NucNews - May 28, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Emergency Sirens Have No Backup at 28 U.S. Reactor Sites WASHINGTON, DC, May 27, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-27-09.asp#anchor1 In the event of a simultaneous accident where a nuclear power station melts down at the same time the main power lines fail, the emergency siren system for the entire emergency planning zone would lose power and not be operable to alert people to an approaching radioactive cloud at 28 reactor sites across the country. In response to a petition filed by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and 16 other organizations and local governments, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has revealed that 28 reactor emergency plan zone siren systems are entirely reliant upon electricity from their regional grid. Another 18 sites have only partial emergency power backup available to siren systems. Only 17 reactor sites have siren systems that are fully backed up with emergency power systems so that they would remain operable independent of the failure of main power lines. The Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have been engaged in revising public notification systems since the August 14, 2003 northeast electricity blackout, but no date for completion is available. This information was contained in a NRC denial, issued May 20, 2005, of an emergency enforcement petition submitted on February 23, 2005 requesting that emergency back up power supplies consisting of rechargeable batteries, preferably on photovoltaic solar panels be back fitted to all public alert systems around the nation's nuclear power stations. The NRC released a list Wednesday specifying reactors sites without power back up, partial back up and full back up. "These siren systems would not have worked from day one if the grid failed the same time these reactors melted down," said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). "NRC is saying that public safety can wait on bureaucratic foot dragging that can leave communities not only in the dark but without emergency notification if there is a nuclear melt down," he said. "The 17 sites that have emergency power for all their sirens is enough to demonstrate that it can and should be done for all of the reactor sites, today," Gunter said. The petition documents that grid failures as the result of lightning, hurricanes, ice storms, earthquakes as well as mechanical failures in the electricity distribution system routinely cause a loss of power to community alerting systems around nuclear power stations. The loss of offsite power significantly increases the risk of a core melt accident because of reduced safety systems. Typically, NRC mock terrorist attack tests at reactor sites begin with the assumption that the main power lines are down. In its denial NRC argued that it is inappropriate for affected communities to take up the request for back up power for sirens under the agency's emergency enforcement petition process. Instead, NRC determined that a request for back fitting the nuclear industry with emergency power for its siren systems should go through NRC's petition for rule making, a bureaucratic process typically involving two years of deliberations. NRC claims it does not want to duplicate efforts of the DHS/FEMA to revise guidance on outdoor warning and mass notification systems as directed by the House Committee on Appropriations following the August 14, 2003 blackout. NRC does not dispute the fact that many siren systems around nuclear power stations will fail in the event of a radiological release coinciding with a power blackout. The NRC and nuclear industry's current fall back position is to rely upon "local route notifications" where first responders such as police and fire departments, get into emergency vehicles and communicate instructions through bull horns while traveling through neighborhoods within the 10 mile emergency planning zone. "It's absurd to suggest that with an approaching radioactive cloud an already overburdened police or fire department driving around neighborhoods with bull horns or along roads, some possibly impassible, can adequately compensate for deliberately leaving these sirens inoperable," said Gunter. "NRC has sole jurisdiction to require reactor operators to back fit the emergency notification system for the emergency planning zone," said Gunter. "It is the responsibility of reactor operator to demonstrate and maintain its emergency notification system to work," Gunter said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports: * 1.Sites with backup power to all sirens Millstone, Pilgrim, Seabrook, Crystal River, Farley, St. Lucie, Turkey Point, Vogtle, Fermi, Monticello, Palisades, Perry, Prairie Island, Callaway, River Bend, Columbia, Waterford * 2.Sites with backup power to some sirens Three Mile Island, Shearon, Harris, North Anna, Surry, Braidwood, Byron, Cook, Dresden, Duane, Arnold, LaSalle, Quad Cities, Comanche Peak, Arkansas Nuclear One, Diablo Canyon, Cooper, Palo Verde, San Onofre, South Texas * 3.Sites without backup power to any sirens Beaver Valley, Calvert Cliffs, Fitzpatrick/Nine Mile Point, Ginna, Indian Point, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Peach Bottom, Salem/Hope Creek, Susquehanna, Vermont Yankee, Browns Ferry, Brunswick, Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Robinson, Sequoyah, Summer, Watts Bar, Clinton, Davis-Besse, Kewaunee Point, Beach, Fort Calhoun, Grand Gulf, Wolf Creek Hatch nuclear power station in Georgia does not utilize a siren system within its emergency planning zone but a distributed tone alert system. -------- britain Sellafield leak 'lay undetected' The Thorpe plant handles spent nuclear fuel Saturday, 28 May, 2005, 10:38 GMT 11:38 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/4589321.stm A leak at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria was not spotted for three months, an investigation has revealed. More than 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium spewed onto a floor when a pipe fractured at the Thorp reprocessing complex in January. The British Nuclear Group, which carried out the inquiry, stressed that the material leaked into a sealed cell. The discovery was made after a camera inspection of the cell in April. It was classified as a level 3 accident by the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) because of the acid released in the incident. INES measurements listed the 1986 Chernobyl disaster as a level 7 incident and Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 as level 5. The leak occurred when a pipe - just a few centimetres wide - fractured, sending nitric acid onto the floor of the concrete-lined cell. The cells, which are 60 metres long and 20 metres high, are not accessible to staff and no-one was exposed to radioactive material. According to the British Nuclear Group's findings, the pipe failed because of metal fatigue, which may have started to occur as early as August 2004. The report recommended that improvements be made to the maintenance and testing procedures at Thorp, which remains closed since the leak. Complacency addressed Detailed reviews into engineering and operating practices throughout the plant should also be conducted, it concluded. Barry Snelson, Managing Director at Sellafield, said: "I will personally be ensuring that recommendations are implemented not just in Thorp, but across Sellafield. "I am disappointed that plant indicators were not acted upon as quickly as they should have been and I shall be taking action to ensure that any complacency with respect to acting upon plant information is addressed." Sellafield staff are confident that Thorp can be returned to service, he added. ---- 'Clean-up' that will transform Dounreay JOHN ROSS, Sat 28 May 2005 Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=582772005 HAZARDOUS liquid nuclear waste is to be mixed with cement and turned into solid blocks at a £100 million plant that will transform the Dounreay nuclear complex. It will be combined with two other facilities needed to manage different types of waste from the site clean-up, saving £200 million on previous plans for separate plants. The move follows a decision by the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) to solidify liquid waste from the reprocessing of fast reactor fuel using cement instead of glass. It has been approved by groups consulted on how to deal with the waste, although UKAEA has been criticised for starting the process before the consultation was completed. Fuel irradiated in Dounreay's Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) was reprocessed until 1996 to separate the waste from the re-usable plutonium and uranium. The waste was in the form of raffinate, an acidic liquid. About 200 cubic metres - half of Dounreay's radioactive waste hazard - is stored in underground tanks and its conversion to a form suitable for long-term storage or disposal as solid intermediate-level waste is a priority. It will be transferred to the new plant to be mixed with cement and set inside 500-litre drums stored above ground pending a national policy on long-term management of intermediate-level waste. Subject to permission, construction of the plant will start in 2007 and the first batch of waste will be treated in 2012. Norman Harrison, UKAEA director at Dounreay, said: "Cementation is a tried and trusted technology for conditioning intermediate-level waste at Dounreay and carries fewer health and environmental risks than vitrification [storage in glass]. Innovation in our thinking means we can now reduce the largest single hazard at Dounreay on an earlier timescale and at substantially lower cost to the taxpayer." Simon Middlemas, UKAEA's new-build manager at Dounreay, said: "This plant will convert the hazard to a form that makes it passively safe for long-term storage or disposal." -------- europe French covered up deadly nuclear trail, documents suggest 28.05.05 New Zealand Herald by Catherine Field http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10127890 For the clerk who typed it 39 years ago, Technical Sheet No 4 was no doubt just another piece in the mountain of secret paperwork that piled up in early 1966 as France raced to detonate its first nuclear bomb in the South Pacific. The document gives no indication that, within months, the decision it so dryly recorded would have a resounding impact on the lives of hundreds of people on the other side of the world, in French Polynesia. Just hours after France detonated its first device at Mururoa, homes, food, water and soil on the Gambier Islands, 500km southeast of the test site, would be drenched with radioactive rain. Yet, in line with the safety decisions taken in Paris and faithfully narrated on Technical Sheet No 4 and other documents, no action would be taken to evacuate or shelter local people or Europeans or even advise them of any danger. Buried in defence ministry files for nigh on four decades, these documents have been anonymously mailed to an activists' group demanding transparency over France's nuclear programme. Copies have been passed to the Herald. They have been confirmed as genuine by a French Defence Ministry spokesman, who stands by France's position that the test programme was safe. The tale these papers tell is of fumbling, indifference and kneejerk secrecy as France hastened to build its nuclear strike force. For campaigners, the archive trail confirms what islanders and military veterans have claimed for years: the tests caused death and sickness yet France smothered the evidence. The documents date from 1966 and 1967, when France prepared for and then carried out its first tests in French Polynesia, a move prompted by the loss of a test site in the Sahara after the independence of its