***************************************************************** 07/29/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.192 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Russia to expand nuclear aid to Iran 2 Russia Outlines Plans for Five More Iranian Reactors, Stoking 3 Steam turbine for nuclear plant in Iran 4 Iran's Emerging Nuclear Plant Poses Test for U.S. 5 Iran Will Definitely Respond to Any Attack on Its Nuclear Installati 6 5 More Iranian Reactors in Russia's Plans NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 US: FPL casting new net to save sea turtles 8 US: OP: Push NRC To Bolster Security at Nuclear Plants NUCLEAR SAFETY 9 US: For sale: Radioactive material 10 Iran Will Definitely Respond to Any Attack on Its Nuclear Installati NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 11 US: Nuclear waste may go through Valley by 2010 12 AU: Proposals for radioactive waste slammed 13 US: Hazardous shipments are common 14 Cameco, Westinghouse join LES consortium to build uranium enrichment NUCLEAR WEAPONS 15 India: Censorship in the nuclear age US DEPT. OF ENERGY 16 Consider bads, disservices of Idaho?s nuclear future 17 New ORO structure raises Wamp's ire 18 Senate keeps higher funding for cancer screening at DOE OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Russia to expand nuclear aid to Iran July 27, 2002 By David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES Russia yesterday announced a dramatic expansion of its cooperation with Iran on building nuclear power plants, ignoring Bush administration concerns that the program could help Iran build a nuclear bomb. The 10-year proposal for cooperation on nuclear power and oil exploration appears to have caught the U.S. government off guard. President Bush had appealed personally to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the Iranian program in May, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told a Senate hearing just two weeks ago that Washington and Moscow had "made progress" in recent months in dealing with the issue. Russia's $800 million contract to build a nuclear reactor just outside the southern Iranian port of Bushehr has been a prime irritant in rapidly improving U.S.-Russian relations. Iran is part of President Bush's "axis of evil" and U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow earlier this week issued another pointed warning to the Kremlin about its ties to regimes hostile to the United States. "Russia has to avoid letting its desire for commercial gain end up hastening the day that [Iran, Iraq and North Korea] can pose a threat that could not only destabilize their own region but undermine the security of the entire world," Mr. Vershbow said. Yesterday's 12-page draft proposal, approved Wednesday night by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, calls for Moscow to build as many as six nuclear reactors in Iran at Bushehr and at a second site in the city of Akhvaz. In addition, Russian and Iranian energy firms would team up to expand oil drilling and exploration in the Caspian Sea region, improve transportation links, jointly produce a new passenger aircraft and cooperate on the launch of an Iranian communications satellite. A State Department spokesman yesterday had no immediate comment on the Russian announcement but said he expected the topic to surface during yesterday's private talks of a top-level U.S.-Russian anti-terrorism panel that met in Annapolis. Jon Wolfsthal, a top nonproliferation official in the Energy Department in the Clinton administration and now an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called the Russian announcement "very worrisome and very surprising." "It's definitely the opposite of what a lot of people were saying, that the Russians were ready to pull out of Bushehr altogether because of U.S. pressure," he said. Mr. Powell, testifying July 9 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told lawmakers, "We think we are on the right path to making sure that the Russians don't continue to engage in this kind of activity." Three days later, Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev told reporters in Moscow that he did not see any future nuclear cooperation with Tehran after the current Bushehr reactor comes fully on line, which is expected in two years. "We see no other future work with Iran besides [Bushehr]," Mr. Rumyantsev said. But both Russia and Iran have repeatedly dismissed fears by the United States and Israel that the power plant at Bushehr could aid Iran's quest to obtain weapons-grade plutonium for military use.      The Bush administration also worries that the Bushehr project could provide a conduit for Russian nuclear specialists to be recruited into Iran's nuclear military effort. Hassan Rowhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Sunday that the Bushehr plant was being built to meet civilian needs and that the work was strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But in a sign of the strategic value Iran places on the Bushehr complex, The Washington Times in May reported that several batteries of U.S.-made Hawk surface-to-air missiles had been placed around the site. Mr. Wolfsthal said the Bushehr project has provided huge revenues to the cash-strapped Russian nuclear-power ministry and that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration has been able to persuade the Russians to drop the project. "Russia has a lot of real incentives to cooperate with Iran, financially, politically, geopolitically," he said. "So far, all they've had from the United States are promises." Question marks remain over the extent of the new Russia-Iran cooperation, despite yesterday's announcement in Moscow. The program approved by Mr. Kasyanov is only a draft proposal and still must be formally signed by top Russian and Iranian officials. The Russian news agency Interfax, citing diplomatic sources in Moscow, said yesterday the draft document could be approved by the two countries before or at a meeting of a joint economic cooperation commission set for Tehran in September. ***************************************************************** 2 Russia Outlines Plans for Five More Iranian Reactors, Stoking Weapons Programme Fears International Co-operation Section on Russia's nuclear industry international co-operation and exports of Russian nuclear technology. MOSCOW - Russia has outlined plans to build five more nuclear reactors in Iran over the next decade, representing a sharp expansion of cooperation with Tehran and an apparent disregard for US concerns about the development of an atomic power infrastructure in the area. Charles Digges, 2002-07-29 16:20 The plans have also opened a new can of worms regarding the fate of the Iranian reactors' spent nuclear fuel (SNF), which — despite Russia's assurances that it will take spent fuel back — has given credence to speculation that the Kremlin's nuclear assistance to Tehran could lead to a nuclear weapons program. The plan for additional civilian reactors in Iran is bound to strain the closer ties between Moscow and Washington that were forged in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, diplomats in Russia said. And while the two countries lately have smoothed over most of their disputes, the late Friday announcement about the intended expansion of nuclear cooperation with Iran made it clear that, whatever other gains may be made between Russia and the United States, Iran is off limits as a topic of negotiation. Russia has been constructing a 1,000-megawatt, light-water reactor for Iran at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf for years and has consistently refused to drop the $800 million project, insisting it will serve only civilian purposes. US officials and scientists familiar with fuel cycle technologies, however, fear that Russian assistance could make it easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and have lobbied in vain to stop the venture. Russia's plan for five additional reactors was included in a broad 10-year blueprint for how to enhance economic, political and scientific ties with Iran, a document approved by Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov on Wednesday and released late Friday. Iranian and Russian officials have talked about building more reactors since 1996, but now the Russians have moved the idea closer to reality by enshrining the goal in a paper to be presented to Tehran in September. The document signed Wednesday by Kasyanov suggested that three additional reactors could be built alongside the original one at Bushehr, which is slated to be operational by late 2003 or early 2004. The document also confirmed a proposal for a second plant, at Ahvaz — about 100 kilometres from Iran's border with Iraq — where two reactors could be built. All told, it would mean billions of dollars for Russia's nuclear power industry. No contracts