaner, safer or more reliable way to produce electricity." Exelon Corporation (NYSE: ) is one of the nation's largest electric utilities with approximately 5.2 million customers and more than $15 billion in annual revenues. The company has one of the industry's largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon distributes electricity to approximately 5.2 million customers in northern Illinois and Pennsylvania and gas to more than 460,000 customers in the Philadelphia area. Exelon is headquartered in Chicago and trades on the NYSE under the ticker EXC. SOURCE Exelon Nuclear Web Site: Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. A company. ***************************************************************** 42 WAVY.COM: North Anna neighbors worry nuclear drills aren't effective FREDERICKSBURG, Va. When emergency warning sirens surrounding North Anna Power Station sound for three minutes this morning, some folks in the area might NOT hear them. Linda Salisbury and some of her neighbors in the Louisa area tell the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star that they can't hear the sirens when they go off four times a year. During the June 2005 test, she sat on her front porch, about a mile from the plant. She says she could barely hear the sirens outside and NOT at all inside.Neighbor Chuck Emeigh says he heard a test in June, but hadn't ever heard one before that. Salisbury says she's worried that if a real emergency happened at the Louisa County nuclear power plant, they wouldn't know. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials tell her the sirens are designed to be heard within about a mile of each horn. There are 67 sirens. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. .gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and WAVY. ***************************************************************** 43 UPI: NRC plans new nuclear security rules United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 2/15/2006 1:15:00 PM -0500 WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is planning new security rules for tis power plants. The new security requirements will cover nuclear plant design, certification, and licensing, NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz told a Platts Conference Monday. He said the NRC had three important security rule-makings planned or underway to codify security requirements for power reactors. The first is the rule-making on the design basis threat for radiological sabotage, the NRC said. The proposed rule is currently out for public comment and a final rule will be issued later this year. The second rule-making will amend the power reactor security regulations in 10 CFR 73.55, 73.56, 73.57, and Part 73 appendices to align them with the series of orders the NRC issued following the mega-terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to ensure safety-security interface issues are properly considered in plant operations. The NRC intends to finalize this rule early in 2007. Its expectations on security design for new reactor licensing activities are to be codified in a third rule-making by September 2007. NRC said it expected that the lessons learned by the agency and reactor licensees before and after Sept. 11, 2001, should be considered by the vendors at the design stage. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 44 UPI: Whistleblower says NSA violations bigger United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 2/14/2006 6:39:00 PM -0500 WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights. Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress. Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance. Neither could he brief the inspector general of the NSA because that office is not cleared to hear the information, he said. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said they believe a few members of the Armed Services Committee are cleared for the information, but they said believe their committee and the intelligence committees have jurisdiction to hear the allegations. "Congressman Kucinich wants Congressman Shays to hold a hearing (on the program)," said Doug Gordon, Kucinich's spokesman. "Obviously it would have to take place in some kind of a closed hearing. But Congress has a role to play in oversight. The (Bush) administration does not get to decide what Congress can and can not hear." Tice was testifying because he was a National Security Agency intelligence officer who was stripped of his security clearance after he reported his suspicions that a former colleague at the Defense Intelligence Agency was a spy. The matter was dismissed by the DIA, but Tice pressed it later and was subsequently ordered to take a psychological examination, during which he was declared paranoid. He is now unemployed. Tice was one of the New York Times sources for its wiretapping story, but he told the committee the information he provided was not secret and could have been provided by an private sector electronic communications professional. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 45 [du-list] Nuclear Workers benefits at risk Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:26:43 -0800 Nuclear worker benefits at risk By NANCY ZUCKERBROD Associated Press Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:20 PM EST WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Bush administration is taking steps to limit costs associated with a benefits program for Cold War-era nuclear workers who developed cancer from radiation exposure, according to a White House document. Republicans and Democrats say they are concerned, with one GOP lawmaker saying he plans to have hearings. Locally, Dan Minter, president of the United Steel Workers Local 5-689, said that it will take further evaluation to find out if this will affect the area. Home | Copyright © 2006 The Portsmouth Daily Times | Top ***************************************************************** 46 Las Vegas SUN: CDC says studying nuclear testing fallout problems is feasible Today: February 15, 2006 at 10:57:41 PST ASSOCIATED PRESS SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The Centers for Disease Control has posted its final report on the feasibility of studying health problems caused by nuclear-testing fallout, concluding that a detailed study was technically possible. However, it said this would require significant resources and that "careful considerations should be given to public health priorities before this path is taken." Congress requested the feasibility report in 1998. The final report was posted on the Internet on Friday, a spokeswoman said. At issue has been the long-term effect of radioactive fallout from the aboveground tests conducted in Nevada in the 1950s and early 1960s. Studies have produced conflicting conclusions as to whether the fallout caused increased incidences of particular types of cancer in the residents living downwind in parts of Nevada, Utah and Arizona. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 provides for compassionate payments to downwinders who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases. The report referred approvingly to a study that Dr. Joseph Lyon of the University of Utah was conducting related to the connection between thyroid abnormalities and fallout. However, Lyon's study was killed by the CDC last year. Lyon estimated his study was about two-thirds completed. "We should be doing that study," he said Tuesday. "The CDC shut us down and told us it was a waste of their money and time." The final feasibility report described the harm from fallout as small. It said that about 11,000 "extra cancer deaths from all cancers, including leukemia, would be predicted to occur among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951-2000 as a result of external exposure to fallout." When nonfatal cancers are included, the number of cases double to 22,000, it said. That is a relatively small number compared with the millions of cases that harm Americans. The most heavily impacted by fallout are the 3.8 million Americans born in 1951, because that group had higher doses at younger ages than others. Fallout was expected to cause "fewer than 1,000 extra fatal cancers" among them. By comparison, for people born in 1951, about 760,000 fatal cancers could be expected if there were no fallout. "Any person living in the contiguous United States since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout, and all organs and tissues of the body have received some radiation exposure," the report said. About 100 nuclear bombs were detonated above ground at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and 1960s. The new report said fallout deposition maps are available, and a detailed study of health impacts is technically possible. "In spite of the large uncertainties, it is likely that there is an increased risk of cancer from fallout, but it is also highly likely that this increase is very small relative to the usual risk of cancer in the absence of fallout exposure," it said. The report also said the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, "could help to clarify the extent to which the Nevada tests increased the incidence of thyroid cancer. The report said regarding Lyon's study that "The University of Utah is currently extending the follow-up for a previous epidemiological study of children who lived in the vicinity of the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s; the results are expected to be available in a few years." However, that study was canceled by CDC before the final report was completed. "Obviously, the Institute of Medicine must disagree with the leadership of the CDC" about the value of his study, Lyon said. Preston Truman, a former southern Utah resident now living in Malad, Idaho, and director of the activist group Downwinders, said he was amazed by the lack of attention paid to Lyon's study. After it was canceled, "the politicians never really applied the pressure they could have," he said. He said a fallout study should be made to get answers to questions that persist. --- Information from: Deseret Morning News, http://www.deseretnews.com --- Information from: Deseret Morning News, http://www.deseretnews.com All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 Rocky Mountain News: 'Truth is out,' say ex-mayor about verdict February 15, 2006 Five neighbors who battled the former operators of the Rocky Flats nuclear plant in court for more than 15 years reacted Tuesday with gratitude, glee and a feeling that "the truth is out." The five, who included a former Arvada mayor and the widow of a former Golden mayor, sat impassively as U.S. District Judge John Kane read the verdict out loud. But once the jury filed out of the courtroom, they exchanged hugs with their lawyers and with one another. Richard Bartlett was mayor of Arvada in 1969 when a fire at Rocky Flats released radioactive material into the air and electrified concerns about health and safety at the plant and the community surrounding it. "I'm very happy with the outcome," Bartlett said outside the courtroom. "The truth is out. The verdict has been read, the records are open and the truth is what we were after." By Barlett's reckoning, the truth of the case was that mismanagement at Rocky Flats led to accidents that released radioactive plutonium and other toxic materials that contaminated both the plant and the surrounding area. They contend that the resulting pollution put residents' health at risk and drove down the value of their property. "The coverup that existed all of that time is finally going to be publicized," Bartlett added. Originally there were seven plaintiffs in the case representing the more than 12,000 affected property owners. One of the seven, 77-year-old Delores Schierkolk was too ill to attend the trial. Her husband, William Schierkolk, was in the courtroom, however. When the verdict was read, he turned and gave a thumbs-up sign to lawyer Bruce DeBoskey, who was sitting in the audience. DeBoskey was one of the lawyers representing the property owners when the suit began. He later withdrew, but returned to watch the verdict. "Wow," he whispered after the trial ended. He credited the current lawyers for the victory, but added, "I take a tremendous amount of pride in this verdict." One of the original defendants was Lorren Babb, a former mayor of Golden who has since died. But his widow, 85-year-old Gertrude Babb, was there. "It's been a long haul . . . and I'm glad it's over," Babb said. "He (Lorren Babb) would have been happy. He was really concerned about health issues." The timing of the verdict was a sentimental occasion for Bartlett and his wife, Sally. They first met at a Valentine's Day dance at the University of Denver when they were students. They married nearly a 18 months later, on June 6. Besides being their anniversary, that date also figured into the history of Rocky Flats. That was the date in 1989 that federal agents raided the plant. "Somebody is looking out for us," Richard Bartlett said of the coincidence. site map--> Subscribe | E-mail alerts| © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 48 Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats neighbors win lawsuit; defense asked to quiz jurors $350 million award Joe Mahoney © News Merilyn Cook smiles as she leaves federal court Tuesday in Denver after she and six other named plaintiffs won a $352 million verdict on behalf of themselves and other property owners who say the former Rocky Flats weapons plant ruined their property values. Others in photograph are, from left, Sally Bartlett, wife of former mayor of Arvada Richard Bartlett; William Schierkolk, a plaintiff; and David F. Sorensen, of the law firm Berger & Montague, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. The woman at far right is an unidentified member of counsel team. Karen Abbott, Charlie Brennan And John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News February 15, 2006 A federal jury awarded more than $350 million Tuesday to thousands of neighbors of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons factory, despite plant operators' arguments that the decades of secret work there was careful, safe and vital to the defense of America during the Cold War. "It's a tremendous verdict. We have been waiting for this for 16 years," said an elated Merilyn Cook, one of the seven neighbors of the plant who filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 12,000 other property owners. "It just feels wonderful." But a lawyer for Rocky Flats operators Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corp. leaped immediately to his feet to challenge the verdict, alleging while the jurors still were seated that some of them may have bullied others into changing their votes. Attorney David Bernick of Chicago demanded access to the jurors' deliberation notes and asked Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane to let him question the jurors. That angered one juror, a former Marine, who spoke up to protest what he saw as an improper intrusion into the deliberations process. The jurors deliberated for 17 days over several weeks. "As a juror, I'm feeling insulted that we're even going into this," the juror said. Kane refused to rule on the spot and dismissed court, then left the bench while Bernick was still arguing loudly for an investigation. "These jurors are heroes," said plaintiffs' attorney Gary Blum. "To criticize them in open court and make an ex-Marine feel like he was insulted is totally inappropriate." The judge later smuggled the jurors out of the downtown Denver federal courthouse so they could avoid the lawyers and journalists who were waiting for them at the public exits. Their names have not been made public. Dow and Rockwell operated the former nuclear weapons factory under contract with the U.S. government, which owns it. Any damages eventually paid to the thousands of plaintiffs will be paid by the U.S. Department of Energy. The government also has paid the lawyers' fees for Rockwell and Dow, amounting to millions of dollars and still rising. Kane told the lawyers he will confer with them Friday afternoon by telephone about the next steps in the case. Bernick said he might not be able to participate because he has been summoned for jury duty in Chicago. "Mr. Bernick," Kane said, "it couldn't happen to a nicer guy." The verdict was particularly satisfying for one lawyer who is no longer part of the case. Bruce DeBoskey, now the Anti-Defamation League's mountain states regional director, was a member of the firm that originally filed the lawsuit on Jan. 30, 1990. DeBoskey was in the courtroom, seated with several of the plaintiffs, when the verdict was announced. "What it really shows is the stamina of the plaintiffs," DeBoskey said afterward. "They're good citizens who represent a class of Colorado-ans who stood up for their rights. It took a lot of courage to stand up and fight these giant corporations, backed by the U.S. government, for what they believe in." The plaintiffs contended that sloppily handled plutonium and other hazardous materials escaped from Rocky Flats onto their properties, about 25 square miles east of the weapons factory. They contended that the contamination was legally both a trespass and a nuisance, eating into their property values and their right to use and enjoy what they owned. Rockwell and Dow said that harmless, minuscule amounts of plutonium escaped from the plant. Environmentalists and some government officials had cautioned for years that the nuclear bomb factory 16 miles northwest of downtown Denver might not be as safe as its operators had insisted since it opened in the early 1950s. Many people had dismissed the cautions as exaggerated, but when FBI agents raided the plant early one summer morning in 1989, the plant's neighbors were alarmed. Within days, Broomfield began digging a ditch to divert a stream that flowed through the plant away from the city's water supply. In Westminster, more than 100 angry residents showed up at a city council meeting to denounce their government for not being more careful about allowing development near the plant. Within months, the neighboring property owners filed the class-action lawsuit. Rockwell pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes - five felonies and five misdemeanors - and paid an $18.5 million fine. The weapons plant has been shut down. Its 6,500-acre site has undergone environmental cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife refuge. Most of the thousands of neighbors in the class-action lawsuit have moved elsewhere. It took 15 years to bring the lawsuit to trial. Kane at one point found the entire U.S. Department of Energy in contempt of court for delays in turning over documents to the plaintiffs. Thousands of pages of documents that were turned over had information blacked out for what the government said were national security reasons. The lawyers began delivering their opening statements on Oct. 11, 2005, to 12 jurors. One juror later was excused because of a family emergency. Another was excused during deliberations after she left the deliberation room in tears and said she didn't want to go back. Bernick argued that the second juror's departure may have signaled that the jury's deliberations were improper. The civil trial did not require a 12-member jury or a unanimous verdict; two dissenting votes would let any verdict stand, Kane said. Questioned at Bernick's insistence about their votes on every item on the 30-page verdict form, the jurors disclosed that they voted 9-1 and 8-2 on many questions. An example question: "Do you find that plutonium from Rocky Flats is present on the Class Properties . . .:" The jurors voted yes, 9-1. Bernick said the juror who left in tears could have changed any of the 8-2 votes to an 8-3 vote, which would have changed the jury's decisions on those questions from yes to no. But the jurors said they were unanimous in setting the amounts of damages they awarded: $176,850,340 for reduced property values due to Dow's and Rockwell's trespass on the plaintiffs' properties by polluting them with plutonium; $176,850,340 for plaintiffs' loss of use and enjoyment of their properties due to the plutonium nuisance created by Dow and Rockwell, and $110,800,000 in punitive damages against Dow and $89,400,000 in punitive damages against Rockwell. The punitive damages total more than $200 million, and Bernick said that's not allowed because they can't be more than the compensatory damages of $176,850,340. "This is a verdict that is clearly a deeply conflicted verdict," he said, calling the jury's decision "patently inconsistent with itself and inconsistent with the law." He stopped short of saying Dow and Rockwell will appeal to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawyers for the homeowners appeared unworried about the complaints. As soon as Kane dismissed court they burst into broad grins, hugs and handshakes. "First, we celebrate," said a smiling Louise Roselle, a Cincinnati lawyer on the plaintiffs' team. "It's the largest verdict I've ever had, so obviously we're very pleased. It's a victory for the people of Colorado," she said. Plaintiffs' lawyer Peter Nordberg, a member of the Philadelphia firm of Berger & Montague, said even in the absence of a possible appeal by the operators of Rocky Flats, many procedural steps must unfold before any plaintiffs actually can collect anything. "We are a ways from making out any checks to the class members," he said. Plaintiffs' lawyer