North African colony, Algeria. With President Charles de Gaulle clamouring for results, French scientists took the quick, easy and cheap option - which three years earlier Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States had already decided to ban. And the first batch of nine nuclear explosions would use the quickest, easiest - and dirtiest - technique of all. The bombs would be detonated on barges and on towers, creating a blast that would vaporise thousands of tonnes of seawater. The mushroom cloud of radioactive droplets and debris would be blown wherever the winds saw fit. As the months ticked away towards the first test, French scientists and ministry officials - their experience limited to the dust and weather patterns of the Sahara - struggled to devise a net of safety procedures to cope with this fallout risk. A document dated January 13, 1966, more than six months before the first test, reporting on a meeting of a panel called the Consultative Safety Commission, shows deep concern for the Gambiers. People on this small archipelago, especially the 570 on the main island of Mangareva, had "particular characteristics", the commission warned. Many were very old or very young, there was a high percentage of women who were pregnant or of child-bearing age. It suggested the maximum safe dose should be 0.5 rem a year, equivalent to 5.0 millisieverts annually. "The slightest fallout will cause the population to absorb a dose above the given threshold," the commission warned. In the event of fallout, the population could be sheltered in churches for a few hours until it was over, another document suggests. If the soil, vegetation and homes became too contaminated, people could be taken to French warships moored offshore or evacuated to Hao island. But, as Technical Sheet No 4 makes clear, the authorities decided against evacuating the Gambiers. "A preventive evacuation of the Gambiers before a test explosion is ruled out for political and psychological motives," the document says. "On the other hand, it is perhaps possible to envisage a preventive evacuation for other atolls." At 5.35am on July 2, 1966, the first French Pacific bomb, a Hiroshima-sized device codenamed Aldebaran, was detonated at Mururoa, transforming the dawn sky into a dazzle of white, orange and indigo. Borne by treacherous, shifting winds from the northwest, fallout rained on the Gambiers. At 6.38pm, the command post received a telex from monitors on Mangareva, the chief island of the Gambiers, warning them that radioactivity levels had reached 0.1 millisieverts an hour. At 9.30pm, another telex warned that radioactivity measurements now varied from 0.04 to 0.58 millisieverts an hour. The tone was panicky: "Minister informed radioactivity not negligible stop slow decrease stop soil contamination stop request instructions for decontamination and controlling food and fishing stop ends." The minister referred to was the then minister for overseas departments, General Pierre Billotte, who was on Mangareva for ceremonies to herald the first test. A French state radio journalist who was on Mangareva at the time, said that Billotte was quietly approached by a military officer just before he was to attend a welcoming party in the village of Rikitea. After a few words whispered in his ear, he left abruptly, flying off with aides on a Catalina seaplane. What, though, did the French authorities do for the local Polynesians as the fallout alarm sounded? The answer appears to be: nothing. They went into crisis mode, dispatching a technical ship, the Coquille, to measure radioactive levels but doing everything they could to ensure no word of the accident leaked out. No one was evacuated. No bans were imposed on food and water. No one was even told about the danger. People walked about bare-chested or in their shirtsleeves. Children played barefoot and rolled on the ground. The measurements made by the Coquille's technicians are eloquent. On July 6, an unwashed lettuce had 666 times normal radioactive levels. After it was washed, the level was reduced to 185 times. Drinking water was six times the normal levels of radioactivity. On July 8, radioactive levels in lettuce were 359 times (unwashed) and 148 times (washed) those of normal levels. The same day, soil taken from drains after 12 hours of heavy rain had more than 50 times its natural level of background radioactivity. Tight lips and public calm were the priorities. "No restriction measure is envisaged," Dr Philippe Millon, a senior officer aboard the Coquille, reported to base. "The Tahitian population is perfectly unaware, carefree and showing no curiosity ... [the military personnel] are aware [of a fallout problem] but, obviously, most of them do not know the figures." After reporting that the handful of Europeans on Mangareva were also ignorant of developments, Millon comes to a reassuring conclusion: "The psychopolitical situation in the Gambiers does not seem to present any problem for the immediate moment." Bruno Barrillot, of the Lyon-based Centre for Documentation and Research into Peace and Conflicts, which received the documents, says the picture is "terrifying ... the services concerned manipulated information to minimise their impact on the environment, personnel and local population. On July 2, 1966, the soil contamination in Mangareva was 142 times higher than in the forbidden zone around Chernobyl," he calculates. The French Defence Ministry told the Herald the documents had been scrutinised by its experts, who confirmed the papers were genuine. "These documents were stolen from us. We intend to find out who and how this happened, but that's our problem," a spokesman said. "The important point is that the person who took them obviously selected a few documents out of miles and miles of files, and they are documents that are sparse, whose selection is biased and which do not give the full picture of what happened." The spokesman said the dose of radioactivity on Mangareva on July 2, 1966, was 5.5 millisieverts, very slightly above the threshold at the time of 5.0 millisieverts. "0.5 millisieverts is not a sufficiently big risk to evacuate an entire population which would have been traumatised, in an operation which would have created a whole range of problems," he contended. Barrillot angrily retorts that this is spin. The dose of 5.5 millisieverts, he says, was not measured at the time. It was an estimate made in 1998 by the IAEA in its report into radioactivity at the Mururoa and Fangataufa test sites and at other atolls in French Polynesia. The IAEA calculated this dose on the basis of data from France, which told the agency the fallout had lasted for one hour 20 minutes, Barrillot says. Yet the telex entries in the documents suggest that fallout lasted more than twice as long - two hours and 52 minutes. Barrillot says further evidence that the dose was much higher can be found in the "frightening" levels of radioactivity measured by the Coquille technicians several days after the blast. In any case, says Barrillot, 5.0 millisieverts was the maximum permitted dose a year - not just for a day - and the papers show further fallout occurred on September 24, 1966, with Rigel, the fifth blast in the series, which was more than 16 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. The documents, while still giving an incomplete picture, greatly boost the Polynesians and former military personnel campaigning for compensation for what they say was ill health caused by the tests. Organisations representing these groups say cancer among those exposed to the test programme is twice as common as among the general French population and certain cancers of the blood systems are up to 100 times more frequent. Sue Roff, an expert on nuclear tests at the University of Dundee Medical School in Scotland, says the documents are valuable but may not be enough to force the French Government to admit any liability. She predicts that yet more classified documents could start turning up mysteriously at research institutions and activists' groups. "Somebody was wise enough back then to keep these documents, they sat on them and perhaps now when they don't feel so threatened by various national security laws they say, well, I will make them public one way or another." -------- iran Iranian hard-liners approve boost to nuclear work Updated 5/28/2005 2:00 PM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-28-iran-nuclear_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's hard-line Guardian Council on Saturday approved a law that puts pressure on the government to develop nuclear technology that could be used to build atomic weapons, state run radio reported. Parliament had passed the bill on May 15 and sent it to the Guardian Council for approval. The council must vet all bills before they become law. (Related video: Iran law approved) The passing of the law does not force the government to resume uranium enrichment immediately but encourages it to pursue nuclear goals in spite of international pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program. The law calls on the government to develop a nuclear fuel cycle, which would include resuming the process of enriching uranium — a prospect that has drawn criticism from the United States and Europe because the technology could be used in developing atomic weapons. Iran suspended enrichment last November under international pressure led by the United States. Iran maintains its program is peaceful and only aimed at generating electricity. The legislation was viewed as strengthening the government's hand in negotiations with European Union representatives, allowing it to demonstrate domestic pressure to pursue its nuclear program as talks have deadlocked. Iran agreed Wednesday to meet with European Union negotiators for a new round of talks in the summer. France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, want Tehran to abandon its enrichment activities in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Iran's efforts to join the World Trade Organization. The European Union has threatened to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if it again starts uranium reprocessing. Tehran says it won't give up its treaty rights to enrichment but is prepared to offer guarantees that its nuclear program won't be diverted to build weapons. -------- iraq / inspections Awards for U.S. analysts behind Iraq finding - report Sat May 28, 2005 05:32 AM ET http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=OVYKMX5ZO0OUUCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=8632784 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Army analysts whose work was cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq have received job performance awards for the past three years, The Washington Post reported on Saturday. The civilian analysts work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center, an agency criticized by President George W. Bush's commission investigating U.S. intelligence. Ahead of the U.S. attack on Iraq, the analysts concluded it was unlikely that aluminum tubes sought by Baghdad were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal. The Bush administration used that finding as evidence that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding Iraq's nuclear weapons program, the paper said. The intelligence commission said the analysts failed to seek or get information from the Energy Department and elsewhere indicating the tubes were the kind used as rocket-motor cases by the Iraqi military. A Pentagon spokesman said the awards to the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job. But some unnamed current and formal officials said granting such awards shows how the administration has not held people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence, the