have been signed with Iran yet, and given Russia's sporadic construction record at Bushehr, no new reactors are likely in the near term. But the absence of a contract also suggests the absence of a legally binding plan about what will happen with the SNF from the reactors, Ivan Blokov, Greenpeace's Campaign Director, told Bellona Web. Indeed, it was only within the past two weeks that Greenpeace exposed in leaked government documents that Russia had no contract for repatriating SNF from Bushehr. Since that time, Russia's Nuclear Minister Alexander Rumyantsev has issued repeated assurances that Bushehr SNF — which, when reprocessed, yields plutonium — will be sent back to Russia. But Blokov said Rumyantsev's assurances are based on nothing more than a "protocol of intent" which is not legally binding. "There is still no contract for the return of the SNF from Iran," said Blokov. A government official, speaking to Bellona Web on the condition of anonymity, confirmed this. "The only reason we knew there was no plan for the SNF from the original Bushehr reactor is because internal documents were leaked to the press," said the official. "The ‘protocol of intent' means nothing in terms of repatriating the fuel." "It's not even clear why Iran needs a nuclear reactor — to say nothing of five. They have oil, which is cheaper," said Blokov. "Secondly, the reactors that they are being given can produce materials to make an atomic bomb. The fact is that when they have their SNF [after five or six years of burning it in the first Bushehr reactor] they can easily reprocess it, and getting hold of equipment to do that is not that difficult — it's a long-known open secret that delivering such equipment is not a problem," he added. The provocative nature of the Kremlin announcement was withheld for two days, with news of the official signing of the document delayed until Friday news broadcasts, after much of Moscow had left for their country dachas for the weekend. Then two plane crashes over the week — one at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport — virtually guaranteed no attention to the news on the part of the public. The Iranian development came just a day after President Vladimir Putin hailed the new era of friendship with the West. "Russia has completely left the confrontational period in international relations, and the countries of the world can view Russia not only as a partner but also as an ally in resolving key problems of the present era," he said Thursday at a ceremony accepting credentials of new ambassadors. "The fact that Kasyanov signed something shows how much power the atomic lobby has in this country," said Andrei Piontkovsky of the Center for Strategic Studies in Moscow. "Five new reactors is going to be seriously irritating to the US." In Washington, Bush administration officials said Russian cooperation with Iran's nuclear energy program would be on the agenda this week when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham leads a US delegation to Russia to discuss energy and nuclear non-proliferation issues, the Associated Press reported. "Our concerns with regard to Russian cooperation with Iran on the issue of Bushehr are well known," AP quoted Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US National Security Council, as saying. "We have expressed them in public as well as in private directly to Russian President Putin. And we will continue to work with Russia on non-proliferation issues of concern." After their summit in May, US President George Bush said Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured him that Russia would press Iran to allow extensive international inspections of the plant. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has previously said it will cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees the world's civilian nuclear power programmes. After Friday's announcement, the chairman of the State Duma's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dmitry Rogozin, said Russia's plans should not hurt relations with the United States since Moscow shares Washington's worries. "Neither Russia nor the United States is interested in other countries' use of peaceful nuclear technologies for military purposes," he was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 3 Steam turbine for nuclear plant in Iran Pravda.RU Jul, 26 2002 Leningradski metal works (LMZ, in St. Petersburg; part of Silovye Mashiny trust) has finished shipment works for a 1,000 MW steam turbine, to be installed at the Bushehr power plant which is being built in Iran. The trust's press service informed that the turbine, the whole load of 2,500 tonnes would be shipped to Iran before August. The newly built turbine consists of three low-pressure rotors and one high-pressure rotor. With its weight of 1,700 tonnes and length of 39.5 metres, the device is 1.3 times lighter than low-speed turbines with same power. Designing engineers did not overlook weather conditions in Bushehr, namely extreme heat and highly humid and salinated air because of the proximity to the ocean, press service pointed out. Vendor contract for the turbine had been concluded by Atomstroyeksport company and Leningradski metal works in September 1999. Design engineering took a year and a half; two more years lapsed before building was completed. 1,000 MW turbines are among the most robust engines used at nuclear plants. There are only some twenty such machines operating throughout the world. Four of them come from Leningradski metal works and operate at nuclear power plants in Russia and Ukraine. © RIAN Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU [http://www.pravda.ru/] ***************************************************************** 4 Iran's Emerging Nuclear Plant Poses Test for U.S. (washingtonpost.com) By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 29, 2002; Page A01 For the past seven years, U.S. and Israeli spy satellites have swept regularly over Iran's Persian Gulf coast, snapping pictures of Russian and Iranian construction crews working to complete a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. This year, the satellites beamed back images of a round reactor dome, cooling pipes, pumping equipment and what some intelligence analysts believe to be antiaircraft missile battery sites. Bushehr has become the subject of debate in Washington and Tel Aviv over whether the plant should be allowed to come on line as scheduled in the next two or three years. Part of the discussions involve pressuring Russia to voluntarily cease construction. But as the plant moves closer to completion, it also has emerged as a potential test case of the Bush administration's new doctrine of preempting threats to U.S. national security. In the process, it has highlighted the complexities involved in executing a policy of preemption: What impact would a preemptive strike have on U.S. relations with Moscow? What effect would eliminating a civilian nuclear power plant have on Iran's covert nuclear weapons development program, which U.S. intelligence says is ongoing at dozens of other less-prominent sites throughout the country? And perhaps most significant, what would be the consequences of what Iran almost certainly would believe to be an act of war? Bush has labeled Iran a part of the "axis of evil," and some U.S. defense officials argue that Bushehr should be destroyed before it receives its first load of nuclear fuel from Russia. "There is some support for preemption within the administration," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a leading Middle East expert and one of several proliferation specialists who described the debate within the administration. Others in the administration argue that if Iran agrees to international safeguards, the plant does not pose a security risk. Besides, they say, while destroying Bushehr will not eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program, it could antagonize Iranians at a time when the administration is trying to reach out to them. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have visited the Bushehr construction site. Whatever path the administration chooses could be overshadowed by a key U.S. ally in the region: Israel. Although a preemptive strike appears to be supported by only a minority in the administration and has not been discussed at the top levels of government, Israel has suggested it will not allow the plant to open. "Does Israel have a military option?" said a government official in Washington who is familiar with the Israeli position. "The answer is yes." On June 7, 1981, Israeli F-15s and F-16s destroyed the French-built Osirak light-water nuclear reactor near Baghdad. The attack was criticized by the United States at the time but is now regarded by many U.S. policymakers as a milestone in efforts to prevent Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons. In recent weeks, Israel has publicly warned Iran that it considers the Bushehr plant -- which Germany began building for Iran in 1974 and Iraq bombed three times in the mid-1980s during the Iran-Iraq war -- a threat to its national security. There is some evidence, though not conclusive, that Iran is positioning antiaircraft missile batteries around the plant and a nuclear research facility near Tehran, according to analysts who have looked at high-resolution satellite images of those sites. Last month, the Hebrew daily Haaretz reported that Israel's National Security Council was conducting an urgent review of its policy toward Iran and quoted one official as saying "that everything must be done, including, if necessary, using force to prevent Tehran from achieving nuclear weapons capabilities." The Bushehr plant, on Iran's southwestern coast, is set to be completed in 16 months and operational 18 months later. Iran, which is paying Russia $800 million for its assistance, says the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor is for peaceful energy production only. Neither the technology nor the spent fuel from the Bushehr plant could, by itself, be used to make a nuclear bomb. But the same technology used in the plant is necessary to manufacture enriched fuel for nuclear weapons. Also, weapons-grade plutonium could be extracted from the spent fuel for a nuclear bomb. The CIA estimates Iran is seven years from having a nuclear bomb. Israeli intelligence estimates five years. Within the next few years, experts agree, Iran will have acquired enough know-how and technology to produce a long-range nuclear missile capability without further foreign assistance. The Clinton administration devoted considerable energy to its efforts to forestall construction of the plant and curtail Iran's nuclear weapons program. But the issue has recently emerged as a top priority in U.S.-Russian relations, as the Bush administration has increased pressure on Moscow to voluntarily cease construction. But the Russians have given no sign they will comply. Indeed, the Russian government announced last week that it plans to dramatically increase its cooperation with Iran in the energy field, including a proposal to build five more nuclear reactors. The plan envisages a total of four Russian-built reactors at Bushehr, including the reactor being built, and two at Akhvaz, where construction has yet to begin. High-level talks with Russia on the subject will take place in the next few weeks, an administration official said. For now, the administration's strategy is to ratchet up public criticism of Russia and to warn Moscow that failure to cooperate will have "a negative impact on U.S.-Russian relations." "We continue to have concerns that technology and know-how for nuclear weapons are flowing to Iran," the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, said in remarks outside Moscow on Monday. "Russia has to avoid letting its desire for commercial gain end up hastening the day that these countries can pose a threat that could not only destabilize their own region, but undermine the security of the entire world." Bush has raised the issue of Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran the last several times he has met with President Vladimir Putin, most recently in Moscow in May. Russian officials have said repeatedly that the reactor is meant only for energy production and that they are not abetting Iran's nuclear weapons research. "I'd like to point out that cooperation between Iran and Russia is not at all a character which would undermine the process on nonproliferation," Putin said during Bush's visit to Moscow. Putin said Western companies, not Russian entities, have furnished Iran with missile and nuclear technology. "We do have such information," he said, "and we stand ready to share it with our American partners." In recent meetings, Russian officials, including Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, have promised U.S. officials that they will not allow the Iranians access to the spent fuel. The Russian legislature changed the country's laws last year to allow for the return and storage of the spent radioactive material on Russian soil. More important, according to proliferation experts and U.S. officials, are Iran's ongoing ties with Russian scientists. Russia's help on Bushehr creates a "convenient cover for interaction" between Iranian and Russian scientists involved in nuclear weapons development, said Gary Samore, a senior nonproliferation official in the Clinton administration. It also provides a cover to transfer sensitive, hard-to-track, weapon-related components. The construction project and follow-up maintenance requirements "would legitimize all the trade between Russia and Iran," said David Albright, president of the Institute of Science and International Security and a proliferation expert. "It makes it difficult to control other things going on." The CIA says it has considerable evidence that Russian scientists have been actively helping Iran acquire the technology, know-how and material to build a bomb. "Russia continues to supply significant assistance on nearly all aspects of Tehran's nuclear program," CIA Director George J. Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March. "It is also providing Iran assistance on long-range ballistic missile programs." To many in and out of the administration who warn about the implications of Russia's expanding commercial and scientific relationship with Iran, the construction site at Bushehr remains the most ominous development. With construction slated to be completed by late 2003 or early 2004, they say the window for action will soon begin to close. "Within the next year, either the U.S. or Israel is going to either attack Iran's [nuclear sites] or acquiesce to Iran being a nuclear state," said John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan military and intelligence research center. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 5 Iran Will Definitely Respond to Any Attack on Its Nuclear Installations * TehranTimes /*By Our Staff Writer */ TEHRAN - Iran fought a bloody war while international sanctions were imposed on it and has proven able to respond strongly to any attack - from any corner whatsoever - on its interests. The ****Washington Post**** reported yesterday that Israel and the United States are concerned about Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr and that there are even some circles in Tel Aviv and Washington that advocate a preemptive attack to prevent it from becoming operational. Iran's nuclear installations are regularly inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose inspectors have time and again reported that Iran's installations are meant for peaceful purposes. Iran is not going to be the only country in the world with a nuclear power plant. There are many other countries that have nuclear power plants, yet no other countries have protested against them. Currently, there are 438 nuclear power plants in the world that produce 353,000 megawatts of energy. In fact, some 16 percent of the world's total energy is produced by nuclear power plants. In 18 countries, one-fifth of their energy is produced by nuclear power plants. About 20 percent of U.S. energy requirements are met by nuclear power plants. In Lithuania about 78 percent of the energy is produced by nuclear power plants. Moreover, in 2001 China was constructing 8 nuclear power plants, South Korea 4, Ukraine 4, Japan 3, India 2, Iran 2, Russia 2, Argentina 1, and Romania 1. By 2010, about 406,000 megawatts of energy will be produced by nuclear power plants. There are various reasons for the irrational U.S. objections to Iran's nuclear energy program, some of which are enumerated below. President George W. Bush came to power through an election whose results were dubious. In other words, his legitimacy is really under question. Secondly, since he came to power, a number of large corporations have gone bankrupt. Bush has to externalize these problems. Thirdly, President Bush has not yet succeeded in Afghanistan, despite huge economic expenditures and military efforts. Fourthly, Bush is in trouble with regard to the Middle East. The Arab-Israel talks have come to a standstill, and the two sides' differences seem insolvable. Fifthly, despite ten years of endeavors, Washington has not been able to settle accounts with Baghdad. Therefore, any insane move against Iran would only reflect the bankruptcy of U.S. diplomacy. Iran will definitely not sit by idly and do nothing if its nuclear installations are attacked. Iran will take any measures it sees fit in such an event. It is a matter of national pride and security. Send your questions and comments to: webmaster@tehrantimes.com ***************************************************************** 6 5 More Iranian Reactors in Russia's Plans [http://www.moscowtimes.ru