David Sorensen, also of Berger & Montague, said the plaintiffs' legal battle against Rockwell and Dow and their backer, the U.S. government, had "a real David and Goliath aspect." "They had virtually unlimited resources to throw on us," he said. Born of conflict • 1951: The federal government selects Rocky Flats as a site for a nuclear weapons plant. Rocky Flats would go on to build more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and employ 6,000 people. • 1952: Operations begin with Dow Chemical Co. as prime contractor. • 1953: Plutonium processing begins. • 1957: A fire in Building 771 releases radioactive waste. Damage is estimated at $818,000. • 1967: Barrels are discovered to be leaking plutonium-laced chemicals into soil. Winds blow soil to the east. • 1969: A more serious fire erupts in a plutonium processing building, sending radioactive smoke into the air. The 5 ½-hour blaze causes $26.5 million in damage. Within a year, protests outside the plant's gate become a regular fixture. • 1973: Colorado Health Department discovers radioactive tritium in Walnut Creek flowing through Rocky Flats. • 1975: Rockwell International replaces Dow as Rocky Flats operator. • 1989: FBI and Environmental Protection Agency raid plant, looking for evidence of environmental violations. • 1989: A special grand jury is convened to investigate alleged environmental crimes at Rocky Flats. It would meet for more than two years. • 1989: Rocky Flats is added to Superfund list. • 1989: Plutonium operations are permanently halted because of safety reasons. • 1990: EG&G takes over operation from Rockwell International. • 1990: Residents in an area east of the plant file a civil suit, claiming the plant harms their property values. • 1992: President George H.W. Bush announces the end of the W-88 missile program. The announcement signals the end of Rocky Flats. • 1992: Rockwell, in a plea deal, admits 10 federal environmental crimes and is fined $18.5 million. • 1996: Grand jurors ask permission to break the silence required of them by law so they can testify before Congress. • 2004: Colorado U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch refuses to let grand jurors break silence, but says required grand jury secrecy may not be appropriate social policy and that Congress could change it. • 2005: A federal court begins hearing the 15-year-old lawsuit filed by Rocky Flats neighbors. abbottk@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5188 --> 2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 49 Guardian Unlimited: Colo. Landowners Win $554M in Nuclear Suit From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday February 15, 2006 1:46 PM By JON SARCHE Associated Press Writer DENVER (AP) - Two companies that ran the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant exposed neighbors to plutonium through their negligence, endangering people's health and contaminating their property, a federal jury concluded. The jury recommended Dow Chemical Co. and the former Rockwell International Corp. be ordered to pay $553.9 million in damages, an amount that is likely to be lowered by the judge but still be in the hundreds of millions. ``This isn't a windfall, this is making up for what these people lost,'' said Bruce DeBoskey, an attorney who spent 12 years on the case. Dow said it would appeal. Defense attorney David Bernick said the judge wrongly allowed some testimony, including claims that the Energy Department was a conspirator. He also questioned a juror's dismissal after deliberations had started and said the jury was allowed to award damages if it determined the companies were responsible for even one atom of plutonium on the plaintiffs' properties. The lawsuit was filed in 1990 on behalf of 13,000 people, claiming the weapons plant contaminated neighboring land, lowering property values. The now-defunct plant made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads for decades. The lawsuit claims the companies intentionally mishandled radioactive waste there and then tried to cover it up. During the four-month trial, attorneys for the landowners presented a study showing higher rates of lung cancer near the plant. Bernick dismissed the cancer claims as ``junk science,'' saying the study didn't indicate how long the patients had lived near Rocky Flats. Jurors deliberated for 18 days before determining that the damage from the radioactive material might never go away. They concluded the two companies damaged private property around the site through negligence that caused ``class members to be exposed to plutonium and (placed) them at some increased risk of health problems.'' The verdict calls for punitive damages of $110.8 million against Midland, Mich.-based Dow Chemical, which operated the plant from the 1950s until 1975; and $89.4 million against Milwaukee-based Rockwell, now known as Rockwell Automation, which ran it from 1975 until the plant was shut down. The jury also recommended $352 million in actual damages. The final award is likely to be less because of limits in state and federal law, but it could still reach $352 million after U.S. District Judge John Kane reviews the verdict, said Louise Roselle, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs. The government is expected to cover damages and legal bills because the companies were contractors operating the sprawling Cold War site near Denver on behalf of the Energy Department, attorneys said. A department spokesman did not immediately return a message seeking details. The Rocky Flats site was closed in 1989, and last year, a contractor declared a 10-year, $7 billion cleanup project complete. Much of the 6,240-acre site will become a wildlife refuge. Rockwell in 1992 agreed to pay an $18.5 million fine for water quality and other violations at the site. Rockwell admitted it stored hazardous waste without a permit, and that it stored the wastes in containers that leaked, and that its actions caused hazardous waste to wind up in reservoirs that supplied drinking water to nearby cities. The settlement culminated a lengthy investigation dubbed ``Operation Desert Glow'' in which FBI agents secretly monitored the discharge of pollutants into streams and the burning of hazardous waste at Rocky Flats. Federal agents charged in an affidavit unsealed after a 1989 raid that Rockwell and Energy Department officials were aware of environmental violations and sought to conceal them. --- Associated Press Writer Megan McCloskey contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 50 Deseret News: CDC posts final report on fallout study [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, February 15, 2006 Research is praised, but resources needed for other priorities By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News The Centers for Disease Control has posted its final report on the feasibility of studying health problems caused by fallout — about eight years after Congress requested it. The report refers approvingly to a study that Dr. Joseph Lyon of the University of Utah was conducting related to the connection between thyroid abnormalities and fallout, believed to be the most widespread harm caused by the radioactive particles. However, the CDC killed Lyon's study last March after $8 million was spent on it. Lyon estimated his study was about two-thirds completed. "We should be doing that study," he said Tuesday. "The CDC shut us down and told us it was a waste of their money and time." He added, "The CDC doesn't have a clue." Congress requested the feasibility report in 1998. In 2002 a draft was forwarded to the National Academy of Sciences for comment. The final version was ready in April 2005, and transmitted to Congress in February 2006, says a CDC summary posted on the Internet. A government spokeswoman said the report was made public on Jan. 25, when delivered to Congress. (The CDC's posted statement says it was transmitted to Congress in February). It was posted on the Internet on Friday, she said. The final report concludes that a detailed study of the health impacts on Americans because of fallout "is technically possible." It adds that this would require "significant resources" and that "careful considerations should be given to public health priorities before this path is taken." In other words, the report says an agency considering such a study should carefully weigh priorities. The report says the harm from fallout is "small" but that is a relative term, based on the astronomical number of cancer injury and deaths not caused by fallout. It notes that the National Cancer Institute said in a 1997 study that between 11,300 and 212,000 thyroid cancers would be expected among the U.S. population because of Nevada Test Site fallout. Thyroid cancer is rarely fatal. The latest report estimates that about 11,000 "extra cancer deaths from all cancers, including leukemia, would be predicted to occur among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951-2000 as a result of external exposure to fallout." When non-fatal cancers are included, the number of cases double to 22,000, it says. That is a relatively small number compared with the millions of cases that harm Americans. The most heavily impacted by fallout are the 3.8 million Americans born in 1951, because that group had higher doses at younger ages than others. Fallout is expected to cause "fewer than 1,000 extra fatal cancers" among them. By comparison, for people born in 1951, about 760,000 fatal cancers could be expected if there were no fallout. For the figures cited, only "crude estimates" are available, the report says. "Any person living in the contiguous United States since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout, and all organs and tissues of the body have received some radiation exposure," the final report says. About 100 nuclear bombs were detonated above ground at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and '60s. The new report notes that fallout deposition maps are available, and a detailed study of health impacts is technically possible. "In spite of the large uncertainties, it is likely that there is an increased risk of cancer from fallout, but it is also highly likely that this increase is very small relative to the usual risk of cancer in the absence of fallout exposure," it says. In the conclusion, the report says the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, "could help to clarify the extent to which the Nevada tests increased the incidence of thyroid cancer. "The University of Utah is currently extending the follow-up for a previous epidemiological study of children who lived in the vicinity of the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s; the results are expected to be available in a few years," the conclusion adds. "Outcomes evaluated will include neoplastic (that is, with tumors, as in cancer) and non-neoplastic thyroid disease." However, that study was cancelled by CDC shortly before the present final report was completed. "Obviously, the Institute of Medicine must disagree with the leadership of the CDC" about the value of his study, Lyon said. He said he still believes the study should be completed. "There's quite a bit to be learned." Other studies have indicated that only about half of the fatal cancers caused by fallout have taken their toll, because of the latency period after exposure. Preston Truman, director of the group Downwinders — a resident of Malad, Idaho, and a former resident of southern Utah — said he is amazed by the lack of attention paid to Lyon's study. After it was cancelled, "the politicians never really applied the pressure they could have, and should have when the results on thyroiditis began to come in." Thyroiditis is an inflammation of the thyroid gland that may be tied to fallout, but is not a form of cancer. Truman called for a fallout study to generate answers to questions that persist. E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 51 CTV Toronto: Radiation and fumes pose threat to Ont. residents - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television Wed. Feb. 15 2006 7:25 PM ET Canadian Press Lax enforcement of fire-safety standards by Canada's nuclear watchdog has left thousands of Ontario residents at risk of radiation and toxic fumes from two uranium processing plants, environmentalists and civic officials said Wednesday. While the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has known about the dangers at plants for years, people in Port Hope east of Toronto are still without a fire department able to deal with fires involving hazardous materials. "The risk is catastrophic even though the risk is low," said Christine Elwell, a lawyer with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. "It's just reckless behaviour on the part of the commission to not be more strict about these basic requirements." The Cameco and Zircatec plants, both owned by Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corp., are located close to homes. The facilities store and use potentially deadly chemicals such as anhydrous hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids to process uranium ore into radioactive fuel for nuclear reactors. Last May, the safety commission ordered the companies to come up with a plan to deal with the "unacceptable" risk of fire or face possible suspension of their licences. In a report prepared for a regulatory meeting Thursday, the agency said the plants had made "an acceptable rate of progress in addressing the risks." Cameco has provided training to off-site emergency responders, "including a number of volunteer firefighters from the Port Hope Fire Department," the report noted. But Frank Haylow, chief of the town's 56-member volunteer fire department, said Wednesday his men simply cannot handle a fire involving hazardous materials. While Cameco has provided some training, the department still has no specialized hazardous materials gear, he said. That means having to call in help, perhaps from as far as Toronto two hours away, in the event of a serious fire.Break> "We cannot guarantee response at any given time," Haylow said. "Until we have everybody trained, until we have sufficient equipment, we still can't respond." Haylow said he planned to make that point to the commission at Thursday's meeting in Ottawa. Resident John Miller, president of the 1,500-member grassroots Families Against Radiation Exposure, said the town is unacceptably vulnerable. "If there's a fire tomorrow, God help us," said Miller. "We're depending on the nuclear regulator to say to the companies, 'Look, you've got to arrange something now'." At minimum, Cameco should pay for a dedicated firefighting force or contract with an outside agency able to respond appropriately, said Miller. Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn said the plants have beefed up internal training and equipment to satisfy the nuclear watchdog's demands, and denied Port Hope residents are at risk. The company has put together a risk assessment of "realistic fire scenarios" and is confident it can deal with them, said Krahn. "We believe we have those scenarios covered off." © 2006 Bell Globemedia Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 The NewStandard: EPA to Further Relax Weak Toxin Rules - + 2/15/06 by NewStandard Staff With the Environmental Protection Agency poised to significantly alter the list of toxic chemicals in need of close monitoring, a new study shows that its current requirements fall far short of protecting the public. According to the Environmental Working Group, the EPA fails to require adequate tracking of at least ten toxic pollutants, in some cases declining to do any tracking at all. The ten chemicals range in the danger they pose to the public, but all are classified as persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) by the EPA because they are regularly released into the environment and accumulate in people, plants and animals. Among the PBTs not well-tracked are coal tar, anthracene and chlorobenzene, all industrial byproducts, EWG found. Medical tests by the federal government, the Red Cross and hospitals found some of the toxins appear regularly in people, with half of all fetal umbilical-cord blood samples showing anthracene contamination, EWG reported. Half of the chemicals identified by EWG are commonly found in drinking water. The group’s study analyzed and compiled the results of millions of tests in concluding that the EPA has already undermined its toxic-chemical reporting requirements. "The persistent, toxic chemicals we identified in this study are important, heavily used industrial substances," EWG Vice President Richard Wiles said in a statement accompanying the report’s release. "At the very least, Americans have a right to know if companies are releasing these pollutants into their communities. In fact, we should have begun tracking these pollutants years ago. Instead of curbing reports on the most worrisome pollutants to please industry, the Bush administration should be expanding the tracking system to inform and protect the public." As previously reported by The NewStandard, last year, the EPA proposed changes to its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program that would change some chemical classifications, loosen pollutant reporting thresholds and mandate that companies report toxin levels every two years, rather than every year as is currently the case. The 20-year-old TRI is a public database that keeps track of industrial chemicals released into the environment. Under the current rules, companies must fully report annual releases of 500 pounds or more of most industrial chemicals. Community-based environmental advocates have found the TRI a crucial tool for monitoring companies in their areas and finding out about public health threats. The EPA’s proposed changes would multiply that baseline by ten, to 5,000 pounds, a change the National Environmental Trust (NET) charged will "result in an inaccurate picture of pollution at the local level, hamper our ability to prepare for emergencies, and provide an incentive for facilities to pollute in our communities." NET is a progressive, nonprofit environmental education group. In its own analysis, NET called the TRI the nation’s "flagship environmental ‘right-to-know’ program" and warned that if enacted, EPA’s new rules would benefit businesses at the expense of communities and the nation’s future environmental health. NET found that the changes would leave nearly 1,000 communities bereft of information about local polluters because those companies would no longer be required to report their toxic discharges. According to a study conducted jointly by NET and state Public Interest Research Groups released last December, the effects of the relaxation would be widespread. Under the proposed rules, 3,849 polluting facilities throughout the 26 states included in the study would no longer be required to provide specific information about the toxins they release. The EPA’s proposed rule, known as TRI Burden Reduction, is now in the second phase, which began after public comments closed on January 13. It gives the Agency time to assess comments, studies and other information presented before refining the regulatory change. In a series of Agency-posed questions and answers about the second phase of the proposal, the EPA said it intends to further reduce company chemical-pollution reporting requirements in the future. While the federal government may be seeking to lessen the reporting burden for companies and streamline its own regulatory workload, several state and local officials are stepping forward advocate for their communities. According to information collected by the government watchdogs at OMB Watch, the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania health commissioner and head of the Miami-Dade, Florida County government have both come out against the changes. Late last month, California Assembly member Ira Ruskin (D–Redwood City) announced plans to block the EPA from using the new rules in California, OMB Watch noted. © 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS . ***************************************************************** 53 NRC: NRC to Continue Heightened Inspections at Honeywell Although Plant Operated Safely During Past Year News Release - Region II - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-002 February 14, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a report saying the Honeywell Specialty Chemicals plant at Metropolis, Ill., operated safely during the past year, but the agency will continue heightened inspections at the facility until further corrective actions and long-term performance improvements are achieved. NRC officials will discuss the results of the agencys Licensee Performance Review at a public meeting Feb. 22 in Metropolis at 8:30 a.m. (local time) at the Metropolis Community Center, located at 516 Superman Square. Interested members of the public are invited to attend for purposes of observation, and members of the NRC staff will be available to answer questions after the business portion of the meeting but before the meeting is adjourned. The NRC reviewed performance at the Honeywell facility for a period from November 21, 2004 until December 9, 2005. The agency said in the Jan. 27 report that Honeywell ensured that licensed activities were conducted safely during the review period but that further improvement is needed in adherence to procedures related to conduct of operations, corrective action program management and management of