paper wrote. -------- korea N. Korea: U.S. Plotting S.Korea Occupation By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May 28, 2005 Filed at 6:30 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Koreas-US.html?pagewanted=print SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea on Saturday criticized Washington's alliance with Seoul as a facade to cover up a U.S. plan to occupy South Korea by force. ''The United States is pretending to be a protector of South Korea ... but it is definitely an aggressor, an occupier,'' said a spokesman at the North's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland. Washington has a ''wicked intent to strengthen its colonial rule and militarist occupation of South Korea and to make South Korea a victim of the U.S. scheme to wage a war of aggression,'' the unidentified spokesman was quoted as saying by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency. North Korea is at odds with the United States over its nuclear weapons programs. The North has stayed away from six-nation nuclear talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions, citing what it calls a hostile U.S. policy toward Pyongyang. Washington has repeatedly said it has no intention of invading the North. About 32,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended in a cease-fire, leaving the two Koreas technically at war. -------- treaties Global nuclear group at odds May 28, 2005 By Charles J. Hanley ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050527-103947-8548r.htm NEW YORK -- After a month of near-paralysis, a global conference to tighten controls on the spread of nuclear arms adopted a final report yesterday offering no new action plan at a time of mounting nuclear tension in the world. The 188-nation meeting, reviewing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, produced weeks of divisive debate over issues ranging from Iran's uranium centrifuges, to Israel's nuclear capabilities, to U.S. weapons plans. But it yielded no consensus recommendations for concrete steps to rein in atomic arms. The disagreements even kept the conference president, Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, from issuing a summary statement endorsing nonproliferation principles. "It would be very difficult for me in the face of so many divergencies, wide differences," the Brazilian diplomat told reporters. Dispirited diplomats and disarmament campaigners lamented a lack of political will. "We have witnessed intransigence from more than one state on pressing issues of the day," Canadian Ambassador Paul Meyer told conference delegates. "It's a tragic lost opportunity," British arms-control advocate Ian Davis told reporters. The lead U.S. delegate expressed only mild disappointment. In a final speech, Jackie Sanders pointed to unilateral Bush administration initiatives -- "a robust and comprehensive approach" -- to halt the spread of nuclear arms. Multilateral discussions can continue elsewhere, she noted. The members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty convene only once every five years to assess the workings of the 1970 treaty and find ways to make it work better -- political commitments that give a boost to nonproliferation initiatives. Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not to develop them, and five with the weapons -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- undertook to eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology. Citing that guarantee, Iran has obtained uranium-enrichment centrifuges, which can produce both fuel for nuclear power plants and material for bombs. Delegations here had promoted ideas, for example, for limiting access to such dual-use technology with bomb-making potential, along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear facilities. Some also supported plans to make withdrawing from the treaty more difficult and penalty-laden. But the three conference committees were caught in a crossfire of interests, including U.S.-Iranian antagonisms, and all failed to reach consensus on action programs to send to the full conference. ---- No Nonproliferation Plan Offered 188-Nation Talks on Nuclear Arms Fail to Produce Consensus By Charles J. Hanley Associated Press Saturday, May 28, 2005; A20 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/27/AR2005052701487_pf.html UNITED NATIONS, May 27 -- After a month of near-paralysis, a global conference to tighten controls on the spread of nuclear arms adopted a final report Friday offering no new action at a time of mounting nuclear tension in the world. The 188-nation meeting, reviewing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, produced weeks of divisive debate over issues including Iran's uranium centrifuges, Israel's nuclear capabilities and U.S. weapons plans. But it yielded no consensus-backed recommendations on concrete steps for reining in arms. The disagreements even kept the conference president, Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, from issuing a summary statement endorsing nonproliferation principles. "It would be very difficult for me in the face of so many divergencies, wide differences," the Brazilian diplomat told reporters. Dispirited diplomats and disarmament campaigners lamented a lack of political will. "We have witnessed intransigence from more than one state on pressing issues of the day," Canadian Ambassador Paul Meyer told conference delegates. "It's a tragic lost opportunity," British arms-control advocate Ian Davis told reporters. The lead U.S. delegate expressed mild disappointment. In a final speech, Jackie Sanders pointed to unilateral Bush administration initiatives -- "a robust and comprehensive approach" -- to halt the spread of nuclear arms. Multilateral discussions can continue elsewhere, she noted. The signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty convene once every five years to assess the 1970 accord and to find ways to make it work better -- political commitments that give a boost to nonproliferation initiatives. Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not to develop them, and five with the weapons -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- undertook to eventually eliminate such arsenals. The non-nuclear states, meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful atomic technology. Citing that guarantee, Iran has obtained uranium-enrichment centrifuges, which can produce both fuel for nuclear power plants and material for bombs. Washington contends that Tehran plans to build weapons, but the Iranians say they are interested only in peaceful energy. Delegations here had promoted ideas, for example, for limiting access to such dual-use technology, along with proposals to strengthen the inspection of nuclear facilities and to pressure nuclear-weapon states to shrink their arsenals more quickly. Some also supported plans to make withdrawing from the treaty more difficult and penalty-laden. That was a response to North Korea's announced withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and its declaration that it has built nuclear bombs -- all done without consequence under the nonproliferation pact. But the three conference committees were caught in a crossfire of interests, including U.S.-Iranian antagonisms, and all failed to reach consensus on action programs to send to the full conference. Iran objected to proposed language singling it out as a proliferation concern. Egypt blocked action on making withdrawal from the treaty tougher, wanting to keep the option to pull out as long as former enemy Israel, not a treaty member, has a nuclear arsenal. The United States objected to any reference in a final document to disarmament commitments it and other weapon states had made at the 1995 and 2000 conferences. Critics accused Washington of reneging on commitments, undermining the balance of nonproliferation and disarmament obligations, perhaps making some feel less bound by their pledge to forswear nuclear bombs. "I wish the United States had been more flexible here, and not tried to question or downgrade the validity with respect to the 1995 and 2000 commitments," said Thomas Graham, a former lead U.S. arms negotiator. A spokesman indicated that the U.S. delegation blocked the disarmament language because it felt the conference was paying too little attention to Iran and Washington's other proliferation concerns. "We're happy to talk about their issues," Richard Grenell said, "but there needs to be a recognition we have to talk about our issues and their issues -- not exclusively their issues." ---- Month of Talks Fails to Bolster Nuclear Treaty By DAVID E. SANGER May 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/politics/28nations.html?ei=5094&en=a37ece0cbdf730eb&hp=&ex=1117252800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, May 27 - A monthlong conference at the United Nations to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ended Friday in failure, with its chairman declaring that the disagreements between nuclear-armed and non-nuclear states ran so deep that "very little has been accomplished." The conference, which takes place every five years, had once been seen as a chance to deal with gaping loopholes in the treaty that have allowed a resurgence in the spread of nuclear weapons. But in the months leading up to the meeting, it became clear that little progress was likely, and in the end the bickering between the United States, which wanted to focus on North Korea and Iran, and countries demanding that Washington shrink its own arsenals, ran so deep that no real negotiations over how to stem proliferation ever took place. The gulf was so wide that the chairman, Sergio Duarte of Brazil, mused Friday on the question of whether the main treaty to limit the spread of nuclear arms, signed in 1970, was actually further weakened by the session. Asked what the fundamental cause of the failure was, he said, "I think you can write several books on that." Though President Bush has repeatedly declared that nuclear proliferation, including the risk of terrorists' obtaining a nuclear weapon, is the biggest single threat to the United States, the administration decided against sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the conference, leaving arguments to midlevel diplomats. The 150 or so nations at the conference spent several weeks just arguing about the agenda. Speaking in San Francisco on Friday, Ms. Rice described the treaty as "an extremely important document" and said, "We will continue to support it." But she warned that "it is fraying in many ways," and then turned to the administration's "counterproliferation" programs, from intercepting suspected nuclear cargo to bringing down global nuclear sales networks. "It has to be clear to countries that isolation is all that you get from acquiring a nuclear weapon," she said. In the end, conferees criticized, without naming them, the United States for ignoring its commitments, and other nations for failing to grapple with the Iran and North Korea problems. The Canadian representative, Paul Meyer, said, "We have let the pursuit of short-term, parochial interest override the collective long-term interest in sustaining this treaty's authority and integrity." In an interview from Vienna, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who had proposed new mechanisms for international control of nuclear material so nations could not secretly produce weapons-grade fuel, said "absolutely nothing" had come out of the meeting. "We are ending after a month of rancor - when everyone agreed that the system is ailing but not busted - and the same issues continue to stare us in the eyes," he said. For most of the four weeks, non-nuclear states insisted that the United States and other nuclear powers focus on radically reducing their