Monday, Jul. 29, 2002. Page 1 Brushing aside U.S. concerns, the government has indicated that it plans to continue building new nuclear reactors in Iran like one that American officials have repeatedly warned could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Russia's assistance in building a nuclear plant in the city of Bushehr, near the Persian Gulf, has been a nagging irritant in relations with the United States for years. It produced the sourest note in otherwise friendly meetings between Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin here in May. While administration officials have pressed Russia to break its contract to complete a 1,000-megawatt reactor at Bushehr, a document approved last week by Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and announced on Friday outlined plans to build three more reactors at the site. The document also indicated that Russia would offer to build two more reactors at a new nuclear power station at Akhvaz, a city about 100 kilometers from Iran's border with Iraq. That appeared to contradict remarks earlier this month by Nuclear Power Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, who said the cooperation with Iran in developing its nuclear-power industry would end with the project at Bushehr. Russia's plans were released on the government's official web site on Friday, without public comment, as part of a draft resolution outlining potential areas of economic, industrial and scientific cooperation with Iran over the next 10 years. The 12-page document was worked out by Iranian and Russian representatives "taking into account the traditionally friendly relations between the two governments," the resolution says. It says Slavneft and the National Iranian Drilling Company will work together to expand oil drilling in Iran, and proposes Russian help in building pipelines to bring Iranian oil to market, including one from Iran to India. It also proposes Russian help for Iranian exploration efforts in the Caspian Sea. Washington has championed pipeline routes to Western markets that would skirt the Caspian's biggest players -- Russia and Iran. Moscow and Tehran, meanwhile, have been in dispute with each other and the other three Caspian states over how to divide the sea's resources. Russia and Iran also plan to work together on a global navigation system that the resolution says would be used for geological research and monitoring a transport corridor between their countries. Russia proposes helping Iran launch communications satellites and providing it with satellite photos for geological research. The two countries hope to set up a joint venture to produce Tu-204 and Tu-334 passenger aircraft in Iran. In Washington, Bush administration officials said Russian cooperation with Iran's nuclear energy program would be on the agenda this week when Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham leads a U.S. delegation to Russia to discuss energy and nuclear proliferation issues. "Our concerns with regards to Russian cooperation with Iran on the issue of Bushehr are well known," said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "We have expressed them in public as well as in private directly to Russian President Putin. And we will continue to work with Russia on proliferation issues of concern." Russia, like Iran, has repeatedly dismissed the American concerns about the project, insisting that it is a purely civilian effort to develop new energy sources. But the Bush administration fears that the Iranians will use Russian equipment and expertise to pursue a secret program to produce nuclear weapons that could threaten Europe and the United States. In recent months, Russian officials have sought to defuse the Bush administration's complaints, saying Russia would insist that Iran return the plutonium produced by the reactor as a byproduct of power generation to prevent it from being used in weapons. After their meetings in May, Bush said Putin had assured him that Russia would press Iran to allow extensive international inspections of the plant. Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has previously said it will cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees the world's civilian nuclear power programs. After Friday's announcement, the chairman of the State Duma's committee on foreign affairs, Dmitry Rogozin, said Russia's plans should not hurt relations with the United States since Moscow shares Washington's worries. "Neither Russia nor the United States is interested in other countries' use of peaceful nuclear technologies for military purposes," he was quoted by Interfax as saying. (NYT, AP) [http://www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 7 FPL casting new net to save sea turtles PalmBeachPost.com: By Deborah Circelli, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Monday, July 29, 2002 JUNO BEACH -- Florida Power & Light Co. is taking stronger steps to save endangered sea turtles. The utility, a division of Juno Beach-based FPL Group, is installing a $694,142 net to keep endangered loggerhead and green sea turtles from being sucked into the intake area of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. FPL has petitioned the Public Service Commission for permission to add the net and maintenance costs to customer bills during the next 30 years. The first installment will be $32,657, about a penny per customer. The PSC plans to rule on the request in November. FPL is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses the plant, and the U.S. Endangered Species Act to limit the number of deaths of the turtles. Hutchinson Island, the plant's location, is one of the state's top nesting sites for sea turtles. The turtles get into the intake canal near the plant through pipes that pull water in from the ocean to cool the plant. The net is intended to keep the turtles from floating further down the canal and into the plant's pumps. But in some cases turtles get stuck in the old net and drown. In 2001, of the 601 turtles that were captured in the net, six died. Had one more perished, FPL would have been in violation of federal law. [deborah_circelli@pbpost.com] Copyright © 2002, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 OP: Push NRC To Bolster Security at Nuclear Plants EDITORIAL July 29, 2002 If the state of security on airlines is still shaky nearly a year after the terrorist attacks - and it is - the situation at nuclear power plants is worrisome, too. That's why it is good news that a Senate committee has reported out the Nuclear Security Act of 2002, a compromise measure that would make a solid start toward protecting these plants from becoming weapons in the hands of terrorists. A key player has been Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is both a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and an original sponsor of the bill, which stirred significant opposition in the industry. The bill that emerged from committee last Thursday represents a compromise, but it still lights a fire under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry itself to examine and upgrade security at these plants. One key provision is the creation of the Task Force on Nuclear Infrastructure Security, an interagency group led by the NRC chairman. The task force would assess the vulnerability of nuclear plants and local response plans, and would make recommendations to the NRC, which would adopt them as regulations within 150 days. The NRC itself would perform the actual plant-by-plant analysis of security, based on the task force's recommendations. While it would not federalize the security forces as the original bill would have done, it would require regular on-the-ground tests of private security forces, staged by a mock terrorist team; place a full-time NRC security employee at every plant; and supplement private forces with special antiterrorism teams on the perimeter. The bill also contains an amendment based on a separate Clinton bill that would set up a system for tracking and storing radioactive material, to keep it from being used in a "dirty bomb." That is an excellent idea. The House legislation is weaker. The Senate should pass this bill and fight hard in conference to make nuclear plants less vulnerable. Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 For sale: Radioactive material The Sacramento Bee -- sacbee.com -- By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Sunday, July 28, 2002 Despite fears that radioactive material could be shaped into a "dirty bomb," hundreds of radioactive products are for sale through catalogs, Web sites and suppliers to anyone with a license to own them. The license is available to anyone willing to follow federal safety precautions, and hundreds of new licenses are issued each year. More than 10 months after Sept. 11, neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission nor the state of California requires applicants to undergo a criminal records check or any other security or background check. "They should fix that," said Steven E. Koonin, a nuclear physicists and provost at the California Institute of Technology, who has advised the government on security issues. Even nuclear industry workers, who often dismiss fears of radiation as overblown, quietly acknowledge that setting up a front business and buying a license may well be the back door to building a dirty bomb, which would use standard explosives to spread radiation. Radioactivity is widely used in medicine and industry, most often in minute fractions of a curie, amounts far too small for a dirty bomb. But thousands of private users nationwide are licensed to handle tools, medical equipment and machines containing one to 10,000 curies, a range experts call ideal for dirty bombs. The NRC confirms it is considering requiring background checks for at least some people licensed to own radioactive products, but it won't comment on who might be subject to tougher reviews. Any federal decisions are months away, said John Hickey, head of the NRC's materials safety branch. California, one of more than 30 states that issues its own radioactive materials licenses under NRC guidelines, is entitled to use stricter standards than federal ones. It could require security checks at any time for California licensees, but it has not done so. "We're still in the assessment phase," said Kevin Reilly, a deputy director in the state Department of Health Services, which oversees licensing. "We want to make sure we are coordinating with the NRC." Today, both agencies are handing out licenses largely the way they did before terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and before federal officials in June trumpeted the arrest of Jose Padilla, a Chicago man they said wanted to detonate a dirty bomb. In the last three years, federal officials have granted 850 license applications and denied two. "Right now what we look at is the technical qualifications of the individual," such as training to safely handle radioactive materials, said Doug Collins, head of nuclear materials safety for one of four NRC regional offices. On its Web site, the NRC posts lengthy volumes detailing everything people need for their license application. The questions are aimed largely at safety -- ensuring that the material an applicant wants will be well shielded and tested for leaks, and that the people handling it will be well trained and monitored for accidental exposure. Large users must make financial guarantees, such as a bond or insurance, to prove they'll be able to properly dispose of the radioactive material and anything it might contaminate. Some of the biggest users, such as industrial irradiators that purify food or sterilize medical equipment, are asked to sketch their site's layout and describe the mechanisms they would use to keep workers from getting accidentally exposed. One form, the NRC estimates, takes seven hours to fill out. A license applicant does not have to undergo any federal inspection of the site before getting the license or its first shipment of radioactive materials, according to Hickey. It just needs to submit diagrams, training materials and other forms for review. Sometime during the first year of operation, an NRC official will inspect the site. Buying an already licensed business can be even easier than getting a new license. The NRC has to give written approval to the sale, but as long as the new owner fills out a form saying it won't make major changes in personnel, material use or handling, no inspection is required, according to the agency. And neither is a security check. Along with its multivolume regulations, the NRC also publishes how-to booklets telling would-be owners the steps they need to take to apply. "If people follow those booklets, we can quickly issue a license," said Collins, whose Southeastern regional office has given itself a goal of processing applications within 90 days. California issues checklists and guidelines to help applicants make their way through its licensing process, which usually takes 90 days or less. The state has issued about 500 licenses in the past three years, using roughly the same procedures as the NRC. Federal regulators have been talking with industry representatives and radioactive materials users about their study into post-Sept. 11 security and are trying to tailor any changes to the many diverse users, Hickey said. Hospitals pose different challenges than factories, he said, and universities, with their tradition of openness, have special concerns about security checks. Such checks are essential safeguards that should be part of any security program, said Steven Kuhr, a managing director of Kroll Inc., a prominent New York-based security firm with operations on six continents. His firm always recommends combining background checks with a tough analysis of physical safeguards. Neither is sufficient protection on its own, he added. "We're talking about a new world now," where ports, hospitals, laboratories and other businesses are confronting multiple fears -- some far more deadly than dirty bombs, Kuhr said. "We have industrial chemicals which are accessible, very easy to use, very easy to turn against an innocent population," and that regularly travel roads and railways. Many substances could easily become "legal weapons of mass destruction," Kuhr and others point out. About the Writer The Bee's Carrie Peyton Dahlberg can be reached at (916) 321-1086 or cpeytondahlberg@sacbee.com [cpeytondahlberg@sacbee.com] . ***************************************************************** 10 Iran Will Definitely Respond to Any Attack on Its Nuclear Installations [TehranTimes By Our Staff Writer TEHRAN - Iran fought a bloody war while international sanctions were imposed on it and has proven able to respond strongly to any attack - from any corner whatsoever - on its interests. The ****Washington Post**** reported yesterday that Israel and the United States are concerned about Iran's nuclear power plant in Bushehr and that there are even some circles in Tel Aviv and Washington that advocate a preemptive attack to prevent it from becoming operational. Iran's nuclear installations are regularly inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose inspectors have time and again reported that Iran's installations are meant for peaceful purposes. Iran is not going to be the only country in the world with a nuclear power plant. There are many other countries that have nuclear power plants, yet no other countries have protested against them. Currently, there are 438 nuclear power plants in the world that produce 353,000 megawatts of energy. In fact, some 16 percent of the world's total energy is produced by nuclear power plants. In 18 countries, one-fifth of their energy is produced by nuclear power plants. About 20 percent of U.S. energy requirements are met by nuclear power plants. In Lithuania about 78 percent of the energy is produced by nuclear power plants. Moreover, in 2001 China was constructing 8 nuclear power plants, South Korea 4, Ukraine 4, Japan 3, India 2, Iran 2, Russia 2, Argentina 1, and Romania 1. By 2010, about 406,000 megawatts of energy will be produced by nuclear power plants. There are various reasons for the irrational U.S. objections to Iran's nuclear energy program, some of which are enumerated below. President George W. Bush came to power through an election whose results were dubious. In other words, his legitimacy is really under question. Secondly, since he came to power, a number of large corporations have gone bankrupt. Bush has to externalize these problems. Thirdly, President Bush has not yet succeeded in Afghanistan, despite huge economic expenditures and military efforts. Fourthly, Bush is in trouble with regard to the Middle East. The Arab-Israel talks have come to a standstill, and the two sides' differences seem insolvable. Fifthly, despite ten years of endeavors, Washington has not been able to settle accounts with Baghdad. Therefore, any insane move against Iran would only reflect the bankruptcy of U.S. diplomacy. Iran will definitely not sit by idly and do nothing if its nuclear installations are attacked. Iran will take any measures it sees fit in such an event. It is a matter of national pride and security. Send your questions and comments to: webmaster@tehrantimes.com [webmaster@tehrantimes.com] ***************************************************************** 11 Nuclear waste may go through Valley by 2010 fresnobee.com | Local News By Jennifer Fitzenberger The Fresno Bee (Published Monday, July, 29, 2002, 5:15 AM) Nuclear waste might travel through Fresno County by rail and truck to a long-term repository in Nevada as soon as 2010, according to preliminary routes identified by the U.S. Department of Energy. Maps included in the Yucca Mountain project's final