procedures. A copy of the letter to the company with its enclosures will be available from the NRC Public Document Room in Washington, D.C. at 1-800-397-4209 or electronically from the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The accession number is ML060270156. Last revised Tuesday, February 14, 2006 ***************************************************************** 54 baltimoresun.com: CSX to pay $2 million to Baltimore - Settlement assigns no fault for 2001 railroad tunnel fire By Michael Dresser Sun reporter Originally published February 14, 2006 Four and a half years after a derailment and fire in the Howard Street Tunnel created havoc downtown, CSX Transportation Inc. has agreed to pay Baltimore $2 million to settle the city's lawsuit against the railroad company. Mayor Martin O'Malley and CSX Corp.'s chairman and chief executive officer, Michael J. Ward, said the railroad will defray the city's costs from the fire and the cleanup without either side admitting fault in the July 2001 accident. "Rather than continuing to litigate, both parties have agreed to dedicate shared resources and energy to further enhance safety and security in the city," O'Malley and Ward said in a statement yesterday announcing the settlement. City Solicitor Ralph S. Tyler said the deal achieves the purposes of Baltimore's $10 million federal lawsuit against the Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Transportation, the rail unit of CSX Corp. "By this settlement, the city has recovered substantially all the expenses incurred as a result of the derailment and fire," Tyler said. He noted that CSX had previously agreed to pay more than $300,000 in overtime for city workers. The agreement does not include payment of legal expenses, but Tyler said the city handled the case using in-house lawyers rather than retaining outside counsel. Other provisions of the agreement require more sharing of information by the city and the company, including police radio transmissions and images from security cameras in the tunnels. The railroad agreed to share more information about shipping patterns and the movement of hazardous cargo through the city. The agreement does not explicitly call for advance notification of hazardous shipments, but one provision says the railroad and Baltimore will "jointly develop" a plan to enable city officials "to identify what types of chemicals" are passing through. The two parties, which have a history of tense relations, also committed to forge what Tyler called "a new relationship" on safety. They agreed to jointly request an inspection of the tunnel by federal and state agencies. The railroad agreed to perform any repairs that might be required by regulators. The more than century-old 1.7-mile tunnel running under Howard Street was a little-noticed part of Baltimore's underground infrastructure when 11 freight cars of a 60-car CSX train - including tank cars carrying toxic chemicals - derailed July 18, 2001. One car, carrying the flammable chemical tripropylene, ruptured and caught fire. The resulting fire reached temperatures estimated at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and filled the downtown air with acrid smoke. The fumes forced the evacuation of Oriole Park at Camden Yards, near the southern entrance to the tunnel. The firefighting effort trapped drivers in downtown congestion for hours and snarled traffic in the city for the next several days as emergency crews struggled to bring the fire under control. A city fire lieutenant described the scene as "a little bit of hell." It would take three days for firefighters to extinguish the fire and a week before the tunnel could reopen. The closure created a bottleneck for freight rail traffic on the Eastern Seaboard. Downtown buildings flooded and lost power after a water main burst, and key telecommunications links were severed. In the aftermath of the fire, the city and CSX pointed fingers at each other over the cause of the accident. The railroad suggested that the water main break was a cause of the accident; the city said it was a result of the fire. A 3 1/2 -year National Transportation Safety Board investigation of the accident was inconclusive, but the board said the most likely cause was "an obstruction between a car wheel and the rail, in combination with changes in track geometry." The federal agency criticized CSX's maintenance recordkeeping and chided the city and the railroad for communications lapses during the incident. The NTSB discounted the possibility that the water main break caused the derailment. The city filed suit against CSX in July 2004. The case had been scheduled for trial March 13. Instead, the O'Malley administration will seek the Board of Estimates' approval of the deal Feb. 22. Among the provisions: + CSX will give the city a list of hazardous materials that moved through the tunnel last year and annually for subsequent years. + The railroad will train at least six city emergency responders a year in tank-car safety and counterterrorism measures. Copyright © 2006, The Baltimore Sun ***************************************************************** 55 DenverPost.com: Flats plaintiffs due $554 million Article Launched: 02/15/2006 1:00 AM MST denver &the west The lawsuit, the biggest environmental class action in Colorado history, claimed contamination. By Alicia Caldwell Denver Post Staff Writer Plaintiffs Sally Bartlett, left, and her husband, Richard, right, joke outside the courthouse Tuesday about the length of time the case took to be resolved. Plaintiff William Schierkolk is at center. Appeals of the jury verdict for property owners are likely to take years. (Post / Craig F. Walker) A federal jury Tuesday awarded $553.9 million to property owners who live downwind of the now-defunct Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant, rejecting long-held government arguments that there was no risk from plutonium contamination. The verdict was the culmination of a 16-year mission by property owners and activists who believe the federal government has hidden behind a veil of national security to avoid taking responsibility for pollution from the Cold War-era factory. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the largest environmental class action in Colorado history, reacted with joy and tears as the judge read the 30-page verdict form in U.S. District Court in Denver. "I'm just grateful that justice has been served," said Sally Bart lett, one of the named plaintiffs in the action. "This was a concern for the whole community." The jury's verdict against Dow Chemical and Rockwell International is intended to compensate the owners of 12,000 properties in the class-action area for decreased property values due to plutonium contamination and to punish the plant operators. However, any verdict that eventually is paid will come out of federal coffers because the government indemnified the contractors. The government also is paying the companies' legal fees, which tally more than $58 million, according to David Bernick, a lawyer representing Dow and Rockwell. Bernick took issue with the verdict form and the instructions Plaintiff Gertrude Babb, right, is all smiles as she's escorted from federal court Tuesday by her daughter, Jody Weaver. The $553.9 million award to property owners who lived downwind of the now-defunct Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant was the culmination of a 16-year effort by those property owners and environmental activists. (Post / Glenn Asakawa) given to the jury, saying they were "one-sided" and encouraged a plaintiff's verdict. "It's apparent from the verdict itself that justice has been lost," Bernick said. Lawyers for the plaintiffs praised the diligence of jurors who deliberated for 17 days in the trial, which started Oct. 3. "What happened at Rocky Flats was wrong, and this jury obviously agreed with that," said Louise Roselle, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. Roselle said that once Senior U.S. District Judge John Kane takes case law and damage caps into account, the verdict probably will be reduced to $352 million. And she said she expects the appeals in the case to last for years. Len Ackland, a University of Colorado journalism professor and author of "Making a Real Killing: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West," said it was a shame that the verdict probably will get entangled in years of second- guessing. "One thing you can be sure of is that there will be an appeal," Ackland said. "And the taxpayers will again foot the bill for the lawyers for Rockwell and Dow. The folks that will definitely be getting rich off this are the lawyers." Erin Hamby, a Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board member who has frequently criticized the plant's $7 billion cleanup, said the public airing of the misdeeds at the plant has a value beyond the compensation awarded to property owners. "I think one of the extremely important things to come out of this trial was a better telling of the Rocky Flats story," she said. "So much of its history was hidden away, literally locked inside a storage room. Now, we know a lot more about the plant's operational history." Dow and Rockwell have contended that while their workers were involved in the inherently dangerous mission of manufacturing nuclear weapons, their precautions were effective and nearby residents did not suffer because of their conduct. Lawyers for the plaintiffs picked apart those assertions, repeatedly showing news clips of the 1989 FBI raid of the plant, north of Golden, which occurred during an investigation of environmental crimes. They showed jurors news reports and photographs of barrels oozing plutonium-laden wastes into the ground. They told jurors there were 160 to 180 waste sites on the 6,500-acre property. And they repeatedly emphasized during the trial that 2,600 pounds of plutonium - enough to make 400 nuclear weapons - had gone missing from the plant. Jurors reacted by awarding damages on plaintiffs' claims of "trespass" and "nuisance," which have legal meanings that are different from their everyday meanings. The jury found that accidents and mishaps caused by Dow and Rockwell's operation of the plant caused plutonium to "trespass" on neighbors' properties. And they found the companies caused a "nuisance" by unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment of their properties. Jurors found that residents near the now-razed plant suffered loss of property value due to trespass and awarded nearly $177 million; they awarded an additional amount of nearly $177 for property value loss due to nuisance; and they awarded punitive damages of $200 million. State Rep. Wes McKinley, the foreman of a grand jury that investigated environmental crimes at Rocky Flats, said the verdict was not surprising. "The facts about Rocky Flats are out there," McKinley said. "The public knows what plutonium can do to you." McKinley said he's considering resurrecting legislation he introduced last year that would inform visitors of the future Rocky Flats wildlife refuge that the site was contaminated. "Just so people can know what's out there," he said. Staff writers Kim McGuire and Dave Curtin contributed to this report. Staff writer Alicia Caldwell can be reached at 303-820-1930 or acaldwell@denverpost.com. Other lawsuits stemming from weapons plants Other lawsuits aimed at contamination and pollution generated from Cold War-era nuclear-weapons plants: 1953: The Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant opens north of Golden. 1988: The U.S. Justice Department begins to investigate alleged environmental crimes committed at the plant. JUNE 7, 1989: The plant is shut down after an FBI raid searching for evidence of illegal waste disposal. It does not reopen. AUGUST 1989: In the wake of the FBI raid, a federal grand jury is impaneled to review the Flats case. Indictments are not issued. 1990: A class-action lawsuit is filed on behalf of property owners living downwind of the plant. The suit alleges that Dow Chemical and Rockwell International, the plant's operators, negligently allowed plutonium to blow off the plant and contaminate their land. MARCH 25, 1992: Rockwell settles with the Justice Department - bypassing the federal grand jury - by pleading guilty to 10 violations of the Clean Water Act and federal hazardous-waste laws, including illegal storage of hazardous wastes. Rockwell agrees to pay $18.5 million in fines. NOV. 13, 1995: A U.S. District Court judge holds the Department of Energy in contempt for failure to comply with a court order to release millions of pages of documentation regarding missing plutonium and health trends at the plant. The documents had been requested in regard to the 1990 class-action suit. OCT. 15, 1999: Notices are mailed to the owners of 12,000 properties deemed eligible to be a part of the Rocky Flats lawsuit. OCT. 11, 2005: The case goes to trial as the largest environmental class-action lawsuit in Colorado history, with property owners seeking $500 million in damages. FEB. 14, 2006: Jury awards plaintiffs almost $554 million. Sources: The Associated Press and Denver Post archives. Compiled by Barry Osborne of The Denver Post research library. Sean Theorine works on his ranch near Rocky Flats on Tuesday. His grandparents were part of the group that sued former Flats operators. (Post / RJ Sangosti) contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 56 DenverPost.com: Flats decision a "no-brainer" Article Launched: 02/15/2006 1:00 AM MST Neighbors of the now-defunct Rocky Flats nuclear facility had long worried about the health situation. By Howard Pankratz Denver Post Staff Writer Surrounded by the things she loves - the countryside, the horses she has rescued and her dogs - 73-year-old breast-cancer survivor Bini Abbott learned Tuesday of the multimillion-dollar Rocky Flats verdict handed down by a federal jury. Abbott has been a neighbor of Rocky Flats for 46 years and lives on her ranch with her husband, Meade, 84, a mile southeast of the now-closed plant. "It was a no-brainer," said Abbott of the verdict. The daughter of a doctor who has devoted her life to being what she describes as an "environmentalist" and "activist," she was the first person in her area who called a lawyer, Bruce DeBoskey, about possibly pursuing legal action. Later, then-Gov. Roy Romer appointed Abbott as a citizen representative to the Rocky Flats health advisory panel in 1990. Abbott, dressed in sweats and her face smeared with dirt Tuesday, had been working with the horses she has rescued. She declined to be photographed, saying she wasn't dressed in her "high society" clothes. But Rocky Flats has been on her mind for years. "I was worried about the health situation," she said. "I had some crippled animals born, and I wanted to find out if Rocky Flats was responsible." She said not only were some of her animals deformed but that a neighbor, Lloyd Mixon, had a crippled pig named Scooter that added to her concerns. So she started prying into Rocky Flats' activities and keeping records. And then she came down with breast cancer. She said the lawsuit wasn't about the money, it was just having people realize the impact that Rocky Flats had on the people living on farms and ranches near the plant. "I'm just glad that they are aware that our land values have diminished," Abbott said. "I know people who wouldn't board horses out here" because of the fear of what the plant had done to her land. She said that when she is working the ranch, and the wind blows from the north onto her land, "I will turn the other way." While Abbott said that the monetary verdict meant nothing to her, her husband, who has as sharp a wit as his wife of 48 years, grinned, spread his arms and said, "That will take care of us." A retired certified public accountant and baseball addict, Meade Abbott will soon travel south to Arizona to take in the Cactus League baseball spring training. Just down the highway at another ranch, Sean Theorine, whose grandfather James Ralph Coleman and grandmother Alice Mae Coleman were heavily involved in the Rocky Flats lawsuit, lamented a loss. James Coleman died last weekend, and his funeral will be Sunday. "I'd be interested in finding out if his estate gets any money," Theorine said. Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at 303-820-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com. Other lawsuits stemming from weapons plants Other lawsuits aimed at contamination and pollution generated from Cold War-era nuclear-weapons plants: Fernald (Ohio) uranium processing plant. In October 1989, the Department of Energy agrees to a $78 million settlement in a class-action suit representing 14,000 residents over radioactive pollution generated by the plant. In July 1994, the department agrees to a $20 million-plus settlement to pay for lifetime medical monitoring for former plant workers and contractors. The case is under appeal. Pantex (Texas) nuclear plant. In November 2002, contractor Mason &Hanger, which operated the plant, settles for an undisclosed sum with plant neighbors who claimed management practices contaminated their groundwater and devalued property. Paducah (Ky.) Gaseous Diffusion Plant. In January 2004, a federal judge dismisses a lawsuit by 135 residents living within 10 miles who claimed the plant damaged their property by contaminating groundwater. The case is under appeal. Hanford (Wash.) nuclear reservation. In 2005, former operators of the plant prevail in four of six cases in which plaintiffs claimed damaged health due to living downwind of the plant. The cases were seen as representative of thousands claiming similar illnesses; the victorious plaintiffs were awarded about $500,000. The case is under appeal. Sources: The Associated Press and Denver Post archives. Compiled by Barry Osborne of the Denver Post Research Library. All contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 57 thebulletin.org: The bioterrorist cookbook | [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists] The chances of a massive bioterrorism attack remain low. It's the small-scale attacks that warrant real concern. By Malcolm Dando November/December 2005 pp. 34-39 (vol. 61, no. 06) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [N] o doubt, Lawrence Wein, a professor of management science at Stanford Business School, did not expect to be at the center of a national controversy over censorship. His research paper, which was slated to be published on May 30, 2005, in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was intended as a thought experiment--a mathematical model of the supply chain providing milk to consumers in the United States and how it might be contaminated by a terrorist using botulinum toxin. [1] The New York Times thought his findings significant enough to invite him to publish an editorial titled "Got Toxic Milk?" [2] Before publication by PNAS, however, Stewart Simonson, assistant secretary for public health emergency preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote to the president of the National Academies, Bruce Alberts, requesting that the paper not be published since it provided a "road map" for terrorists. Simonson's concerns were not without cause. Botulinum toxin is on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) list of highly lethal "Category A" biological agents, along with smallpox, anthrax, plague, tularemia, and viral hemorrhagic fevers. (After the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq admitted to the United Nations that it had produced more than 19,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxin--theoretically enough to kill tens of millions of people.) Nevertheless, after due consideration, PNAS published the paper in July 2005. In an explanatory editorial, Alberts argued that "scientific free-for-all in the open literature leads to a refinement of the original findings that will, over time, always make any analyses much more reliable and better understood." [3] In that respect, PNAS was quite correct. Wein's analysis came under immediate and severe criticism from other scientists. Two researchers wrote a rejoinder, published by the Federation of American Scientists, noting that, "Many strains of Clostridium botulinum in nature produce very little or no toxin. Finding the right one in nature out of literally 600 or 700 strains can take a long time." Looking at all of the variables, they concluded the real chance of successfully carrying out such an attack was only one-billionth of what Wein had stated. [4] Does this mean we should not be concerned about a bioterrorist attack? Not necessarily. The debate over the botulinum threat is just one vivid example of how we are predominantly looking in the wrong place in attempting to assess the current terrorist threat. Even if terrorists were to find it difficult to execute massive attacks using Category A agents such as botulinum toxin and smallpox, there are other, less exotic biological agents that would be suitable for smaller-scale attacks. The problem is that our thinking has become dominated by the central concern of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against people. As knowledge from the offensive biological weapons programs undertaken in the twentieth century by the United States, Britain, and the former Soviet Union certainly demonstrated, if the right biological agents are prepared in the right way and used under the right conditions, very large numbers of people could be killed. But biological weapons are not just another type