armaments, reminding them of commitments made five years ago by the Clinton administration. The United States insisted that conditions had changed radically since then. A history of milestones in countering proliferation published by the American delegation omitted references to commitments the Bush administration has rejected and tried to focus the conference on how to deal with problems like North Korea, which abandoned the treaty two years ago and has declared that it has a small nuclear arsenal. Administration officials said in interviews that they had given up hope several weeks ago that the meeting would accomplish anything, and they defended their decision not to send Secretary Rice to press Mr. Bush's agenda. Instead, the American representative, Jackie W. Sanders, said the United States wanted to continue the discussion "in other fora," without describing when or where. Ms. Rice plans to speak Tuesday about one of the administration's favored approaches to controlling trade in arms: Its Proliferation Security Initiative, an effort to organize dozens of nations into a loose dragnet that would stop ships, train and airplanes believed to be carrying nuclear-related goods. Its most famous success came in 2003, when a Libya-bound freighter, the BBC China, was forced into port in Taranto, Italy, to disgorge equipment to enrich uranium. Libya renounced its nuclear arms program soon after. But that effort does not fully address how to deal with countries that are permitted under the treaty to make nuclear material for civilian energy purposes, and then run secret weapons programs. The treaty's signers cannot agree "on the best ways to achieve the purposes and objectives of the treaty," Mr. Duarte said. The only nations not parties to the treaty are Israel, India and Pakistan, which have nuclear weapons, and North Korea. After haggling for several weeks over the agenda, a number of nations, led by Iran and Egypt, demanded that any change in the system begin with assurances that the United States and other nuclear nations would never attack a non-nuclear nation. They also demanded that Washington ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration has said would weaken the United States. It has declared the treaty dead, and it has never been taken up by the Senate. Groups that have lobbied for greater control over nuclear materials said they were disappointed but not surprised. "The NPT Conference was a missed opportunity to strengthen the foundation for global cooperation to reduce nuclear threats," said Sam Nunn, the former senator, who has championed efforts to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. "We can't accept this as the last word. The U.S. must take a post-conference leadership role in bringing the international community together on this critical agenda." American officials spent much of their time arguing that reductions in their nuclear stockpile, under an agreement in 2002 with Russia, proved they was complying with the treaty's requirement that nuclear states move toward disarmament. That argument convinced few, and the Canadian representative, Mr. Meyer, apparently referring to the Bush administration, said, "If government simply ignore or discard commitments whenever they prove inconvenient, we will never be able to build an edifice of international cooperation." Before the meeting, administration officials said President Bush wanted to move the discussion to smaller groups where nations like Iran could not block a consensus. The officials, who did not want to be identified because the negotiating stance was in flux, named the Group of 8 industrial nations and the obscure Nuclear Suppliers Group. With informal accords, the suppliers group controls the flow of nuclear-related technology to nations seeking to build nuclear infrastructures. By operating through that organization, Mr. Bush seems to hope to impose new rules without having to renegotiate the treaty. Daniel B. Schneider contributed reporting to this article from the United Nations. ---- Nuclear Treaty Failure Sets Tone for Summit By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May 28, 2005 Filed at 3:45 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-UN-Nuclear-Treaty.html?pagewanted=print UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The failure of a global nuclear conference leaves it to President Bush and other world leaders to ''think outside the box'' at a September summit and find new ways to stem the spread of nuclear arms, U.N. officials say. After a month of sharp debate, the conference ended Friday with a whimper: no consensus recommendations for strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the pact that has helped keep the lid on doomsday arms since 1970. The failure comes at a time of mounting nuclear tensions around the world. North Korea has pulled out of the treaty and says it is building atom bombs. Iran's nuclear fuel program raises questions about possible weapons plans. Arab states view Israel's nuclear arsenal as increasingly provocative. The conference had futilely debated proposals to address all these issues. Many delegates also were disturbed over Bush administration talk of modernizing the U.S. nuclear force, and sought U.S. reaffirmation of commitments made to disarmament steps at the nonproliferation conferences of 1995 and 2000. As the meeting drew toward a close, however, the U.S.-led Western group of nations blocked any mention of those past commitments in the conference's thin final report. Delegates said they feared that the outcome -- the most complete failure at such nonproliferation conferences in 35 years -- might undermine faith in the treaty, a cornerstone of global arms control. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan agreed, believing the ''inability to strengthen their collective efforts is bound to weaken the treaty,'' his spokesman said. Annan said world leaders should deal with the issues at a global summit scheduled here for September. Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N. nuclear agency chief, called the summit ''a golden opportunity.'' ''These are fundamental issues that ought to be addressed at the highest policy level because they need an unconventional way of thinking, thinking outside the box,'' he said in an interview from his International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. One question needing ''urgent attention'' involves the nuclear fuel cycle, he said. Iran's uranium-enrichment technology can produce both fuel for peaceful nuclear energy and material for bombs -- and Washington contends weapons are what Tehran has in mind. ElBaradei has proposed a five-year moratorium on establishment of any new fuel-cycle facilities worldwide while plans are developed for better controls, possibly even international control of nuclear fuel production. It's a politically explosive matter, however, since it involves commercial and government nuclear programs of sovereign states. The failed conference was the latest of the twice-a-decade gatherings of the members of the 188-nation nonproliferation treaty, called to assess the treaty's workings and find ways to improve them. Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not to develop them, and five with the weapons -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- undertook to eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology. Delegations here had proposed ideas, for example, for limiting access to dual-use technology with bombmaking potential, along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear facilities and to pressure nuclear-armed states to shrink their arsenals more quickly. On treaty withdrawal, which North Korea managed without consequence under the nonproliferation pact, some delegations supported plans to make the process more difficult and penalty-laden. But the dozens of proposals were stalled for more than two weeks while delegations squabbled over the agenda. Then, when debate finally started, it proved impossible to win consensus in committees. Iran objected to any mention of it as a proliferation concern. Egypt balked at toughening treaty withdrawal, since it wants that option open as long as ex-enemy Israel has nuclear bombs. And the United States fought every reference to its 1995 and 2000 commitments. Those commitments included, for example, activating the nuclear test-ban treaty and negotiating a verifiable treaty to ban production of bomb materials -- both steps the Bush administration opposes, but other weapons states support. -------- ukraine Chernobyl workers protest to retain benefits MOSCOW (AFP) May 28, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050528094526.suqvko2c.html Around 100 people involved in cleanup operations during and since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster protested outside the Russian government headquarters here Saturday to recover social benefits that were recently scrapped under a new law. "Deputies of United Russia: Don't Kill Your Constituents!" read a placard held up by some of the protesters, referring to the United Russia Party which supports President Vladimir Putin and holds a commanding majority in the State Duma, the lower house of parliament. "We have come to protest against the government's anti-social policies," Yury Semyonov, chairman of "Chernobylets," an association of victims of state workers involved in the Chernobyl cleanup. Under unpopular reforms that took effect in Russia this year, many social benefits such as free medical treatment and free public transport for disadvantaged groups were replaced with cash payments that critics say are insufficient to cover their needs. Tens of thousands of people were sent in April 1986 to the site of the accident of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, located in Ukraine which was then part of the Soviet Union, to take part in emergency work in unsatisfactory safety conditions. According to Vyacheslav Kitayev, leader of another association, "The Chernobyl-Russia Union," nearly 150,000 people involved in the Chernobyl cleanup are living today in Russia and around one-third of them are chronically ill as a result of their work then. Yevgeny Keryushkin, a 52-year-old former military officer, was among the protesters and said he had been in the past two years involved in a lawsuit against the Russian defense ministry to obtain a compensatory payment of 33,000 rubles (around 1,000 dollars). "This isn't living, it's a struggle for survival. There is little hope that the government will hear us," he said. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- maryland Black employees settle with Calvert Cliffs plant Associated Press Originally published May 28, 2005 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.br.cliffs28may28,1,1167141.story?coll=bal-local-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true A settlement has been reached between the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant and a group of black employees who said they were discriminated against because of race. The plant will pay a total of $5.2 million to settle the class action suit. Under the terms of the agreement, $2.5 million will be used to settle claims from the workers, $2.2 million will go to plaintiffs' attorneys; and $500,000 will be used to implement diversity programs. Keith Cunningham, a spokesman for Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, which owns Calvert Cliffs, said the company has admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. But he said the case has prompted the plant to work harder on diversity issues. -------- vermont State: Uprate review to go on Article published May 28, 2005 http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050528/NEWS/505280350/1004 MONTPELIER ­ Opponents of the expansion of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant were unable to prove a federal inspection of the facility was faulty, however the Public Service Board made it clear its review of the plan is not over. "We do not think the process is yet complete," Michael Dworkin, acting chairman of the Public Service Board, told plant owner Entergy Nuclear on Friday during an unusual appearance before the state board by officials of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Public Service Board, which deals with electricity reliability issues in Vermont, and the NRC, which deals with safety, must both be satisfied before the proposed 20 percent increase in power production from the facility goes ahead. The independent inspection was a condition of the board's preliminary approval of a production increase granted in March 2004, and Dworkin said the board will also await the findings of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, a federal review board, before signing off completely. The committee is likely to hold a hearing in the state before making a ruling, and the process will probably take several months at least, officials said. A Yankee spokesman said Entergy does not oppose the board's decision to wait for the reactor safeguards committee before making its decision. The NRC inspection last year uncovered nine problems at the Vermont Yankee plant, including a pressure control value improperly installed and questions about back-up power supply if there is a regional black-out. The report also included concerns over whether the plant could be safely shut down if there was a fire in the control room. "Entergy's proposed power uprate would further reduce the time available to perform these steps," NRC officials noted. But all of the identified safety issues were deemed to be "of very low safety significance" and most have been addressed or planned for, the federal officials said. The New England Coalition, an anti-nuclear group with standing in the case, said the NRC's inspection was limited and invalidated by its lack of specific criteria. "The only way the safety of Vermont Yankee can be assured is to identify the applicable regulations," said Paul Blanch, an engineer who works with the group. He called the inspection "little more than kicking the tires." Raymond Shadis of the organization said when the hours for routine inspection were subtracted, the NRC spent less time inspecting the plant than it claimed. But NRC officials said the inspection, part of a pilot program to consider new inspection methods, was thorough. Indeed, one of the four inspections of nuclear plants done in the pilot program resulted in the temporary closure of a plant, something more than 100 regular inspections over the past five years have not done, officials said. Criteria for safe operation are based on specifications and procedures established for each plant and each component part, they added. "It's not something we make up or find on the fly," said Stu Richards, chief of the inspection program for NRC. William Sherman, the Public Service Department's nuclear engineer, said the inspection in which he participated was done well. "We see the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing exactly what we think it should do," he said. One of the issues which federal regulators will examine as they continue to consider the proposed increase in power production is the plant's steam dryer. That component removes water from the plant's heat exhaust system, and could be impacted by increased volume, officials and advocates said. Because the Vermont Yankee steam dryer was already under review, it was not part of last fall's inspection, NRC officials said. "We have implemented changes to the steam dryer," said Rob Williams, Vermont Yankee spokesman. "Other plants have seen problems with their dryers after uprate," he added. Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com. ---- PSB to Entergy: Not Satisfied Yet on Power Boost By David Gram Saturday, May 28, 2005 Associated Press http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/bfpnews/local/1000h.htm MONTPELIER -- The Public Service Board made clear Friday that it is not sure a federal assessment of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was extensive enough to allow the reactor to boost its power output by 20 percent. "We want to make clear that we don't think this process is complete," said Michael Dworkin, acting chairman of the board. "We hope Entergy won't think it's complete, either, at this stage." The comment came at the close of a two-hour session in which board members heard from four officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the engineering studies that agency performed at Vermont Yankee in response to a board request for an independent assessment of the plant. The board made that independent assessment a condition of an approval it tentatively granted in March 2004 for the 33-year-old reactor to increase its output by 20 percent, from the current 540 megawatts to 650 megawatts. Dworkin said the board wanted to hear from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, a panel of nuclear experts that reviews the work of NRC staff and advises the federal commission, on whether it believes the assessment done at Vermont Yankee is adequate. In response to the request made last year by the board, the NRC said it wouldn't do exactly the sort of assessment the board asked for, but would make Vermont Yankee one of four plants around the country to be used in a pilot study for a new inspection regime. At Friday's meeting, the NRC officials said the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards is likely to send a subcommittee to conduct a hearing in Vermont -- a highly unusual move by a panel that rarely leaves NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., outside Washington. Victoria Brown, the lawyer representing Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear, acknowledged in her remarks to the board that the NRC pilot assessment was different from what the board requested. She said the Entergy assessment in some respects was more thorough than what the board had sought. "We hope that the board is satisfied that (its) condition has been met," Brown said. "We do need a final resolution" on whether the plant will be allowed to boost power. Raymond Shadis, representing the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, said that when routine inspection hours were subtracted, the NRC team had not spent as much time digging into potential problems at Vermont Yankee as the board requested. He also noted that the NRC had yet to give its pilot inspection program a final stamp of approval. He said the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards had yet to provide an opinion; the federal commission had yet to rule; and the NRC staff, which developed the inspection regime, had given it only a qualified endorsement. Shadis pointed to a recent NRC document that said, "The staff's preliminary review is that the revised approach appears to be an improvement over previous inspection efforts." Stu Richards, chief of the NRC's headquarters inspection office, said to Shadis in a conversation after the meeting, "We think it's a hell of a good inspection." He added that the staff had not made a bolder statement because it did not want to be seen as pre-empting the commission's final say. ---- Committee revises VY dry cask deal By CAROLYN LORIÉ Saturday, May 28, 2005 Brattleboro Reformer Staff http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~2892831,00.html MONTPELIER -- The House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy passed a new bill on dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee, reflecting the agreement reached between the state and the company during closed-door negotiations. The new bill calls for Entergy to contribute $2.5 million annually for dry cask storage but only if its application to increase power by 20 percent is approved. The funds will go into a clean energy fund. In the original bill crafted and passed by the committee, Entergy would have paid $4 million a year, regardless of whether it increased power production. The original legislation also included a generation charge that would have brought in up to an additional $3 million to the fund. That charge was created in effort to recoup a rate increase that the consumers will soon be paying. The Independent Service Operator of New England -- the regional regulator -- is mandating the increase, which will use the money collected to reward electricity producers for new or increased generation. In other words, ratepayers will be subsidizing payments used as incentives for power producers. If Entergy increases power, it has been estimated that it could make an additional $5-$6 million every year through the ISO tariff. The new bill was passed by a vote of nine to one, with one absence. Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, voted against the bill. "The bill got neutered in the legislative process," said Darrow. "We passed a really strong [original] bill. But instead of going to the rest of the legislative process, it went into closed-door negotiations." Members of the committee were included in the negotiation process, but according to Darrow, in the final days only Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, chairman of the committee, was still in the talks. Legislative leadership took a more active role in the final hours. In addition to the annual charge being almost halved, Darrow expressed frustration over what he considered a watering down of the language of the bill and the fact that it does not call on Entergy to return to the Legislature for relicensing. The plant's current license expires in 2012, but it is expected that plant officials will apply for a 20-year license extension. Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, said that she was also disappointed in the deal that was struck. She voted against the memorandum of understanding but ultimately voted for the new bill. "I don't feel good about it but tried to salvage what was positive," she said. Edwards was instrumental in including many of the environmental conditions that were in the bill, most of which remained after it was rewritten. When the session restarts in January 2006, Edwards said she intends to revive a bill mandating Entergy to get legislative approval for re-licensing. As it stands, the company will require legislative approval for more dry cask storage in 2012, as it has been given the go ahead for only as many as it needs to get to the end of its license. Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said the company was pleased that an agreement was reached. Throughout negotiations, company officials vehemently opposed any kind of charge. In fact, part of the settlement was an agreement to not refer to the $2.5 million as a charge but as a voluntary payment. "We were told that everyone gave up something [in the compromise]," said Darrow. "But look at the results. I can't see anything that Entergy gave up except for $2.5 million if they get the uprate." It has been estimated that Entergy could make as much as an additional $30 million to $40 million a year if it increases power production. "This is a good example for why public policy is supposed to made in public," said Darrow. -------- wisconsin Nuclear plant sale opposed Groups sue to block sale of Wis. complex to Dominion subsidiary Richmond Times-Dispatch -- Greg Edwards May 28, 2005 http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782976882 Groups opposed to the sale of a nuclear power plant in Wisconsin have gone to state court to block the deal. The plant's buyer is a subsidiary of Richmond-based Dominion Resources Inc. Watchdog groups and others say the sale is not in the public interest, according to a Milwaukee newspaper. They say the sale could lead to higher electricity prices and could set a precedent for the sale of other Wisconsin power plants. Rick Zuercher, a spokesman for Dominion's nuclear business, said the company is reviewing the lawsuit. Still, he said, Dominion believes the deal is in the best interest of the plant's employees, Wisconsin consumers and Dominion shareholders. Dominion announced in November 2003 that it planned to buy the 545-megawatt nuclear plant from co-owners Wisconsin Public Service Corp. and Wisconsin Power and Light for $220 million. The company has obtained the necessary regulatory approvals and has satisfactorily answered the concerns of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission about the sale. The deal is expected to close next month, after the current owners complete maintenance and run the plant full time for two days, as required in the terms of the deal. Dominion is helping the plant's owners resolve some engineering problems before the plant can be put back in service. A design flaw discovered in the backup cooling system that led to its shutdown has been fixed but the plant is being examined for other problems, according to the Milwaukee newspaper. The nuclear plant, which supplies enough electricity for roughly 140,000 homes, is near Green Bay on Lake Michigan. Dominion has a contract to sell all of the output of the plant to its current owners under a long-term contract. Wisconsin Public Service intends to use its proceeds from the transaction to help pay for a new power transmission line and a $752 million coal-burning power plant under construction outside Wausau, Wis. -------- us nuc waste Shut bases could get nuclear waste A $15.5m funding plan allows for reprocessing By Susan Milligan, Boston Globe Staff | May 28, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/05/28/shut_bases_could_get_nuclear_waste?mode=PF WASHINGTON -- Closed military bases could become repositories for nuclear waste under a little-noticed section of a spending bill that was passed by the House this week, exacerbating the fears of local lawmakers who are fighting the scheduled closure of four of New England's biggest bases. The energy and water bill from the House Appropriations Committee includes $15.5 million for reprocessing of nuclear waste from power plants and construction of an interim nuclear waste dump. The legislation does not specify where that dump would be. But the Appropriations Committee report, which explains the bill, suggests that mothballed military bases be considered as potential sites for the waste. Lawmakers said the idea adds to the pain of a region that faces the loss of 14,500 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars if the recommendations by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission are adopted. Maine lawmakers met yesterday with the chairman of the BRAC to plead for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, which is on the closure list, and the Brunswick Naval Air Station which is to be ''realigned," or shrunk. ''I'm very, very concerned about this. Our citizens would be very upset," Maine Governor John Baldacci said when he was shown the committee report language. He said he had been unaware of the proposal, and ''to think that someone could put nuclear waste there. . .is outrageous." Also slated for closure are Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod and the New London Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Conn. All told, the closures in New England would represent half of the 29,000 job losses nationwide under the closure plan. Meanwhile, under fire from Congress, the Defense Department promised yesterday to give lawmakers access by next Tuesday to detailed material backing up its recommendations to shut down about 180 military installations across the country. Parts of the report are classified, so the Pentagon said legislators and staff with security clearances must review that data at a secure location in northern Virginia. The announcement comes in the wake of increasing demands from lawmakers and state and local officials for the release of what will be an unprecedented amount of data in defense of the base closing plan. Lawmakers hope to use the information to persuade the independent commission reviewing the base closings to remove certain installations from the hit list. Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Malden, said the proposal to put nuclear waste on closed bases was an insult to local communities that face a hardship from the job losses attached to the closings. ''Congratulations -- you may have lost your military facility, but you may be the winner of nuclear waste coming to your community," Markey said. He sought to kill the idea of temporary nuclear waste dumps by defunding it in the energy and water bill, but his amendment was defeated, 312 to 110. The report language emphasizes the need to find interim sites for nuclear waste while the nation awaits the opening of a permanent nuclear waste repository. Yucca Mountain, in the Nevada desert, has been selected for permanent commercial nuclear waste disposal, but administrative and court actions have delayed the opening until at least 2012. Sites such as shut military bases and other federally owned lands would be more cost-effective as temporary nuclear waste sites than privately owned parcels since they are federally owned and have security systems in place, the report said. It did not recommend any bases by name or location, or indicate a preference between bases that have been closed and those facing closure. Other federal locations would also be considered, said Sara Perkins, a spokeswoman for Representative David Hobson, the Ohio Republican who filed the Appropriations Committee report. They include the Savannah River site in South Carolina and the site in Hanford, Wash. Both were used for nuclear weapons development by the federal government. Currently, the two sites do not accept commercial nuclear waste, a Department of Energy official said. As for the shuttered military sites, ''some communities may look at that as something they may be able to compete for because of the jobs it could bring," Perkins said. Mike Waldron, a Department of Energy spokesman, said the agency ''is reviewing the proposal." ''However, we believe that a permanent geological repository is the right policy for America," he said, underscoring the administration's determination to open Yucca Mountain as a permanent site. The issue fuels concern among environmentalists about the health and safety of residents near closed bases. President Bush last month suggested putting oil refineries on shuttered bases. The energy bill approved by the House last month would limit the state and local role in issuing permits for refineries -- a provision opposed by local officials. Environmental activists are also concerned about language in the Department of Defense authorization legislation making its way through Congress. The DOD is required by law to clean up closed military sites, many of which have accumulated toxins from handling radioactive material and lead paint among other substances, said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. The Senate version of the Defense Department's bill says the fund for realignment and closures should be the ''sole source" of funds to clean up the sites. Such language could be interpreted to mean that the Pentagon isn't responsible for cleanup once the BRAC funds are exhausted, or the fund is retired, Clapp said. ''There is literally no way of calculating how many billions -- or even up to a trillion dollars -- how much liability would be dumped on state and local governments for clean-up," Clapp said. ''It's saying, 'once it's [depleted], that's your problem'," he said. The House language states that the Defense Department cannot shirk its obligation to clean up contaminated former military sites. A Democratic House energy staff member said a revised House version made the language explicit once lawmakers realized it might free the Pentagon from responsibility to clean up the sites. A BRAC spokesman did not return calls seeking comment. Baldacci joined other Maine lawmakers yesterday in a group appeal to Anthony Principi, chairman of the BRAC Commission. The lawmakers said that the Department of Defense has not produced the data, and that the documentation is required under law to support the closure decisions. ''This is typical stonewalling and obfuscation by the Department of Defense on base closings," Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, said after the meetings. Senator Susan M. Collins, Republican of Maine, said Principi ''seemed alarmed at some of the information we gave him" about the security implications of closing the Maine facilities. Material from the Associated Press was used in this report. -------- MILITARY Give Peace a Chance By JOHN TIERNEY May 28, 2005 NY TIMES Opinions http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/opinion/28tierney.html?pagewanted=print You would never guess it from the news, but we're living in a peculiarly tranquil world. The new edition of "Peace and Conflict," a biennial global survey being published next week by the University of Maryland, shows that the number and intensity of wars and armed conflicts have fallen once again, continuing a steady 15-year decline that has halved the amount of organized violence around the world. Those statistics are no solace for mourners in Iraq and Darfur. But so many other people are now living in peace that you don't have be a dreamer like John Lennon to take seriously the question raised by Gregg Easterbrook in this week's New Republic cover story, "The End of War?" I posed that question nearly a decade ago to my favorite prophet, Julian Simon, the economist who spent his career refuting doomsayers' predictions. He was convinced that three horsemen of the apocalypse - famine, pestilence, death - were in rapid retreat, and he suspected that the fourth was in trouble, too. "I predict that the incidence of war will decline," he told me in 1996, two years before his death. He based his prediction on the principle that there is less and less to be gained economically from war. As people get richer and smarter, their lives and their knowledge become far more valuable than the land, minerals and natural resources they used to fight over. The Iraq war is sometimes described, by both foes and supporters, as a pragmatic venture to keep oil flowing, but not even the most ruthless accountant can justify the expense. Even before the war, America's military costs in the Persian Gulf were much greater than the value of all the oil it was getting from the region, and now it's spending at least four times what the oil's worth. Of course, wars are also fought for noneconomic reasons, but those, too, seem to be diminishing. The end of the cold war left the superpowers' proxy armies without patrons, and the spread of democracy made nations less bellicose. (Democracies almost never fight each other.) Mr. Easterbrook calculates that the amount of military spending per capita has declined by a third worldwide since 1985. Meanwhile, the number of people fighting has plummeted, even though population has grown enormously. "From what we know about war, we can only conclude that it's a much lesser problem today," said Monty Marshall of George Mason University, a co-author of the "Peace and Conflict" report. "War between countries is much less likely than ever, and civil war is less likely than any time since 1960." These benign trends may be hard to believe, especially if you've been watching pictures from Iraq or listening to warnings about terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons. One explosion could indeed change