environmental impact statement, made public this year, show potential routes snaking through the San Joaquin Valley. Joseph Davis, a department spokesman, would not discuss the routes because they have not been finalized. The department will start working with state officials on routes five years before shipments start, he says. "Is it likely [to go through Fresno]? We don't know yet," Davis says. "Is it safe and secure? Yes." The Energy Department has shipped nuclear waste for more than 30 years without an accident involving the harmful release of radiation, he says. It's possible that spent nuclear fuel would travel on the Union Pacific line, which cuts through Fresno parallel to Freeway 99, says Mike Furtney, a railroad spokesman. "By virtue of the location of our routes, I'd say, 'Yeah,' " Furtney says. "We'd be on the short list." The Senate voted this month to entomb thousands of tons of radioactive waste inside Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. If the project survives several lawsuits and secures a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Energy Department will move nuclear waste from power plants to the repository. Local authorities will evaluate their disaster-response guidelines as Yucca Mountain plans progress. In the event of a radioactive spill, the Energy Department would have a "major part to play" in the response, says Capt. Chuck Tobias, head of the Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team. Team members are trained to deal with a radioactive release and have monitors that can detect the material. Fewer than 50 Fresno businesses, most of them health-related, use low-level radioactive materials, Tobias says. Firefighters keep tabs on those businesses but are not alerted when the Energy Department ships nuclear waste through the area. "They don't release that information to any agency to ensure that nothing gets sabotaged," Tobias says. Davis, however, says the appropriate people are notified, including the Department of Transportation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, officials in the Governor's Office and local emergency-response personnel. Shipment dates, routes and times are classified, Davis says. Rail officials say it's likely their trains have transported nuclear waste through Fresno, but they recall no recent shipments. "My guess is it probably has at some point," Furtney says. Patrick Brady, assistant director for hazardous materials at Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, says he doesn't recall moving nuclear waste in the past six years. Union Pacific transports nuclear waste occasionally when the Defense or Energy departments request it, Furtney says. Railroads, by federal statute, cannot refuse a shipment if it's properly packaged. The reporter can be reached at [jfitzenberger@fresnobee.com] or (559) 441-6313. [http://www.fresnobee.com/bee/copyright.html] 2002 , The Fresno Bee ***************************************************************** 12 AU: Proposals for radioactive waste slammed theage.com.au CANBERRA|Published: Monday July 29, 8:05 PM Australia's approach to radioactive waste was irresponsible and lacked logic, a nuclear engineer involved in the Maralinga bomb site cleanup in the 1980s said. Alan Parkinson, a nuclear engineer who has worked in the UK, United States and Canada, helped develop options for the clean-up of the Maralinga atomic bomb test site in 1989. Mr Parkinson described Australia's disposal of radioactive waste as ill-considered, in a conScience column in Australasian Science magazine. The federal government applied double standards in dealing with all types of nuclear waste, he said. His comments follow the government's release of the Environmental Impact Statement for the low-level radioactive waste site to be built in the South Australian outback. The government also this week called for tenders to help identify a storage site for the nation's medium-level nuclear waste. The Australian Democrats have also called for a rethink on Maralinga. "Now the government has signed off on a more stringent specification for low level nuclear waste, the highly-contaminated nuclear test debris at Maralinga must now be dug up from its shallow earth burial, properly sorted and put in a safer repository," Democrats nuclear spokeswoman Lyn Allison said. Mr Parkinson was removed from the Maralinga clean-up project amid his criticism of the government's approach to radioactive waste. Today he said the government policy had no consistency and there was little evidence of logic. ©2002 [aap] Copyright © 2002 John Fairfax Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Hazardous shipments are common Post-Crescent - Posted July 28, 2002 Materials in transit daily through area By John Lee Post-Crescent staff writer In the 25 years he’s lived in his home, exactly 1.6 miles from the railroad tracks in Weyauwega, James Biddison never heard, or even thought of, the trains going past. But after he was among 2,400 residents forced from their homes for 19 days after a Wisconsin Central Railroad Ltd. train derailed in March 1996, he and his neighbors became fully aware of trains and the hazardous materials being transported by rail. “I never paid attention to them before, but now I hear them,” he said of the 20 trains that pass daily through the city. As owner of Transportation Insurance Services of Weyauwega, Biddison knows the risks and costs of transporting hazardous materials, but said he isn’t too concerned about plans that could put trains carrying radioactive waste on the tracks near his home. “I guess as long as there aren’t too many in a row,” he said. But the issue of transporting hazardous materials is once again hot, since Congress approved using Yucca Mountain in Nevada to store nuclear waste, meaning that will join other hazardous wastes on highways and railroads. It’s hard to come up with an exact amount of waste that travels through an area daily since only vehicles carrying over 1,000 pounds of hazardous chemicals must carry placards marking the load, said Bruce Sim, Outagamie County emergency management coordinator. But he knows that last year, 47,000 rail cars carried hazardous chemicals through Outagamie County. That includes petroleum products, paper industry chemicals, medical wastes, fertilizers and pesticides. The chemicals are being hauled in trucks, but also in private vehicles or small trucks to shippers. “They all carry hazardous materials and you never know what they are carrying and when they are carrying them,” Sim said. “Everything you can imagine comes through here.” According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 94 percent of the hazardous materials in the country are transported by truck, with less than 1 percent being moved by rail. State Railroad Commissioner Rodney Kreunen thinks that will change. “They are a steady commodity through Wisconsin. The railroads have a very good track record hauling them,” he said. Most of the chemicals hauled by rail are industrial materials, such as chlorines, printing materials, potash and fertilizers, he said. Since about 1990, rail crews have been better trained through the Association of American Railroads, and more fire departments have training in hazardous chemical response, he said. “Twenty years ago that was hardly known.” Since the Weyauwega derailment, “Everybody wants to know what’s going through my small town,” said Roxanne Chronert, spill coordinator for the state Department of Natural Resources in its Green Bay office. “It’s amazing.” At any time, she said 150 spills are under investigation. While the majority involve gasoline and diesel fuel from accidents, others are from items used in everyday life, such as anhydrous ammonia from farming, ammonia for refrigeration, chlorine from water treatment and bleaches. “Everybody insists on white toilet paper, but everyone gets (upset) when bleach is going through their town,” she said. “Think about the people who just go to the grocery store and buy bleach and vinegar and baking soda. Think about the chemicals you bring home and could mix.” But Sim said regulations, and training for fire departments and other emergency responders, helps keep communities safe. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Transportation recorded 253 hazardous materials incidents in Wisconsin that injured one person and caused $438,345 in damage. The state ranked 24th, compared with a high of 1,562 incidents in Ohio, and a low of six incidents in the District of Columbia. Jim Drew, a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official who coordinates Wisconsin’s Hazardous Substances Emergency Event Surveillance program, said the state records smaller spills than the federal government. Drew said from 1993-2000, he has recorded 3,245 hazmat events. Those spills have affected 896 victims, and 33,812 people were evacuated from homes or businesses, he said. In 2000, there were 478 spills in the state. Those figures exclude the estimated two-thirds of spills that are petroleum products. Lori Getter, Wisconsin Emergency Management spokeswoman, said the most common non-petroleum spills in the state are ammonia and anhydrous ammonia, chemicals often transported to farms. Biddison insures truckers, but said it’s too expensive for most area haulers to get involved in transporting hazardous waste. One customer who hauls liquid elm, a byproduct of the paper industry, is required by the state DOT to carry $5 million in liability insurance. Other trucks on federal highways may have to carry just $750,000, but trucks carrying anything classified as hazardous will be required to carry $1 million to $5 million of coverage, he said. “That’s very specialized,” he said of hazardous hauling. John Lee can be reached at 920-993-1000, ext. 362, or by e-mail at jlee@postcrescent.com [http://www.postcrescent.com] | ***************************************************************** 14 Cameco, Westinghouse join LES consortium to build uranium enrichment facility Elizabethton Star - Online Edition By Kathy Helms-Hughes STAR STAFF [khughes@starhq.com] A Memorandum of Agreement announced Tuesday by Louisiana Energy Services marks the first step toward a formal partnership to design, construct, and operate a new uranium enrichment facility in the United States, possibly in Unicoi County near Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. The $1.1 billion facility will use gas centrifuge technology developed by Urenco of the United Kingdom for uranium enrichment. The memorandum is a move toward restructuring the LES consortium, according to Urenco, which signed the agreement along with Cameco Corp. of Ontario, Canada, Westinghouse Electric Co., Fluor-Daniel and U.S. utilities Exelon, Entergy and Duke. Under terms of the agreement, Cameco would obtain an initial 20 percent interest in the project. Following receipt of the NRC license and a final restructuring of the LES partnership, Cameco's interest would increase to 25 percent. The company's involvement is contingent upon successful execution of a final partnership agreement, completion of a feasibility study that demonstrates an acceptable rate of return, an ability to obtain project financing, and securing a portfolio of long-term contracts to support the project. Cameco also has the option to withdraw with no further obligation. The company is expected to commit about $8.5 million to the project in the next three years during the licensing phase. Cameco earned a profit of nearly $56 million last year after a loss of $87.2 million in 2000. George E. Dials has been named president of the LES consortium. Dials, who has degrees from both West Point and MIT, has held senior positions in the nuclear industry, both in government and private sectors. LES Chairman Dr. Pat Upson said Dials is the ideal person for the role of president. "I am looking forward to working with him as we bring this new enrichment plant into production." Rod Krich of Exelon said Friday that Westinghouse and Cameco have signed the agreement that will eventually lead to them becoming partners, but that they are not yet partners. "The partners now are Urenco, Fluor-Daniel and affiliates of three utility companies: Exelon, Entergy and Duke." Louisiana Power & Light, previously mentioned as a partner, has changed its name and is now Entergy, Krich said. "Entergy is kind of a holding company for a number of utilities in the South." Claiborne Energy Services Inc., also previously mentioned as a member of the consortium, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke, according to Krich. LES's plan to build the uranium enrichment facility got a boost last week from the Department of Energy. Krich said DOE submitted a letter July 25 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "that was supportive of another uranium enrichment facility" in the United States. LES and U.S. Enrichment Corp., or USEC, of Bethesda, Md., both intend to submit applications to the NRC in December for licensing of gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facilities. LES would be a major U.S. competitor for USEC, a world leader in the production and sale of uranium fuel enrichment services. "Right now, we're not competing with them because we haven't licensed or built anything," Krich said. "The objective is to get the facility licensed and built so that we [LES] would be a competitor." Krich said an announcement of potential sites could come Aug. 6 during a meeting with the NRC. "It's possible. We're continuing to work through the process here, but as of yet we haven't said that we've changed our schedule from what we told the NRC back on June 25," he said. At that meeting, LES said the announcement would be delayed four to five weeks. Krich also said he could not comment on a July 23 article in the Lynchburg News & Advance newspaper which stated that sites in Lynchburg, Va., and Wilmington, N.C., also have been mentioned as possible locations for the gas centrifuge plant. BWX Technologies, located in Campbell County, Va., has land near its facility which could be utilized by LES, according to the News & Advance. Framatome ANP -- a consortium which includes Framatome-Cogema Fuels of Lynchburg and Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. of Erwin -- also has headquarters in Lynchburg. Framatome ANP bought the Duke division earlier this year and has inherited Duke's interest in the LES consortium, according to the News & Advance. NFS has subcontracted with Framatome-Cogema to downblend 33 metric tons of surplus high-enriched uranium (HEU), stored at DOE's Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C., and Y-12 at Oak Ridge. The HEU surplus will be downblended into fuel for Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens, Ala. TVA has contracted with Cameco to supply approximately 1 million pounds of uranium trioxide to be used as blend stock. In 1999, Cameco and Cogema were among companies signing a commercial agreement with Techsnabexport, the commercial arm of the Russian Federation Ministry of Atomic Energy, for the purchase of natural uranium derived from highly enriched uranium contained in Russian nuclear weapons. The companies have exclusive options to purchase about 260 million pounds of the weapons-derived uranium upon delivery in the United States. This would then be resold in international markets. Copyright © 1996 - 2002 Elizabethton Newspapers, Inc. Direct questions or comments to [webmaster@starhq.com] [webmaster@starhq.com] Elizabethton Newspapers, Inc., 300 Sycamore Street Elizabethton, Tennessee 37643 - 423.542.4151 ***************************************************************** 15 India: Censorship in the nuclear age The Hindu : Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Jul 19, 2002 By M. V. Ramana Censorship denies people alternatives to the propaganda put out by Governments and hawks. SHORTLY AFTER the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States' strategic bombing survey hired a Japanese film unit to record the physical and medical effects of the bomb. They were then edited to produce a documentary entitled "The Effects of the Atomic Bombs Against Hiroshima and Nagasaki". The finished film was shipped to the U.S. in May 1946 with much publicity. It was declared `top secret' and locked in a vault, never to be shown to the American public. Only in the late 1960s was it returned to the Japanese. Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell in their insightful book "Hiroshima in America: A Half Century of Denial" suggest why American officials were uncomfortable with the footage: "The Japanese newsreel team had gone into hospitals to document the burn and radiation effects. They not only photographed a burned-out trolley car, but the rows of bodies and bones that surrounded it. Even the footage of strictly physical phenomena featured troublesome imagery: radioactive sand clogging wells used for drinking water; dead stalks of rice seven miles from the hypocenter; the silhouette of a painter on a ladder, his brush outstretched, permanently etched onto the surface of a concrete wall by the flash of the bomb." America's reluctance to deal with the human impact of the only cases of atomic bombing of civilian populations has persisted. In 1995, the Smithsonian museum in Washington had planned an exhibition featuring the "Enola Gay", the airplane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. The exhibition was to not only recall the events surrounding the bombing, but also examine the bomb's impact on people, and feature documents showing that high-ranking military leaders had doubts about dropping the bomb. In response, the American Air Force Association, supported by several right wing politicians, launched a major campaign attacking the exhibit as revisionist and