of massive WMD bomb. There are many opportunities for an attacker to wreak havoc that fall short of what one might consider "mass destruction." [5] If dozens--as opposed to thousands or millions--of people were killed or made ill, widespread panic would still ensue. And governments would likely respond by spending millions of additional dollars to safeguard the nation and reassure the public. Nor can one assume that the targets of such attacks would be limited to humans. Those state-level offensive programs also carefully investigated the use of bioweapons against agriculture. As anyone living in Britain is aware, the 2001 natural outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease did enormous damage to the country's farming industry. The infectiousness of the virus--and the fact that it presents little danger to the humans who would handle it--would surely make it appealing to someone wanting to cause great harm. The A, B, Cs of biowarfare Economists use the term "barriers to entry" to describe the obstacles confronted by a firm seeking to enter a specific market. Those barriers might include massive up-front research and development costs, or an inadequate infrastructure that precludes small companies from producing mass quantities of goods at affordable prices. If one were to think of biological weapons as a market, then the barriers to entry could potentially be quite high--that is, assuming an organization sought to develop weapons on a destructive scale comparable to those developed by states for military use. However, a terrorist group aiming for a smaller than WMD-scale attack would have fewer technical obstacles to overcome. A recent report prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) made precisely this point. In a side-by-side comparison of two hypothetical biological weapons programs--one conducted by a state, the other by a terrorist group--the report demonstrated how the terrorist program would require considerably fewer steps to achieve "operational capability." [6] (See "The Bioterrorism 12-Step Program,"PDF file) A terrorist group, for example, would not need to develop agents that had a long storage life. Nor would it have to optimize the performance of a large-scale dissemination device (specialized munitions or warheads) to deliver the biological agent to its intended target; nor to refine the manufacturing process to produce massive quantities of the agent. Also, a terrorist group would not need to acquire effective individual and collective defenses (including vaccines) for its troops or train them to fight in a biological warfare environment. Because of such differences, the CRS report notes that "agents that were considered high threats in other frameworks appear to present a lesser threat when viewed in the small scale attack context," while conversely, "agents that were considered of lesser threat when considering mass casualty attacks may be ranked more highly in the small scale context, as barriers to mass use may be missing when the agent is used on a small scale." Or, put another way, as the lethality of biological agents declines, so too may the barriers to entry for utilizing some of them as weapons. The CRS report carries an appendix that gives the relevant characteristics of some 30 agents that are cause for concern. Some of these are on the CDC Category A list, but most are not. For instance, one of these is Salmonella typhimurium, which is categorized by the CDC as a Category B agent ("moderately easy to disseminate," causing "low mortality rates"). CRS notes that Salmonella typhimurium is common worldwide, causes fever, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea, and that serious complications may occur in a small number of cases. No vaccine exists for this bacterium, and according to the report it could be disseminated by contaminating food or drink. The opportunities available to a terrorist who wished to cause social and economic disruption by making people ill--and who was satisfied with killing tens or hundreds rather than thousands of people--would, in fact, be rather wide-ranging. Indeed, when the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases began its program to develop countermeasures to potential biological warfare agents, it used not only the CDC's Category A list but also a listing of Category B and C agents. (Category C agents are defined as "pathogens that could be engineered for mass dissemination in the future because of availability; ease of production and dissemination; and potential for high morbidity and mortality rates.") Helpfully, for the nonbiologist, these agents were divided into different groups: inhalation bacteria; arthropod-borne viruses; toxins; food and waterborne pathogens; and emerging infectious diseases. [7] Although these Category B and C agents were accorded a lower threat priority, a number of them had been weaponized in the twentieth-century state-level offensive bioweapons programs. Thus the inhalation bacteria listed included Coxiella burnetii, the causative agent of Q-fever (fatal to only 1 to 2 percent of those infected); the arthropod-borne viruses included Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (with a mortality rate of less than 1 percent); and the toxins included Staphylococcal enterotoxin B (which is almost never fatal). The military developed these agents not to kill, but to incapacitate adversaries by inducing such symptoms as fever, violent coughing, vomiting, and diarrhea. The deliberate use of such agents against civilian populations by terrorists might well cause considerable panic. The potential impact of smaller-scale biological weapons attacks has been well understood for decades. In 1970, during the run-up to the agreement of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), the World Health Organization (WHO) produced the first edition of its report, Health Aspects of Chemical and Biological Weapons. [8] This study confirmed the possibility that a biological weapon could be used to kill large numbers of people in a WMD-style attack. However, the report also considered examples of sub-WMD attacks in which either botulinum toxin or typhoid bacteria were used to contaminate the water supply by injecting the material into a major water main. The WHO assumed that these hypothetical attacks took place without any prior warning--so that, if typhoid bacteria were used, the authorities would not begin to see the effects in illness rates until about a week later. The amount of material injected was assumed to be rather limited so that the terrorist did not have an impossible task in producing it. The quantity of water consumed and the percentage of people infected were worked out for a variety of population sizes, climatic conditions, and levels of urban development. In the case of a large, developed, industrial city in a temperate climate, the total number of typhoid cases was calculated to be some 35,000. Early and effective use of antibiotics would reduce the fatalities to about 200. In comparison to other scenarios analyzed by WHO, this outcome was a somewhat best-case scenario. But even so, it would surely have a major impact if such an attack were carried out in a developed country today. Of course, it is not necessary to resort to hypothetical examples of small-scale attacks, since there already exists detailed information on what might be regarded as a classic case: the 1984 incident in The Dalles, Oregon. There, the followers of cult leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh wished to influence the outcome of a local election in their favor by making a large number of the townspeople ill. To this end, on September 11, 1984, the sect began contaminating salad bars in the town with Salmonella typhimurium. On September 17, the public health department began to be notified of people falling ill with gastroenteritis. When it became clear that these victims all reported eating at salad bars, these were closed down on September 25. It was eventually revealed that at least 750 people had been made ill, but the true number affected is likely to have been higher. (There are many outbreaks of food poisoning caused by Salmonella typhimurium each year, and the deliberate nature of this outbreak was not detected at the time.) Only later, in a different investigation, did it become clear that the sect had grown the bacterium--in sufficient quantities to carry out the contamination--in its own laboratories. Fortunately, nobody died as a result of the attack, but there are certainly other more dangerous agents that could have been used. Bitter pill Despite the billions of dollars that the United States is spending on biodefense, well-informed critics feel that little real progress has been made. Vaccines and antidotes remain in short supply, local officials have not developed plans to distribute medical supplies in a timely manner to citizens, and hospitals do not have the capacity to handle a sudden surge in patients. [9] Given the plausibility of small-scale biological attacks against not only people (civilian and military), but also livestock, it will become increasingly difficult to mount an effective defense in the coming decades, particularly if the increase and spread of capabilities that the genomics revolution in biology will bring is taken into account. While it is improbable that terrorists today could manipulate an agent for malign purposes--for example, by increasing the antibiotic resistance of an agent--it can not be ruled out in the decades ahead, in light of the accelerating development of biotechnology worldwide. [10] Biodefense certainly has a place in what the International Committee of the Red Cross has called a web of prevention. That web is composed of an integrated set of policies centered on the international prohibitionary norm embodied in the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 BWC, and designed to persuade anyone contemplating the hostile use of modern biology that it is far too costly to attempt. But progress on strengthening the BWC is floundering. At the treaty's 2001 review conference, the United States, after a decade of multilateral negotiations, rejected outright a proposed verification protocol on the grounds that it would not only be ineffective, but would also put national security and confidential business information at risk. It is crucial that progress be made lest history repeat itself at the next review conference in 2006. Some modular steps could be taken to fortify the BWC. For example, the confidence-building measures previously agreed upon (including declaration of past activities in offensive and defensive research programs) should be strengthened, and a mechanism put in place to ensure that they are properly submitted by all states parties. Biodefense must be kept in perspective. It certainly cannot be the main solution because there are far too many possibilities for attack. 1. Lawrence Wein and Yifan Liu, "Analyzing a Bioterror Attack on the Food Supply: The Case of Botulinum Toxin in Milk," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), July 12, 2005. 2. Lawrence Wein, "Got Toxic Milk?" New York Times, May 30, 2005. 3. Bruce Alberts, "Modeling Attacks on the Food Supply," PNAS, July 12, 2005. 4. Milton Leitenberg and George Smith, "Got Toxic Milk? A Rejoinder," Federation of American Scientists (fas.org/sgp/eprint/milk.html). 5. See Mark Wheelis, Lajos Rozsa, and Malcolm Dando (eds.), Deadly Cultures: Bioweapons from 1945 to the Present (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, forthcoming in 2006). 6. Congressional Research Service, Small-Scale Terrorist Attacks Using Chemical and Biological Agents: An Assessment Framework and Preliminary Comparisons (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004). 7. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID Biodefense Research Agenda for Category B and C Priority Pathogens (Washington, D.C: National Institutes of Health, 2002). 8. World Health Organization (WHO), Health Aspects of Chemical and Biological Weapons (Geneva: WHO, 1970). 9. Mimi Hall, "Nation Unready for Germ Attacks," USA Today, July 31, 2005. 10. See Raymond Zilinskas and Malcolm Dando, "Biotechnology and Bioterrorism," Encyclopedia of Bioterrorism Defense (Hoboken: Wiley-Liss, 2005). Malcolm Dando is professor of international security in the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, England. His book, Bioterror and Biowarfare: A Beginner's Guide, will be published in March 2006. November/December 2005 pp. 34-39 (vol. 61, no. 06) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Sidebar: The bioterrorist 12-step program Terrorist groups that want to launch a small-scale biological attack and are not concerned with their own members’ safety would need potentially fewer steps to develop biological weapons (BW) than would governments creating such weapons for military use. See flowchart (PDF). ***************************************************************** 58 Denver Business Journal: Rocky Flats judgment more than half a billion - 2006-02-15 Story The Denver Business Journal - 3:51 PM MST Wednesday Homeowners who lived downwind of the now-closed Rocky FlatsNuclear Weapons Plant won a $553.9 million judgment from a federal jury Tuesday after a four-month trial that accused the plant's former operators of contaminating their land with plutonium released from the plant. The defendants were The Dow Chemical Company and Rockwell International Corp., who operated the plant for the U.S. Department of Energyfrom 1952 to 1989. But those companies have been indemnified in the case by the federal government -- which will pay any judgment and has been paying the companies' legal fees. The jury awarded the homeowners $354 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages. "It's been a long time coming, but it's a great victory for the plaintiffs," said Merrill Davidoff, the lead trial lawyer for the plaintiffs and a senior member of the law firm of Berger & Montague PC, based in Philadelphia, Pa., in a statement. "This is what we have been waiting for, and working for, all these years. The jury found that fifty years of lies and cover up and pollution were enough," he said. The case was filed in 1990 on behalf of 12,000 property owners near the plant, located in a highly populated area about 17 miles northeast of downtown Denver. © 2006 American City Business Journals Inc. Add RSS Headlines ***************************************************************** 59 Port Townsend Leader: Letter: DU ordnance requires special handling OPINION FORUM Wednesday, February 15, 2006 Editor, Leader: I was surprised and appalled by remarks attributed to City Manager David Timmons, as quoted in the Feb. 8 Leader, after his tour of the Indian Island ordnance depot. Mr. Timmons said Port Townsend first responders needed no special training to handle depleted-uranium-containing ordnance “because they are handled like other ordnance.” That is flat wrong, and I would be especially upset if that’s what the Navy told him, because the Navy knows better. At the close of Gulf War I, in June 1991, a fire broke out at a U.S. Army ordnance depot at Camp Doha in Kuwait. The fire led to the explosion of more than 100 depleted uranium (DU) armor-piercing shells and large quantities of other DU-containing ordinance, and resulted in wide dispersal of DU. The report of an investigation following the Camp Doha incident cites numerous actions of first responders to the fire and explosions which increased the dispersal of potentially hazardous material and risked serious injury to themselves. Many of the first responders were not familiar with the special hazards of DU and were not equipped with protective clothing, respirators or dust masks. (Many of them handled DU "penetrators" with their bare hands.) Later clean-up operations were hampered by lack of clear overall command and friction between specialized clean-up personnel brought in from different commands. I think the Camp Doha incident highlights what should be obvious to any reasonably well-informed person – that public safety personnel who might be called on to respond to an emergency involving DU-containing ordnance need specialized training and equipment to respond effectively and to contain and minimize the effects of such an emergency. Jefferson County and Port Townsend public safety personnel must be provided with such training and equipment. Furthermore, healthcare personnel who might be called on to treat persons injured in any such incident should be trained in the handling of possibly DU-contaminated patients. I also believe the Navy owes the residents of Port Townsend and Jefferson County a full and frank discussion of the preparations and training the Navy has made to deal with a possible fire and explosion incident involving DU-containing ordnance. Such an incident might be unlikely, but Camp Doha shows it could happen here. I have sent Mr. Timmons and Fire Chief Michael Mingee copies of the Camp Doha report. LARRY BONAR Port Townsend ©2006 Port Townsend &Jefferson County Leader 226 Adams St, Port Townsend, Washington 98368, USA Phone: (360) 385-2900  Fax: (360) 385-3422 Contact info: Web Administrator: Software © 1998-2006 , All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 60 KOLD: CDC issues final report on studying fallout problems February 15, 2006 SALT LAKE CITY The Centers for Disease Control has posted its final report on the feasibility of studying health problems caused by nuclear-testing fallout. It concluded that a detailed study was technically possible. However, it said this would require significant resources and that "careful considerations should be given to public health priorities before this path is taken. "At issue has been the long-term effect of radioactive fallout from the aboveground tests conducted in Nevada in the 1950s and early 1960s. Studies have produced conflicting conclusions as to whether the fallout caused increased incidences of particular types of cancer in the residents living downwind in parts of Nevada, Utah and Arizona. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 provides for compassionate payments to downwinders who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases.___Information from: Deseret Morning News Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KOLD, ***************************************************************** 61 UPI: Rocky Flats jury award hits $352 million United Press International - NewsTrack - 2/15/2006 2:29:00 PM -0500 BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 15 (UPI) -- A federal jury has awarded thousands of property owners $352 million for property damage caused by the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear bomb plant in Colorado. Seven property owners filed a class-action suit in 1990 on behalf of the all the owners of 12,000 to 15,000 parcels of land east of the plant, claiming mishandled toxic substances from the plant caused damage to the property, the Boulder Daily Camera said. The defunct plant is about 8 miles south of Boulder, Colo., and is scheduled to be turned into a wildlife refuge after a cleaning. The suit asked for a total of $500 million, $250 million in compensatory damages plus $250 million in punitive damages, from Rockwell International Corp., which operated Rocky Flats at the time of a 1989 FBI raid, and its predecessor, Dow Chemical Co. But the plant is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, which will pay any damages, the newspaper said. Environmentalists and some government officials had warned for years before the raid the nuclear bomb factory might not be as safe as operators insisted. Rockwell pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes and paid an $18.5 million fine. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 62 Rocky Mountain News: A breakdown of the Rocky Flats verdict February 15, 2006 Louise Roselle, a plaintiff's attorney who was in the courtroom yesterday for the reading of the verdict, said that although the dollar figures of the jury's awards totaled $554 million, the actual payments that will result can total no more than about $354 million. "The actual number adds up to $554 million, because they awarded compensatory damages against Dow of $176 million and against Rockwell of $176 million, but we can't get double damages," said Roselle, who took a break this morning from her vacation outside Los Angeles to discuss her clients' major win. "So, the actual compensatory number is really $176 million" — actually, about $176.9 million. Additionally, Roselle explained, although the jury also awarded $200 million in punitive damages, punitive damages cannot exceed the compensatory damages under Colorado law. Therefore, said Roselle, "The judge will probably reduce the punitive damages to $176 million," to match the compensatory damages figure. As a result, Roselle said, she is considering the class action plaintiffs' historic victory to be about a $354 million payday. "There is still an issue on whether we can get pre-judgment interest, which would probably double or triple it," she said. But Roselle could offer no timeline on when that issue will be addressed. "I have no idea," she said. "There are obviously a lot of issues that will have to be sorted out. The defendants, I'm sure, will appeal." site map--> Subscribe | E-mail alerts| 2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 63 NIRS says dump is radioactive bullseye Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:06:13 -0500 February 15, 2006

NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE

1424 16th Street Suite 404

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone 202.328.0002

 

NIRS NEWS BULLETIN

 

February 15, 2006                                                       Contact:

Kevin Kamps, NIRS, 202.328.0002 ext. 14

 

Statement of Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist at Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Licensing of a Radioactive Waste Dump Next to a Military Bombing Range

 

(For more information or interviews, please contact Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Washington, D.C. at 202.328.0002 ext. 14.)

 

“The NRC commissioners’ decision to grant final approval for a private high-level radioactive waste parking lot dump on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah disregards the risks posed by one of this country’s biggest and busiest Air Force bombing ranges located right next door. It also completely ignores the giant radioactive bull’s eye created by concentrating 75% of America’s irradiated nuclear fuel in one location.”

 

Background

 

In December 2002, just over a year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., the NRC commissioners ruled that terrorist attacks against nuclear facilities are too speculative to consider during any NRC licensing proceedings. This effectively silenced challenges raised by NIRS, the State of Utah, and others regarding the unacceptable vulnerability to catastrophic radiation releases caused by terrorist attacks against such facilities as Private Fuel Storage (PFS).

 

PFS – just 45 miles directly upwind from the millions of residents of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area -- would concentrate in one spot a full 75% of the highly radioactive commercial nuclear waste that currently exists in the U.S. This highly visible, open air facility would be wide open to intentional aerial attack as occurred on 9/11. But it would also be vulnerable to remotely fired anti-tank missiles, shaped charges, and other high explosives, all designed to penetrate much thicker armor than the atomic waste containers will have. The National Academy of Sciences reported in the summer of 2005 that stored radioactive wastes are vulnerable to terrorist attack, and this vulnerability certainly extends to the unprecedented PFS facility. Despite this, NRC has granted a construction and operating license without addressing the terrorist threat. Apparently the NRC missed the revelation by the 9/11 Commission  that Al Qaeda has considered targeting nuclear facilities in the past, and will almost certainly continue to do so in the future.