everything. But before you dismiss the optimists as hopeless naifs, you might ask yourself if you're suffering from the malaise described in a book by Mr. Easterbrook called "The Progress Paradox": the better life gets, the worse people feel. The more peaceful and wealthy the world becomes, the more time we all have to watch wars and warnings on television. The only antidote is to look at long-term trends instead of daily horrors. For a really long-term trend, consider that of 59 skeletons found in a Stone Age graveyard, at least 24 died from violence. Or that a quarter of the male population died fighting in some pre-agricultural societies. In the 20th century, despite two world wars, humans had less than a 2 percent chance of dying in war or a mass killing, according to John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State. Today the risk is lower still - about a quarter the chance of dying in a car accident. I mention these numbers not to minimize today's tragedies. I plan to be at a parade on Monday honoring the soldiers who have fallen, especially the more than 1,600 in Iraq. But I will also be thinking about the Progress Paradox and the origin of Memorial Day. It started after the Civil War as Decoration Day, an occasion for widows wearing red poppies to decorate graves and memorials in virtually every town. If a war of that scale happened now, there would be nearly five million graves to tend. Sixteen-hundred is still too many, but if the trend continues, Memorial Day may eventually become a memory itself. For Further Reading: “The End of War?: Explaining Fifteen Years of Diminishing Violence” by Gregg Easterbrook. The New Republic, pp. 18-21, May 30, 2005 The Progress Paradox : How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse by Gregg Easterbrook (Random House. 400 pp., November 2003) Why Isn't There More Violence? By John Mueller. Security Studies 13, p. 191-203, Spring 2004 The Remnants of War by John Mueller. (Cornell University Press, 272 pp., September 2004) The Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian L. Simon. (Princeton University Press, 778 pp., July 1998) Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements, and Democracy by Monty G. Marshall and Ted Robert Gurr Constant Battles: The Myth of the Noble Savage and a Peaceful Past by Steven A. LeBlanc and Katherine E. Register (Princeton University Press, 778 pp., July 1998) E-mail: tierney@nytimes.com -------- business Orbital Sciences says two facilities searched Associated Press May 28, 2005 http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2005/05/28/news/local/news05.txt Orbital Sciences Corp., which makes launch vehicles used to get satellites into orbit and which employs more than 50 people at Vandenberg Air Force Base, said Friday that U.S. government agents had conducted searches at two of its facilities in what the company believes is an investigation into contracting procedures on certain government launch vehicle programs. Orbital said search warrants were executed Thursday at its Dulles, Va., and Chandler, Ariz., facilities and that company officials are fully cooperating with the investigators. The firm's facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, where Orbital's employees prepare Pegasus, Taurus and Minotaur rockets for blastoff and missile-defense boosters for tests, apparently weren't involved in the search, a spokesman said. "We don't know the full nature of the investigation," said Barry Beneski, Orbital Sciences spokesman. "It was very much a surprise to us." The company said that it "is not aware that it has violated any federal contracting laws, policies or procedures, and that it "strongly supports the U.S. government's procurement integrity processes." Because the investigation is continuing, Orbital said it is "unable to make any further statements on the matter at this time." "This is all new to us," Beneski said Friday afternoon. Launch vehicle revenue accounted for almost half of Orbital's total revenue of $676 million in 2004, and more than half of its operating income of $55.3 million. In the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty has created a task force to ferret out instances of procurement fraud. McNulty's office prosecuted a former top executive for Boeing Co. for illegally negotiating a $250,000 job for an Air Force contracting officer while she held sway over a potential multibillion dollar contract sought by Boeing. Orbital shares fell 91 cents, or 8.6 percent, to close at $9.66 in Friday trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Its shares have traded in a 52-week range of $8.84 to $14.19. Associate Editor Janene Scully contributed to this report. -------- europe Germany Approves New E.U. Constitution While France Wavers Associated Press Saturday, May 28, 2005; A21 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/27/AR2005052701475_pf.html TOULOUSE, France, May 27 -- Germany became the ninth country to approve the European Union's proposed constitution Friday, but Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder didn't stick around to celebrate: He hopped on a jet to rally voters in France. The French appeared determined to rattle the continent and its leaders by rejecting the E.U. treaty in a referendum Sunday. If opinion polls are right, France will be the first country to vote down the charter that would strengthen the union it helped found. French rejection of the constitution would slow Europe's forward momentum, especially if the Dutch follow France's lead in their referendum next week. Concern about the treaty has melted borders away. Schroeder was on his third trip to France to stump for the constitution. The location of Friday's rally had added symbolism: Toulouse, in southwestern France, is the headquarters of Europe's jet-making powerhouse, Airbus. All 25 E.U. countries must approve the charter for it to take effect Nov. 1, 2006. -------- spies Analysts Linked to Intel Failures Rewarded By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May 28, 2005 Filed at 3:37 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Army-Analysts-Intelligence.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two Army analysts whose work has been connected to a major intelligence shortcoming on Iraq have received awards for job performance over the last few years, according to officials. The two civilian analysts work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center -- one of three U.S. agencies criticized by the presidential commission that probed U.S. intelligence on Iraq. The Pentagon, in a written statement, told The Washington Post the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each of the past three years, and that ''supervisors were encouraged to reward individuals on the basis of their annual contributions.'' The analysts are former military men who are experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry. Their work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq -- the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets. The commission deemed their agency's assessment of the aluminum tubes as a ''gross failure.'' The agency was ''completely wrong,'' the panel said, when it judged in September 2002 that the tubes Iraq was purchasing were ''highly unlikely'' to be used for rocket motor cases because of their ''material and tolerances.'' The panel found that aluminum tubes with similar tolerances were used in a previous Iraqi rocket, the Nasser 81, and that the International Atomic Energy Agency had published details about the system in 1996, as did the Energy Department in 2001. The panel's report said ''the two primary NGIC rocket analysts said they did not know the dimensions'' of the older Nasser 81 rocket and were unaware of the IAEA and Energy Department reports. The report did not name the analysts, but officials told The Post that the panel was referring to George Norris and Robert Campos. When contacted by the Post, Norris deferred all questions to his superiors and said a request for comment from Campos would get the same response. The Pentagon said in a statement Saturday, ''The National Ground Intelligence Center has recognized errors in analytical judgment occurred, and individuals involved with this situation have taken a specific lead within the organization to understand, address and instruct lessons learned.'' The statement, sent by e-mail Saturday to The Associated Press by a Defense Department spokesman who refused to allow his name to be used, said the agency's analysts ''are evaluated and rewarded on their overall annual performance -- not on a single contribution -- and supervisors are encouraged to reward individuals on the basis of their annual contributions.'' -------- us Base Closings Will Be Fair, Bush Tells Naval Graduates By ELISABETH BUMILLER May 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/politics/28bush.html?pagewanted=print ANNAPOLIS, Md., May 27 - President Bush told nearly 1,000 graduates of the United States Naval Academy on Friday that the Pentagon's plan to close dozens of bases across the country was part of an effort to transform America's military and that the process, though hard on many local communities, would be fair. "The military services have each done a review of their requirements, and they have concluded that we have more bases than we need," Mr. Bush said in his first public remarks on the closings since the Pentagon announced its recommendations on May 13. "Supporting these facilities wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, money that can be better spent on giving you the tools to fight terrorists and confront 21st-century threats." On a hot, sunny morning in Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium, near the edge of the Chesapeake Bay, Mr. Bush also told the class, assembled in dress whites and dress blues, that much had changed since he last addressed Annapolis graduates. At that commencement, in May 2001, he told the new officers that they were inheriting a "safer and more peaceful" world. "None of us imagined," he said Friday, "that a few months later we would suffer a devastating surprise attack on our homeland or that our nation would be plunged into a global war unlike any we had known before. Today we face brutal and determined enemies: men who celebrate murder, incite suicide and thirst for absolute power." Mr. Bush, who appears strikingly younger and less gray in pictures taken at the 2001 commencement, used this year's 30-minute address to review his administration's response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He cited the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and new technology like the so-called thermobaric version of the Hellfire missile, which, he noted, can reach around corners and strike enemies hidden in caves. "In the coming years," he said, "there are going to be some awfully surprised terrorists when the thermobaric Hellfire comes knocking." The president did not directly mention the 10 Annapolis graduates who have died in military campaigns since he last addressed the academy, although he did speak generally of American casualties. "Some of our men and women in uniform have given their lives in this cause, and others have returned home with terrible injuries," he said. "America honors their sacrifice, and we will uphold the cause they served." Of the base closings, which would affect all 50 states, Mr. Bush said he knew firsthand about the impact on local communities. "I was governor of Texas during the last round of base closures, when facilities were shut down in places like Lubbock and Laredo and Austin," he said. "We'll do everything possible to help affected communities make the transition as smoothly as possible, by providing economic development aid, job training and assistance with redevelopment