defending America's use of the atomic bomb. The exhibition in its proposed form had to be cancelled. It is poignant that Anand Patwardhan's epic documentary "Jang aur Aman" (War and Peace), which chronicles, inter alia, censorship at the Smithsonian museum, must itself run into trouble with the Censor Board. This when the film, like many of his other films, won awards at the Mumbai International Film Festival and the Earth Vision Global Environment Festival in Tokyo. Mr. Patwardhan, one of our most accomplished filmmakers, is no stranger to controversy. In the past he fought and won three court cases to get films of his — "Bombay Our City, In Memory of Friends and Ram Ke Naam" — shown on Doordarshan. "Jang aur Aman" explores the many effects of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan: the problems faced by people living near the Pokhran test site and the Jaduguda uranium mines, the human toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Sangh Parivar groups and their hate crusades, the Kargil war, and the global commerce of death offered by arms traders. But the film also offers hope by recording the growing peace movements, both in India and Pakistan. That such a film offering rich fare for thought has been held up at the Censor Board is unfortunate. What is worse is that some of the Censor Board's objections are quite illogical. For example, it has called for deleting speeches by Dalits and neo-Buddhists attacking the upper-caste biases of the ruling elite, and visuals or dialogues about the Tehelka expose. These seem to suggest the influence of the Sangh Parivar and its agenda rather than anything particularly relevant to the nuclear issue. Sangh Parivar groups have, of course, done their bits of censorship many times. In 1993, for example, the VHP attacked an exhibition on the Ramayana mounted by the Safdar Hashmi Trust (SAHMAT) and got it banned. (The Delhi High Court struck down the notification last year). Other examples in the last decade include the Shiv Sena's objections to an advertisement for shoes featuring two nude models and the destruction of several of M. F. Husain's paintings by members of the Bajrang Dal. The Censor Board also objected to scenes involving pronouncements on nuclear matters. For one, it wanted Mr. Patwardhan to delete an interview with a leading nuclear scientist saying that China was a possible enemy against which nuclear weapons could be used. This is utterly absurd. Several political leaders, most notably the Defence Minister, George Fernandes, have publicly called China the chief threat requiring the development of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Chinese nuclear programme — and not Pakistan's — was the rationale that hawks originally offered to advocate nuclear weapons for India. (Arguing that countering Pakistan requires nuclear weapons would have been counterproductive since India held (and holds) a conventional military advantage that would be annulled by both India and Pakistan going nuclear.) So to ask Mr. Patwardhan to delete something that has been stated repeatedly by many policy-makers is disingenuous. The Censor Board has also demanded the deletion of a much larger portion of Mr. Patwardhan's film by issuing the blanket diktat — "Delete the entire visuals and dialogues spoken by political leaders including Ministers and the Prime Minister". That much of this has appeared on Doordarshan and seen by crores of people — many times the number who can be expected to see Mr. Patwardhan's film — only underscores the Orwellian irony. India is not alone in suppressing efforts at chronicling nuclear matters. In 1993, Israel's military censor banned the publication of an academic monograph by Avner Cohen, an Israeli citizen and then a research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, on the early history (1949-67) of the Israeli nuclear programme. Not just parts of it, but the whole thing. And in 1999, a Russian military court convicted Grigory Pasko, a former naval captain and an environmental journalist, for passing film footage of the Russian navy illegally dumping nuclear wastes into the Sea of Japan to a Japanese TV station. He was amnestied, but the Federal Security Service (FSB) — the former KGB — asked for a re-evaluation and got him sentenced to four years hard labour. Thankfully, circumstances in the subcontinent are better. Nevertheless, censoring Mr. Patwardhan's film would be unfortunate. Most Indians have not been exposed to images of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, of the accident at Chernobyl or the plight of uranium miners around the world that shed light on the dark underbelly of the nuclear age and allow people to make crucial decisions about their lives in an informed manner. The Japanese historian, Seiji Imahori, once observed that by silencing the voice of the atomic bomb survivors "an important possibility to decisively influence the world situation was lost." Likewise the situation in South Asia, with nuclear war a possibility that cannot be ruled out, demands influences like Mr. Patwardhan's to positively change the situation towards peace and true security. Censorship denies people alternatives to the propaganda put out by Governments and hawks about the wickedness of the "other" and the need to be able to reduce them to radioactive rubble. (The writer is research staff member, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University.) [http://www.hinduonline.com/] | ***************************************************************** 16 Consider bads, disservices of Idaho?s nuclear future Roy Heberger I read in The Idaho Statesman July 16 that the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory will be the center for nuclear research in the United States. While there was apparently no promise of an enhanced work force on the eastern Idaho desert, there was the possibility of yet another experimental reactor. Just a few weeks before this article appeared, the long-term storage of nuclear wastes produced by our nuclear industries was still being hotly debated in the U.S. Congress. That´s a debate that´s been raging for decades. It seems we´ve produced all of this very dangerous, nasty radioactive waste material at various locations all over the world, and nobody wants to store it in their back yard. Duh. And recently, I have read about our elected officials in Congress supporting new nuclear energy initiatives. Perhaps it´s just me. Maybe I´m just a little bit confused, but why do we want to encourage an industry that has been unable to clean up after itself? Oops, I forgot ? that´s the American way. Our forests and high deserts are raped by poor mining practices, bad timber sales and subsidized public lands grazing; our rivers and lakes are fouled with human and animal wastes and contaminants; and we now have Superfund sites that local communities and county and state governments don´t want to acknowledge even exist. And it´s all in the name of progress. So why not continue to produce nuclear waste materials whose half-lives well exceed a human life span, a term of office or the duration of a political career? I´m for research that can find real answers to real problems, but I´m opposed to growing the problem in the name of progress. Those folks who don´t want nuclear wastes stored in their back yards are not stupid. It is not exactly an out-of-sight, out-of-mind kind of thing for families living in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nev. I don´t blame them for the positions they have taken. Those wastes are scary. Something that is deadly for thousands of years, for which disposal methods are for the most part untested, is a very scary thing. It was in the late ´60s that I studied nuclear radiation biology at the University of Michigan. It scared me then ? enough to make me change my plans for a master´s thesis. It scares me now. We likely know more now than we did then, but the problem of disposal and storage is still for the most part unresolved. We´re not even sure the storage containers we will use at Yucca Mountain will last the half-life of some of the radioactive materials we propose to put there. So I ask: Why would we want to promote industries that will produce more nuclear wastes, when we truly don´t really know what to do with the wastes we have already produced? Really, Mr. Idaho Congressmen, were you thinking of the common good or the good of a much smaller sampling of humanity when your talk promoted the nuclear industry in the desert? I mean ,there are goods and services to be produced, sure, but what about the bads and disservices? Nuclear wastes are bads, and their production is a disservice that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will have to pay for dearly. May we all bask in the glow of our mistakes? I hope not. Edition Date: 07-25-2002 *****************************************************************