 

PFS would also be at risk of accidental military jet crashes and stray missiles. The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) is immediately adjacent to the proposed dump site. Approximately 7,000 F-16 fighters from Hill Air Force Base fly over Skull Valley every year on their way to the bombing range. Cruise missiles are also tested at the UTTR. A stray missile blew up a weather station in Skull Valley in recent years. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was briefed about the proposal to locate an atomic waste dump next to a bombing range, he told the Salt Lake Tribune on March 11, 2003:  “Who would be stupid enough to do that?” It is startling that NRC has actually approved this dangerous proposal.

 

The Holtec atomic waste containers to be used at PFS are especially vulnerable to accident and attack. Industry whistleblower Oscar Shirani and NRC cask inspector Dr. Ross Landsman have publicly testified that the Holtec Company has grossly violated quality assurance regulations, and that the casks are of questionable structural integrity.

 

###

 

 ***************************************************************** 64 Guardian Unlimited: Utah Delegation Backing Wilderness Law From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday February 15, 2006 9:46 AM AP Photo SLC909 By PAUL FOY Associated Press Writer SKULL VALLEY, Utah (AP) - The desert range of the Cedar Mountains in Utah never ranked high on anyone's list for possible federal wilderness protection until preserving it provided the means to block construction of a nuclear-waste repository. For more than two decades, Utah's congressional delegation rejected wilderness proposals. But they united behind the idea of protecting this 55-mile stretch that divides barren Skull Valley and the desolate salt flats that are already home to an array of military and industrial hazards. ``Whether it's the most pristine or spectacular wilderness - well, it doesn't rank up there,'' said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the main sponsor of the measure signed into law by President Bush last month. The new designation will make it more difficult for the tribe of 121 Goshute Indians to accept nuclear waste for storage on their tiny patch of Skull Valley. The designation forbids development and cuts off the only practical route for a rail spur delivering heavy steel casks of spent fuel rods to the Goshute reservation. The Wilderness Act of 1964, which was intended to forever preserve wild land in a natural state, sets out procedures for wilderness protection but a separate act of Congress is needed to designate a specific area or areas for protection. In 1996, tribal Chief Leon Bear signed a multimillion-dollar contract with Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of nuclear-power utilities looking to unload 40,000 tons of spent uranium fuel rods with a half-life of 10,000 years on his reservation. Bear said he has no opinion about the state's new wilderness area. ``We're just a small Indian tribe that makes Utah cringe,'' Bear said. Kevin Mueller, executive director of the Utah Wilderness Congress, said designating the Cedar mountain range a wilderness protection area was not a top priority for preservationists but it was on their wish list. In fact, they got more than they asked for in their proposal - a 100,000-acre wilderness instead of 62,100 acres. ``Obscurity doesn't discredit the place. It's wild,'' Ray Bloxham, a field inventory specialist for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said during a tour of the mountain range just an hour's drive west of Salt Lake City. A nuclear-waste repository would not necessarily be out of place here, however. To the south and west are restricted military zones where the Air Force drops precision-guided bombs and the Army experimented with biological and chemical warfare agents. The salt flats to the west hold much of the nation's industrial waste and to the north is a magnesium plant that once ranked as the nation's top polluter. To the east, just over the Stansbury range, the Army is using an incinerator to destroy its largest stockpile of chemical agents. In the middle of Skull Valley, the state operated its only leper colony in 1896, according to the Utah History Encyclopedia. The utility partners say the Skull Valley storage would only last until the federal government can open a national repository for spent fuel at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But the congressional delegation was skeptical and backed the wilderness protection measure to prevent the area from also becoming an open-air nuclear-waste dump. The Air Force uses Skull Valley as a flight path to the bombing range and Utah previously argued that the odds of a jet crashing into a steel cask and releasing radiation made the project too risky. ``It's just so damn stupid to put above-ground nuclear storage next to a bombing range,'' Bishop said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rejected that argument and on Monday issued a license for the Private Fuel Storage project. Utah is asking a federal appeals court to overturn the decision, but Bishop said Utah's biggest ace is the wilderness area and its barrier to rail transport. --- On the Net: Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance: http://www.suwa.org Private Fuel Storage: http://www.privatefuelstorage.com Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 65 Las Vegas SUN: EPA criticized Nevada for slow cleanup at mine, contact with Arco Today: February 15, 2006 at 16:8:0 PST By SCOTT SONNER ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded nearly two years ago that Nevada's effort to clean up a contaminated copper mine was "completely lacking" and was hampered by ineffective planning, inadequate technical expertise and inappropriate contact with the company responsible for the pollution, new documents show. Among other things, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Agency often conferred with Atlantic Richfield Co. before issuing proposals to federal regulators who shared oversight for the mine, the EPA said in a May 2004 internal memo. "An overall project strategy for assessing the site and evaluating remediation is completely lacking, resulting in hasty and reactive ineffective efforts at the site," said the memo entitled "Anaconda Copper Mine Site - Yerington Nevada, Deficiencies in NDEP's Project Management." The mine about 65 miles southeast of Reno was the biggest producer of copper in the United States in the 1950s and into the 1960s before it was abandoned in 2000. Although it was not known publicly until 2003, the processing of the copper apparently produced uranium, which now contaminates the site along with arsenic and other heavy metals. The EPA memo surfaced last week as part of a hearing on a whistleblower complaint brought against the Bureau of Land Management by the agency's former mine site manager, Earle Dixon. Dixon claims he was fired because of political pressure, partly because he was critical of the state's handling of the cleanup. He said the state routinely aligned itself with Arco against more stringent cleanup plans backed by EPA and BLM. The memo, by Jim Sickles, EPA's remedial project manager, was written seven months before the agency took the lead in cleanup efforts. It sheds light on the whistleblower case and the extent to which EPA believed Nevada was making a mistake by refusing EPA's recommendation in 2000 that the mine be declared a Superfund site. "NDEP is unwilling to involve the other regulating agencies (EPA and BLM) in preliminary decision making process at the site," it said. "Requests from BLM and EPA for status and information are generally ignored," he wrote. State regulators have defended their tactics and said they believed local residents were best served by trying to persuade Arco to voluntarily clean up the site without a federal Superfund declaration or other legal action. At the time, the state was equally critical of the way BLM and EPA were approaching the cleanup, said Allen Biaggi, who was the state agency's administrator and now is director of its parent Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. "It was very difficult to get the three parties together and get everybody to see the same picture because we all come about it with our own perspective and way of doing things," Biaggi said. "But I think it is undisputed that all of us have a goal in mind of wanting to address the site concerns and protect public health and the environment." The state resisted EPA's call for Superfund designation and refused to surrender regulatory role until December 2004, when it asked EPA to assume control under the same law that covers Superfund sites. Preceding the changeover, Sickles had complained that NDEP was completing the "least significant" work plans that were the least burdensome on Atlantic Richfield. Of special concern was work on the most heavily contaminated part of the six-square-mile mine site, the processing area where copper was leached from rocks using cyanide in evaporation ponds, many of them unlined. Tests have shown extremely high concentrations of uranium in the groundwater beneath that area as well as high radiation levels in the soil. EPA believes some uranium might have migrated into domestic wells. "NDEP does not have the in house technical expertise for such a large complex site. ... Also expertise is lacking in regards to radiological, toxicological and community involvement," Sickles wrote. State regulators deny they had inappropriate contact with Arco. "Our role was to coordinate, get the documents, get all the comments back from Arco. So because of that role as sort of the historian and clearinghouse, certainly we would be talking more to Arco than they (EPA) would," said Leo Drozdoff, NDEP's current administrator. The EPA memo reflected concerns each agency brought to a subsequent meeting that resulted in "a professional, no-holds barred discussion of each respective concern," Drozdoff said. He said it led to more candid talks among the agencies. "We are going to continue to contribute to the fullest extent we can to make this a success regardless of how things unraveled," he said. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 66 Deseret News: Alliance opposes N-waste changes [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, February 15, 2006 Influential Utahns issue statement on legislative proposals By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News A group of influential Utahns is opposed to changing radioactive waste disposal rules in the Beehive State. Although a position statement issued on Monday by the Alliance for Unity does not specifically cite SB70, it's obviously aimed at the bill, which would diminish the governor's authority in determining radioactive waste decisions. The bill, which would allow the Legislature to veto a governor's decision on the expansion or siting of a low-level nuclear waste facility, is scheduled for House debate today. Earlier, it passed the Senate on a vote of 22-6. "The Alliance continues to strongly oppose any attempts to change the checks and balances currently in place which safeguard the health and well-being of all Utahns," the group's position statement said. The Alliance for Unity is a group of Utah civic, religious and business leaders seeking "to foster the common good in the state," the position paper said. Its members include Jon M. Huntsman Sr., father of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. But he recused himself from discussion about the issue, said Elder Alexander B. Morrison, the Alliance's executive director and an emeritus general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Pamela J. Atkinson, a community activist who is part of the Huntsman administration, also recused herself, he said. Others voted in favor of the position. Other members include Elder M. Russell Ballard of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson. Deseret Morning News Editor and Chief Operating Officer John Hughes is also a member. The statement notes that in November 2003 the Alliance of Unity stated its unanimous opposition to any storage in Utah of nuclear waste with higher levels of radioactivity than the low-level Class A waste. "Moreover, the Alliance is strongly opposed to expanding current space for level A nuclear waste," the statement said. Since the early 1990s, Utah has required both legislative and gubernatorial approval for licensing such facilities, the group noted. "This requirement reflects concerns regarding multi-generational impact that radioactive waste may have on the health and safety of Utahns. Furthermore, public perceptions that Utah could become the nation's dumping ground for radioactive waste would chill efforts to foster economic development in the state," the position statement said. Morrison said in a telephone interview, "We just think that the current system of checks and balances works out for the benefit of all Utahns." Disregarding this system, he said, "is a bad bargain." E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 67 BBC: Sellafield in breach of EU Last Updated: Wednesday, 15 February 2006 [Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant] The EU says Sellafield must tighten up procedures Accounting and reporting procedures at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria have been criticised by European Commission (EU) inspectors. While the EU says no nuclear material has gone missing, it says operator British Nuclear Group (BNG) is in breach of strict safeguard standards. They must ensure nuclear materials "are not diverted from the peaceful uses for which they have been declared." A 2000 inquiry at the plant found safety records had been falsified. In a statement BNG said it would study the inspection report carefully. The EU report said "accounting and reporting procedures presently in place do not fully meet EU standards". An EU spokesman said: "The commission has also requested BNG to implement the appropriate remedies ... to ensure the adequate quality of its system of accounting for nuclear material." BNG has held its own inqui and a review of these safeguards is now being fully implemented UK Government spokesman A BNG spokesman said: "We have not yet received any formal notification of such a warning. "Naturally, we will study the content of any such decision, if and when we receive notification of it from the commission, and consider the appropriate response for the company at that time." A government spokesman said: "The UK always takes EU nuclear safeguard standards extremely seriously. "BNG has held its own inquiry and a review of these safeguards is now being fully implemented." The Sellafield site is one of the largest nuclear engineering centres in the world. Last year, Sellafield received a separate commission warning about the handling of nuclear waste disposal at the plant. Under the 1957 Euratom Treaty it is up to EU inspectors to check accounting records of the nuclear material and compare them with the results of on-the-spot inspections. The EU has said that the main purpose of such inspections is to make sure the nuclear material used is not diverted from peaceful and non-military uses. ***************************************************************** 68 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: We must step up our opposition to Yucca Today: February 15, 2006 at 9:20:35 PST "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile." The federal government, like some uneducated Nevadans, seems to think that since we hosted the Nevada Test Site from 1951 to 1992 and since that ground is polluted, we should readily accept a Yucca Mountain nuclear dump, with all its scientific deficiencies. Will these same complacent citizens now accept 4,000 metric tons of mercury at Hawthorne? I hope Gov. Kenny Guinn will not give in and that he will redouble his administration's opposition to an unscientific, unnecessary and fraudulently examined Yucca Mountain. We need a renewed campaign against a federal government that considers debate and dissent as obstructionism. Frank Perna Las Vegas All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 69 Platts: NEI wants nuclear waste fee to remain at current level Washington (Platts)--13Feb2006 The nuclear industry would like Congress to freeze the nuclear waste fee at its current level of 1 mill per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity sold, Steve Kraft, the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) director of waste management, said yesterday. Kraft's comment came in an address to the staff of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (Naruc) nuclear issues subcommittee as Naruc kicked off its winter meeting in Washington, D.C. The industry has reviewed its policies regarding the management of utility spent reactor fuel, Kraft said, adding that industry doesn't want to ever see the fee increased. Congress put the fee in place in 1983 to bankroll DOE's waste program. Industry also sees a need to develop advanced technologies so the nuclear fuel cycle can be closed when the technologies are mature enough that the economics and environmental benefits from their use can be realized, he said. However, Kraft also stressed that the development of advanced reprocessing technologies does not obviate the need for the repository DOE plans to build at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 70 Salt Lake Tribune: PFS nears desert N-dump license Article Last Updated: 02/15/2006 4:04 PM MST But numerous obstacles remain; Hatch calls the action meaningless By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune CORRECTION: A story Tuesday on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing of Private Fuel Storage nuclear storage site stated that the NRC had issued its license to the company. As noted, PFS has until Friday to review the completed document for typographical errors or technical corrections. The official, signed license will not be issued to PFS until that review is complete and any changes are incorporated. A notice will be published in the Federal Register when the final document is issued. WASHINGTON - Private Fuel Storage is close to receiving the first-ever license for commercial, off-site storage of nuclear waste from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Monday, but a series of obstacles remain before the proposed facility can open its gates in Utah. Specifically, the group of electric utilities seeking to store 44,000 tons of reactor fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation still has to find an acceptable way to deliver the waste to the site 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, and has to sell the storage space to enough reactor operators to make the economics add up. It also must prevail in a legal challenge filed by the state. The commission hand-delivered the license Monday to PFS Chairman John Parkyn, who was heading up a meeting of the American Nuclear Society in Chicago. "It is a very significant step. It's the end of an 8 1/2 -year process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so we're very pleased that it has happened," said Sue Martin, PFS spokeswoman. PFS plans the temporary storage until a permanent repository can be built beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Nuclear regulatory commissioners voted in September to approve the lease, and the commission staff has been working since then to write the formal document. Michael S. Lee, counsel to Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., noted the license will not be valid until the company meets several requirements. One such provision is that the 20-ton lids be welded onto the steel and concrete casks after being transported to the site - to a one-sixteenth-inch fit. "This is just another one of the big hurdles that PFS will have to clear," Lee said. The license does not authorize PFS to begin construction immediately. The company still has to show it has adequate finances to build the site, then has to show it has enough waste-storage contracts to fund dismantling and cleaning up the site before it can begin operations. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement Monday that the license is meaningless. Hatch has said that the crumbling PFS coalition, which has lost several members in recent months, will make it impossible to meet the financial terms. "The NRC's making an awful decision, but we can't let it deter us from killing this project once and for all," Hatch said. "This marks the first time the NRC intends to grant a license for a private, off-site storage site for spent nuclear fuel. That's a bad precedent, especially since the PFS is clearly not part of the government's nuclear waste program." Hatch said the NRC's decision to proceed without agreement from the Bureau of Land Management over protection of cultural and historic sites opens another avenue for a legal challenge to the PFS plan. The consortium also has to receive permission from the BLM for a permit to allow waste to be delivered to Skull Valley. The issue of waste delivery became complicated when the Utah congressional delegation pushed through Congress a wilderness area near the Skull Valley reservation that essentially blocked plans to build a rail line to the reservation. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the issuance of a license was not a surprise. "I'm glad our provision to block the most-preferred transportation route for the waste finally passed and was signed into law last month by the president," Bishop said in a statement. "That will ensure that even with a license, PFS is far from making this unwise project a reality." PFS' other transportation option is to build a transfer facility to move the nuclear waste from rail cars to heavy trucks, which would drive the material to the storage site. The BLM is reviewing the proposed transfer facility, and recently opened a 90-day public comment period on the plan. Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said public input on the BLM right-of-way could mean an insurmountable obstacle. "The real question is, will PFS ante up or will they be persuaded to fold?" he said. PFS has until Friday to review the license for technical or typographical errors. Utah attorneys also will receive a copy but cannot recommend changes. --- Reporter Judy Fahys contributed to this story. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 71 Salt Lake Tribune: PFS story correction Article Last Updated: 02/15/2006 1:48 AM MST Corrections A story Tuesday on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing of Private Fuel Storage nuclear storage site stated that the NRC had issued its license to the company. As noted, PFS has until Friday to review the completed document for typographical errors or technical corrections. The official, signed license will not be issued to PFS until that review is complete and any changes are incorporated. A notice will be published in the Federal Register when the final document is issued. ***************************************************************** 72 Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmaker Pulls Goshute Resolution Article Last Updated: 02/15/2006 2:53 AM MST By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Sen. Darin Peterson has pulled his resolution urging all branches of Utah government and the business community to work with the Goshute tribe to promote economic opportunities on its Skull Valley reservation. The Nephi Republican said Monday he was withdrawing the resolution after the tribe had asked for changes too late in the session. In addition, the resolution noted "the state of Utah has been successful in keeping high-level nuclear waste out of the state of Utah and off of the sovereign Goshute Nation." Peterson's actions came Tuesday - the same day the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a license for a nuclear waste storage facility on the Goshute reservation 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. "I can't in any way appear like I'm supporting the fuel storage," Peterson said. "I'd happily do it [revive the resolution] if that issue was put to bed." A consortium of nuclear power electrical utilities want to build the facility in Skull Valley as temporary storage for nuclear waste until a permanent repository is built. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 73 The Dispatch: Stop Playing Perchlorate Games, Olin Wednesday, February 15, 2006 OPINION Audacious is one way to describe Olin Corp.'s decision to clean South County's groundwater to 11 parts per billion, a perchlorate level that is nearly twice the state's public health goal of 6 ppb. It certainly isn't good corporate citizenship, which is what Olin promised to exhibit when news that its now-closed road flare factory in south Morgan Hill had polluted the groundwater that feeds more than 1,000 South County wells with perchlorate. "It's a valid number, based on scientifically sound and technically competent analysis," Olin project manager Rick McClure said of the 11 ppb goal. That's simply beside the point. For example, if the highway patrol stops a driver for going 85 mph in a 65-mph zone, the speeding driver will still get a ticket, despite an argument that 85 mph is a valid and safe speed based on scientifically sound and competent analysis. The state says perchlorate should be present at levels no more than 6 ppb, and that's the standard to which Olin must be held. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has ordered the company to clean the water to the "background level," or the level at which perchlorate was present in the water before Olin's road flare factory polluted it. The problem with that is that we don't have data from 1955, the year Olin began operating the road flare factory in Morgan Hill, to know what the level of perchlorate was 51 years ago. However, given the levels found in the majority of the contaminated wells, and the proximity of the wells with the highest levels of perchlorate to the factory site, the background level wasn't anywhere near 11 ppb. Because we can't know what the true "background level" of perchlorate is, it's an unenforceable standard. However, the state of California's health goal of 6 ppb is clear and achievable. It's time to stop playing games. South County's local government agencies and residents need to bring heavy pressure to bear. Olin should not be allowed to get away with this cheap-trick effort to duck its responsibility. There's a lot of money at stake for Olin, but there's more at stake for South County residents: Clean water is priceless. ***************************************************************** 74 Pahrump Valley Times: New Yucca office director named Nye County's Largest Newspaper Circulation Februrary 15, 2006 HAMMERMEISTER SELECTED FOR COUNTY'S TOP POSITION IN REPOSITORY OVERSIGHT By PHILLIP GOMEZ PVT After nearly a year, Nye County has settled on a new director for its nuclear waste repository project office, naming soils and water consultant Dale Hammermeister to the post. County Manager Michael Maher named Hammermeister as the selected candidate for the job after a week of interviewing finalists and the selection panelists coming to a consensus. The panel was made up of Nye County Commission Chairwoman Candice Trummell, Commissioner Garry Hollis, Comptroller Marie Owens, Washington, D.C., consultant and lobbyist Rick Spees and HR director Danelle Shamrell. Under the direction of the county commissioners, Hammermeister will be responsible for all aspects of the county's involvement in the nation's nuclear waste repository program at Yucca Mountain, insofar as it pertains to Nye County. Hammermeister has a Ph.D in soils science from Oregon State University, a master of science in chemistry from Denver University and a B.A. in secondary education from the University of Washington. He has held teaching posts as a secondary school teacher teaching science, as a Peace Corps volunteer in Guyana and as an assistant soils science professor at the University of Wisconsin in River Falls, Wis. Hammermeister was also a research chemist with the U.S. Geological Service in Menlo Park, Calif. He has been a hydrologist for USGS for Superfund cleanup sites and at the Nevada Test Site. He was a project manager for Yucca Mountain studies and at a mine in Silver City, N.M. He has also held management positions at a laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M, was section chief with REECo. at the Nevada Test Site and technical director with GeoSystems Analysis Inc. in Tucson, Ariz. More recently, Hammermeister was Nye County's site representative on geotechnical matters. Maher said in a statement, "Dr. Hammermeister will make a significant impact in our community working with the internal and external partners of our nuclear waste repository program office." webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 75 Daily Herald: Legislature makes move to allow it to override a veto Tuesday, February 14, 2006 The Legislature wants to be able to veto the governor when it comes to disposing radioactive waste. A bill that would allow lawmakers to do so with a two-thirds majority vote in both legislative bodies passed a house committee Monday. It has already passed the Senate. "We as a Legislature ought to be very jealous about the constitutional balance of power that has been in place for many years," said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper. Fifteen years ago, the state Legislature established a process for the governor to have absolute authority on the matter, and Stephenson says it's time to make a change. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has said he would veto SB 70 if it ended up on his desk. Several people from the public accused Legislators of drafting the bill to cater to Envirocare, a huge player in Utah's storage of nuclear waste. But Rep. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, refuted that claim. "This is basically Civics 101," he said. "We should have the right as a Legislature to exert our power." The bill passed 11-2 and now heads to the House for debate. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5. Copyright © 2006 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises ***************************************************************** 76 New Scientist: Trains the best way to carry US nuclear waste - [NewScientist.com] 16 February 2006 IF YOU discount terror attacks and fires, then transporting spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain in Nevada or elsewhere for storage would be safe, or so said members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) last week. Disposing of waste from the US's 103 operating nuclear plants would require daily shipments for 20 years. According to the NAS study, the material could be moved in 55,000 truckloads, or 9600 dedicated trainloads and 1000 truckloads. The panel "much preferred the rail option", says its chairman Neal Lane, both because of the greatly reduced number of trips and because rail lines are less prone to disruptions such as traffic jams. Concerns remained, however, over the safety of the casks containing spent fuel in the event of a hot, sustained fire. Such fires do happen: in at least two cases trains carrying petroleum-filled tankers burned for days before fire fighters got them under control. The only way to minimise that risk for now, the panel concluded, is to make sure such petroleum trains go nowhere near trains carrying nuclear waste. The panel did not assess the dangers posed by terrorist attacks. ***************************************************************** 77 KVBC: Richard Bryan to lead Yucca Mountain opposition Former Senator Richard Bryan will lead Nevada's efforts to oppose the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. Member of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear projects voted unanimously to name Bryan Chairman. The former US Senator was already on the seven member commission. He'll replace former Chairman Brian McKay, who recently resigned. Former state assembly woman, Joan Lambert, filled the vacancy on the Board when Governor Guinn appointed her last week. .gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KVBC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 78 KLASTV.com: DOE Wants Yucca to be The World's Nuclear Repository Brian Allen, Reporter Bob Loux, Nevada's Commission on Nuclear Projects Peggy Maze Johnson, Citizens Alert Irene Navis, Clark County Comprehensive Planning The Department of Energy is working on a plan to bring nuclear waste from around the country to Yucca Mountain. But a Nevada group working against the project says waste from other countries could also be brought to Southern Nevada. The Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects met Tuesday to talk about their efforts to stop the project and discuss the possibility of Nevada becoming a dumping ground for the world's waste. This is a new plan the DOE unveiled just a few days ago. It comes as a total surprise to state and county leaders. In essence, the DOE wants Yucca Mountain to be a clearinghouse for the world's nuclear waste. They claim it's a national security issue. But officials here aren't buying it. The DOE plan would expand Yucca Mountain's original intent and state leaders don't like it. Bob Loux said, "If it did occur, sure that's what the government would like to do is turn Yucca Mountain and Southern Nevada into a dumping ground for the entire world." Loux is executive director of Nevada's Commission on Nuclear Projects. He tells Eyewitness News the Bush Administration supports the plan, claiming it would boost homeland security by keeping nuclear waste out of the wrong hands. Peggy Maze Johnson, said, "It's just absolutely insane to me." Maze Johnson with the nuclear watchdog group Citizens Alert believes bringing more nuclear waste into Southern Nevada increases the dangers to our community. And as for boosting homeland security, she says, " I am so tired of terrorism. Every time this administration wants something we're blaming it on terrorists." Is homeland security the true reason behind this plan? Bob Loux believes it's not, that the entire thing is a smokescreen to keep the struggling project alive. "In my mind, in my view, the only reason they're proposing reprocessing is Yucca Mountain is failing. They're needing to talk about something to show they're doing something and cover up the failure of Yucca Mountain." There's more to this: in addition to becoming a clearinghouse for the world's nuclear waste, the DOE plan also calls for some of the waste to be chemically treated at Yucca Mountain and then be shipped back to it's original source to be reused. Clark County comprehensive planner Irene Navis calls this a bad idea. "I think if anything it's going to get folks charged up here locally. It's the idea that we'll become the world's dump as opposed to the nation's facility for nuclear waste storage." By expanding Yucca Mountain's mission and tying in homeland security, this plan for Yucca Mountain may breathe new life into the project. State and county leaders say they will continue their fight to stop Yucca Mountain, but admit this change in focus may make it more difficult. Yucca Mountain spokesman Alan Benson has no comment on this new plan other than to say once the Environmental Protection Agency establishes guidelines for Yucca Mountain, the licensing process will move forward. In Dec. of 2005, Nevada senators Harry Reid and John Ensign introduced a bill that would stop nuclear waste shipments from coming to Nevada. Instead it would have the waste stay where it is now. So far the bill is still in committee. Email reporter Brian Allen at ballen@klastv.com .gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 79 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca Mountain essential to the nation Nye County's Largest Newspaper Circulation February 15, 2006 COMMUNITY VIEWPOINT By PAUL J. MILLER There are forces at work ravenous to destroy American power. The goal is clearly to reduce the United States to a common member of global socialist mediocrity. Those who desire this outcome are not simply foreign villains but a great many actual American citizens who are ashamed of their own country or deeply disloyal at best. Of course there are also those who have been temporarily led astray. Such a situation is