plans for affected bases." The process "will result in a military that is more efficient and better prepared," Mr. Bush told the graduates, "so you can better protect the American people against the dangers of this new century." But the nine-member independent commission reviewing the Pentagon proposal has voiced skepticism about it, saying it could hurt recruiting and might not produce the promised saving, which the administration puts at $48 billion over the next 20 years. The commission, which can add to or subtract from the list of facilities to be closed, will spend the next three months in hearings and visits to those facilities, and must submit its findings to Mr. Bush by Sept. 8. The president and Congress will then have until Nov. 7 to accept or reject those findings, but cannot modify them. The plan came under additional fire on Friday from lawmakers of the states that would be hit hardest by it. They, and the commission's chairman, Anthony J. Principi, demanded that the Defense Department release documents in support of its recommendations, and by the end of the day Pentagon officials had promised to release most of the data next Tuesday. The Pentagon recommendations would close, consolidate or shrink more than 800 military facilities from Maine to Hawaii, including 33 big bases. They would shut the Navy's submarine base in Groton, Conn., a move that would cost nearly 8,500 military and civilian jobs, the largest single loss in the proposal. After Mr. Bush concluded his remarks Friday, he spent two hours standing beneath an awning on the stadium field, shaking the hands of all the graduates as they crossed a stage to receive their diplomas. Nearly three hours after the ceremony began, it ended with the traditional shout of "hip, hip, hooray" from the graduates, who tossed their hats into the air as new Navy ensigns and Marine second lieutenants. A short time later, Mr. Bush lifted off in his helicopter, Marine One, for a Memorial Day weekend in the Catoctin Mountains at Camp David. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- death penalty Bulgarian President To Meet Libyan Children By REUTERS May 28, 2005 Filed at 9:34 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-libya-bulgaria-nurses.html?pagewanted=print TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Bulgaria's president flew to eastern Libya on Saturday to meet children with HIV days before a court rules on an appeal by Bulgarian nurses sentenced to death for infecting more than 400 children with the deadly virus. In a gesture of solidarity Georgi Parvanov will tour the hospital in the eastern city of Benghazi which saw an outbreak of HIV/AIDS in 1999. He will meet children with the disease and their families, Libyan sources said. Parvanov is later due to visit the jailed nurses in the capital Tripoli. Five female Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor were sentenced to death by firing squad last year for deliberately giving HIV-tainted blood to 426 children. Some 50 children have died, authorities said. The medics, who have been in jail since 1999, say they were forced to confess under torture. They say Tripoli has made them scapegoats rather than admit the HIV infections were caused by poor hygiene standards. The European Union has denounced the verdicts. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is under pressure from the children's families, but also knows the future of ties with the European Union hinges on the case. Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalgam said late on Friday the executions could be avoided if all parties came to a compromise but stressed the children's suffering must not be ignored. ``I think if we (continue) going in this direction we can have a real breakthrough on this problem,'' Shalgam told reporters as Parvanov held talks with Gaddafi. ``We all want to find a humanitarian solution to this problem,'' Shalgam said ``What are we going to gain if they are shot to death?'' Bulgaria, which hopes to join the EU in 2007, has called the verdicts ``unfair and absurd'' and has insisted the charges be dropped. But officials have refrained from commenting on the case during the president's two-day visit. Tripoli's Supreme Court will rule on the appeal on Tuesday when it can call for a retrial or confirm the sentences. ``We trust in the justice system. We will accept any verdict,'' said Ramadan al-Situri, spokesman for the victims' families. EU diplomats expect the court to call for a retrial given that a separate trial is under way in the Libyan capital of nine policemen and a physician charged with torturing the medics. The verdict in that case is due on June 7. The authorities have said the nurses' case could be settled if the victims' families were paid compensation or so-called blood money -- a normal practice in Islamic countries. The families could then waive the death sentence. Bulgaria has refused, saying that would amount to admitting guilt. AIDS experts have testified that the outbreak began before the medics began working at the clinic. The EU has begun quietly offering expertise and experience to the Benghazi hospital. The EU's External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner lobbied Gaddafi during a visit this week to secure the medics' release. The two sides want to improve relations following a Libyan decision in 2003 to dismantle its nuclear program, and an agreement to pay compensation for two airliner bombings blamed on Libya. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Newsview: Bush's Global Clout Seen Growing By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May 28, 2005 Filed at 9:37 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-World-Leader-Blues.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the rarified club of world leaders, President Bush has taken his share of lumps. Critics have railed against his handling of Iraq, his perceived disdain for the United Nations and what they say is a swaggering approach to foreign policy. But Bush probably would not want to trade places with any other head of state. Nearly all his fellow leaders of the world's big industrial democracies have stumbled. It has left them vulnerable at home and weakener on the world stage. The president, through it all, is riding what he sees as a strong re-election mandate to trumpet his goal of spreading democracy. That helps explains why Bush, despite a slip in his approval rating among Americans, may find himself holding the stronger hand when he travels in early July to Scotland for the annual summit of the leaders of the eight major industrialized democracies. ''His counterparts all face ill political winds that make their domestic positions rather precarious,'' said Charles Kupchan, director of European studies with the Council on Foreign Relations, a private research group. ''I do think it puts Bush in an advantageous position.'' It is not the best of times be a world leader: --Britain's Tony Blair, Bush's chief ally on Iraq, did win re-election this month to a third term as prime minister. But he prevailed by drastically reduced margins for his Labour Party, threatening his leadership abilities. --Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, also a strong support of U.S. policy in Iraq, has seen parties in his government coalition lose in regional and local elections. Defeats even forced his resignation, although he cobbled together a new coalition to regain power. --German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a vocal critic of the Iraq war, has called for national elections for this fall -- a year early. That followed his party's crushing defeat in Germany's most populous region. The loss, he said, cost him the mandate he needs to fix Germany's struggling economy. --French President Jacques Chirac, also a foe of U.S. policy in Iraq, is taking heat for his decision to call a referendum on the European Union's first constitution. It's set him up for what could be a humiliating defeat. Chirac's approval ratings have declined and he faces opposition from within his own party. --Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin faces serious challenges and demands that he resign. The House of Commons tied on a vote of confidence this month. It took a vote by the parliament speaker to give Martin's minority government a one-vote victory. Canada pledged to tighten its borders after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But Ottawa has declined to send troops to Iraq or sign on to the U.S. missile defense shield. --Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, finds his popularity lagging after four years on the job. It's down about half from the 80 percent he once enjoyed. Koizumi may be in better shape than his European counterparts. But weighing him down are tensions with North Korea and China, and public concern about expected tax cuts and pension restructuring. --Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to consolidate power and exercise more control over regional leaders. But his rollback of press and political freedoms and his pursuit of oil giant Yukos have drawn international condemnation and clouded Russia's business climate. Analysts see common themes for the leaders' tough times: high unemployment and slow growth in Germany and France; social tensions associated with Muslim immigration; and a backlash against ''globalization'' as industries move their operations to low-wage countries. Bush himself is having trouble on Social Security, judicial nominations and other domestic priorities. Yet, analysts suggest, the president has had strong run internationally over the past few months -- even with the continuing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. He persuaded European powers to negotiate with Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. He watched democratic elections and the formation of a new government in Iraq. He successfully prodded Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. And he is taking an active role in trying to nudge Israelis and Palestinians toward peace. France's ambassador to the United States spoke recently of the effect of Bush's winning a second term. ''The moment President Bush was re-elected, he extended the hand of friendship and cooperation to the leaders of Europe,'' said Jean-David Levitte. ''Style has changed.'' EDITOR'S NOTE -- Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies. -------- ACTIVISTS Abu Ghraib protest interrupts Rice speech Saturday, May 28, 2005. 10:00am (AEST) - Reuters http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1379137.htm Demonstrators have interrupted a speech by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by recreating an image of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in which a hooded prisoner was attached to electric wires. Amid tight security at San Francisco's Davies Symphony Hall, three women and one man pulled on black hoods and cloaks and stood on their seats. Ms Rice initially continued her speech on American foreign policy under President George W Bush. However, she paused when the protesters shouted "Stop the torture. Stop the killing. US out of Iraq," as police led them out of the auditorium. Medea Benjamin, one of the protesters, says they were kept in police custody for about an hour-and-a-half and then released with a misdemeanor citation. "We feel we made our point," said Ms Benjamin, a founding director of the human rights group Global Exchange. A military jury convicted a female soldier earlier this month to six months in prison for abuses at Abu Ghraib, including wiring the hooded Iraqi prisoner in the photo. The pictures of the mistreatment, which included sexual humiliation, badly damaged the international image of the US military as it struggled to stabilise Iraq after the 2003 invasion.