obviously not set in stone and it is time we all become aware of it. We who have not been deceived are waiting for our brothers and sisters to return to our side. The understanding of this condition always lurks in the back of our minds but many or perhaps most don't see it yet. Propaganda against our own country emanates constantly from the press and splashes all over the place. Of course it isn't an accident. Internal and external enemies of the United States constantly plot to undermine the power of our country. Those leading this sick and treasonous attack apply a constant destructive hammering through propaganda against any proposed improvements in the storage of depleted nuclear material. For several reasons this material must be stored for a time, probably years, following its use. Eventually it will be cost effective to reprocess it into a form that is again useful. Enemies of our country have tricked many in the public into opposition to this crucial storage. A wise person can normally understand that secure storage is best. Such storage in special hardened underground sites, located in a few relatively remote places around the country, being something good for our country, is especially targeted to be stopped. Those who despise America are behind this gambit but plenty of others, folks easily manipulated, also pile on. Presently, the bulk of the so-called "waste" is contained in barrels sitting on the surface of the ground right beside the reactors where it was used. Please consider that transportation of this material to more secure and centralized locations is good logic, yet it is being strongly opposed by an assorted bunch of people mindlessly careless of our national security and the United States can only be weakened if these tactics are successful. Politicians often realize that the public has been largely fooled by the propaganda. So, mindful of political considerations and upcoming elections, they will renounce the good storage plans best for our country. They will at least appear to join the mob screaming to stop utilization of these facilities. Even the most powerful politicians and other officials cannot apply the power the major media, newspapers and television primarily, can wield. The momentum of the misguided outcry against the excellent storage facilities such as Yucca Mountain (in Nye County) is powerful. Only the truth can begin to slow and eventually to stop this nonsense. Nuclear power is essential to supply ample economical electric power for the greatest superpower the world has ever seen. Failure to fully utilize nuclear energy to provide the crucial cost-effective power would result in a gradual weakening of U.S. strength. This would not be completely destructive immediately but it would begin loading the U.S. economy unnecessarily to increasingly more painful levels. Eventually, the load would be destructive. Any actions designed to weaken the United States must be thwarted. We must all work to strengthen, not weaken, our country. Those directing this plot and the many citizens who have been unwittingly swept up in the madness must now be recognized for who they are. Hopefully, as the truth is made available, the numbers of ordinary Americans previously confused will cease to be and will come to realize the trickery and to be able to identify the spoilers who have been manipulating them. The primary angle being played by the enemy is the idea that transportation of "nuclear waste" to the storage sites would be too dangerous for the public. Secondarily, the locations of the sites are presented as also endangering the people living and working in each region where the sites are located. Great exaggeration in describing an imagined lack of safety is cunningly emphasized. These false claims are repeated constantly. In advertising anything, repetition is the key. In this case, the repetition is massive. It reminds me of the mindless saluting we have all seen in the old Nazi propaganda films wherein the crowds, having been swept away from decency and independent thought, as condensed mobs, repeat over and over their cheers for Hitler, perhaps the most evil individual of all time. While such as Hitler constantly seek to enslave the world, the United States seeks to provide for a future, which is free of slavery. Our country cannot be secure as long as it must share the Earth with Hitlers, Saddams, and their kind. Lands ruled by these evil ones will always be refuges for terrorists and funds provided by these murderous despots will smoothly flow under the table to those terrorists until we end it. Always these dictators will threaten our country until they are eliminated. A strong United States can only exist if crucial electricity is plentiful and inexpensive. Nuclear power plants are the only way we can have this strength. And, the number we have today is far too few. U.S. troops are now at war with terrorism in lands wherefrom it originates. The majority of people in these places are potentially our allies if they are freed from the oppression, which is the fertile soil feeding the terrorist plague worldwide. Americans will never be secure until terrorism is defeated and a strong America is essential to complete this task. All that Americans produce and provide is keyed to an efficient economical electrical system from coast to coast. So, here we are, back to nuclear production of electricity as an essential element for our strength and a bright future. The truth is that everywhere in the world where nuclear material is mined, refined and transported to users, said material is conveyed to those places over the roads and by various other routes. This has been true ever since uranium was discovered. Have you ever asked yourself how the fresh ore, and material having been refined in stages, gets to the nuclear reactors all over the United States and where ever in the world such facilities operate? Think about it. The same is true regarding delivery of nuclear weapons to military facilities. This isn't the television fantasy series "Star Trek." Matter is not transported magically by being "beamed" from one place to another. It is proper and natural to transport the material we all need to make our country strong. Our nuclear power plants provide absolutely essential power at a price acceptable to the market. Do we really wish to pay several times the current rate for electricity? Anyone foolish enough to say "yes" is indeed the maximum type of fool. If we breach the laws of economics by ignoring the vital need for cheap electricity, we will condemn our country to go the way of the Roman Empire. It is also most imperative that our military forces possess and maintain at maximum readiness all of the best nuclear weapons our great country can provide. Deterrence is still fundamental to our national security. These devices have always been transported by normal means as there are no other means. Every country in the world in possession of such materials and devices transports them the same way. The bold red herring of a screaming fit being flung broadly by the creatures bound and determined to weaken the United States is primarily based in the bogus concept that the public is being endangered by the simple transportation and eventual secure storage of the somewhat depleted nuclear material. What balderdash! Imagine the humiliating position our country would descend into, a downward spiraling condition, a pit from which there would be no escape if the enemies of our country were successful in their cunning method. The Yucca Mountain (project) is an excellent place to store depleted material and associated items. Furthermore, the state and local economies are now and will continue to benefit from such utilization. The enemy seeks to divide and conquer the first free country on Earth over phony crises actually nothing more than extensively and artfully designed diversions from truth. But more and more of us refuse to be fooled. Miller writes from Pahrump. For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 80 DOE: DOE Initiates Series of Liquefied Natural Gas Public Education Forums February 15, 2006 First Forum Set in Boston, Massachusetts WASHINGTON, D.C.  The first in a series of Department of Energy (DOE)-sponsored public education forums on liquefied natural gas (LNG) has been scheduled for Friday, March 10, 2006, at the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center in Boston, Massachusetts. This series of forums aims to maintain open lines of communication between government officials and interested citizens, and is scheduled in compliance with the National Energy Policy Act of 2005, enacted by President Bush in August 2005. The Department of Energys Liquefied Natural Gas forums will initiate constructive dialogue among community members, local, state, and federal government leaders, Secretary Bodman said. This forum is one step, of many, that will help us address and evaluate our energy needs, and increase Americas energy security. The Energy Information Administration estimates the United States will have to increase imports of LNG by more than 600 percent in the next 25 years to fulfill Americas increasing demand for natural gas. Joining the Department of Energy in presenting the educational forums will be the U.S. Department of Transportation, U. S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, coastal state governors and professional groups representing regulatory and safety officials. The Boston forum is open to the public, and registration will be available through the internet or at the Hynes Center on the day of the forum beginning at 8 a.m. The public may submit questions and comments via the internet, on cards to be provided at the event, or in written form by mail to: LNG Forums Attn: Bob Corbin 955 LEnfant Plaza North, S.W., Suite 1500 Washington, D.C. 20024. Electronic registration, printed forms and additional details on the forums are available at: Dates and locations of the other forums will be announced as soon as arrangements are completed. Media contact(s): John Grasser, 202/586-6503 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 81 Hanford News: Carrying a heavy load This story was published Monday, February 13th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The view out the window of truck-tractor 830 looks pretty much the same every day - sagebrush and more sagebrush. "It's fine with me," said teamster John Evans of Pasco as he drove down a Hanford road he's driven hundreds of times before. For 48 hours a week, he drives truck-tractor 830, hauling loads of radioactively contaminated soil or rubble from sites near the Columbia River. Each trip ends at a massive hole in the center of the nuclear reservation where low-level radioactive waste is being buried. Then it's back to pick up the next load. He and other drivers over the last decade have hauled 6.3 million tons of contaminated materials to the disposal site. That's 10 million miles of driving. If they'd been in a space shuttle, the miles would have taken them to the moon and back 21 times. In all those miles, there's been just one accident in which a truck driver has been at fault since they began hauling waste in 1996 to the newly opened Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility. It's a good job, Evans said. He keeps a window cracked to stay alert and often tunes the radio to Christian talk or music radio. Traffic is sparse on a recent morning as he runs down roads closed to the public. Twice, nearly identical rigs hauling bright orange containers with hazard symbols drove past, and he lifted his hand and waved. "It's just a big loop all day," he said. But driving to different waste sites along the Columbia River helps break the monotony, he said. Washington Closure Hanford is restoring land along the Columbia River to look much as it did before World War II when the federal government began producing plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Buildings are being torn down, nuclear reactors are being dismantled to their radioactive cores and soil where contaminated debris once was buried is being dug up. On this morning, Evans was hauling contaminated soil from burial grounds near the B and C Reactors, the two closest to the Vernita Bridge. Before he arrived, an excavator dug and mixed soil where waste once was buried. The excavator would work for half a day with airborne radiation monitors checking radiation levels before any contaminated debris and dirt would be removed. If the operator had seen anything unusual - such as a container that might hold liquid - work would have stopped. Nearby, a dump truck carried loads of dirt and debris to a nearby trench to be checked more thoroughly for radiation. A back hoe scooped up dirt from hot spots, and workers used long-handled tools to keep their distance as they searched through it for the source of the radiological reading. The rest of the dirt was loaded into a bright orange container and hauled to a staging area. That's where Evans picked up his next load for disposal. Once it was on his trailer and checked for radiation levels, he was on his way again, the cab of 830 bouncing over the rough roads closest to the waste site. They are some of the same roads Evans' father drove when he was part of the Hanford patrol. His father took a job at Hanford in the 1940s that supported six kids. Since then, all but one brother have worked at Hanford. Two shifts of truck drivers haul waste. Evans has the day shift, which offers the advantage of fewer hours when Hanford roads are too foggy to drive. If wind makes dumping radioactively contaminated soil too risky, drivers sit and wait for conditions to improve. "Everyone would rather drive," Evans said. "It makes the time go faster." The routes may vary little. But after five years behind the wheel at Hanford, Evans said he still sees something new every day. Change among the bleak gray buildings of the nuclear reservation is slow. But the remote location and nearby river make it a haven for wildlife. He frequently sees deer, sometimes coyotes and occasionally a badger. A few years ago he saw a horse running loose. "Nobody believed me," he said. But, sure enough, an escaped horse had found its way onto the Hanford reservation. It enjoyed freedom for a week before it could be caught. This day, the word was passed among the truck drivers that a small herd of elk was on the move. As truck 830 headed south, the elk appeared, framed to the east in Evans' side window as they walked through the sage in the late-morning sunshine toward Gable Mountain. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 82 PRN: Jury Awards Over One Half Billion in Environmental Damages to Rocky Flats Residents Rockwell International and Dow Chemical Company Found Responsible for Plutonium Contamination CINCINNATI, Feb. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, a Denver, Colorado federal jury awarded $553 Million to property owners living near the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant for property damage and exposure to plutonium contamination. The verdict was rendered against Rockwell International Corp. (NYSE: ROK) and Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: DOW), who had operated the plant for the federal government. The plant made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $352 Million in actual damages and $200.2 Million in punitive damages. $110.8 Million of the punitive damages were assessed against Dow Chemical and $89.4 Million of the punitive damages were assessed against Rockwell International. The case was the largest environmental class action in Colorado history. Co-trial counsel for the residents in the four-month long trial was Louise Roselle of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley of Cincinnati, Ohio. Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley was co-lead counsel in the case. Ms. Roselle had been working on the case since it was originally filed in 1990. Stanley Chesley, senior member of the law firm, praised Ms. Roselle's hard work and dedication to the residents of Rocky Flats. "Louise said she would never give up," said Mr. Chesley. "She was determined to bring out the truth about the Rocky Flats plant and its operations and how the defendants allowed residents who lived near the plant to be exposed to plutonium contamination, and she did just that." "What happened at Rocky Flats was wrong, and this jury obviously agreed with that," said Louise Roselle. She also praised the jurors for their diligence during their deliberations, which lasted for 17 days. For Questions Contact: Louise Roselle Office (513) 621-0267 or Stanley Chesley Office (513) 621-0267 Cell (513) 300-7700 Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley 1 W. 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 SOURCE Waite, Schneider, Bayless &Chesley Co. L.P.A. Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. A United Business Mediacompany. ***************************************************************** 83 Houston Chronicle: Rockwell Verifies Gov't to Pay Damages | Chron.com - Feb. 15, 2006, 2006 The Associated Press MILWAUKEE — Rockwell Automation Inc., a maker of products that help improve companies' manufacturing processes, verified Wednesday that the Energy Department will pick up its tab for damages awarded by a federal jury Tuesday. A Denver jury awarded thousands of property owners $553.9 million after deciding that Dow Chemical Co. and then-Rockwell International Corp. contaminated private property with plutonium at the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado. The verdict called for punitive damages of $110.8 million against Dow Chemical and $89.4 million against Rockwell. The jury also recommended the companies pay some $352 million in actual damages. The company said that under its contract with the Energy Department, the government promised to indemnify the company for legal damages and costs associated with the project. Rockwell reiterated that it is no longer in the weapons business. The Rocky Flats plant was closed in 1989: Both Rockwell and Dow took turns running the plant under different government contracts. Rockwell shares fell 50 cents to $68.09 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************