NucNews - June 11, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain Nuclear waste dump warning June 11, 2005 06:50 By David Green david.green@eadt.co.uk East Anglian Daily Times http://www.eadt.co.uk/homeStory.asp?Brand=EADONLINE&Category=NEWS&ItemId=IPED10+Jun+2005+18%3A50%3A25%3A733 SITES in East Anglia might be reconsidered for a nuclear waste dump, an environment group warned last night. The warning came after it was disclosed that three locations in the region were shortlisted in the 1980s for a nuclear waste dump and more than a dozen others were considered. Secret documents released by Nirex, the UK's nuclear waste consultants, showed that 28 sites in East Anglia were investigated and that three of them - Bradwell and Potton Island in Essex and Stanford in Norfolk - were included in the final shortlist of 10. The documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act, showed 11 sites in Suffolk were considered in the late 1980s, along with a further six sites in Essex and nine in Norfolk. Most of the sites were in the ownership of Government departments, most of them by the Ministry of Defence, and other sites, including Sizewell and Bradwell, were owned by the nuclear industry. The Suffolk sites were in Barnham, Bawdsey, Bentwaters, Honington, Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Orfordness, Sizewell, Stradishall, Wattisham and Woodbridge. Essex sites on the initial list included two in Colchester and others in Fingringhoe, Shoeburyness, Waltham Abbey and Wethersfield, as well as the two which made the national shortlist, Bradwell and Potton Island. Nationally, a total of 537 sites were initially investigated by Nirex before the shortlist was whittled down to two sites, Sellafield in Cumbria and Dounreay in Scotland. Disclosure of the documents came as Nirex prepared to begin another search for a site for the dumping of the UK's radioactive waste, much of which is currently being stored at nuclear power station sites. Nirex pledged yesterday the old list of potential sites would not be the starting point for the new one and that future studies and consultations would be conducted without secrecy. But environment campaigners warned communities in East Anglia that sites in the region could once again come under scrutiny. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Despite what ministers might say, Nirex has made it quite clear that each of the sites considered geologically suitable in the past could be considered suitable in the future. "Every community named on this list should take steps to help halt plans to expand nuclear power in the UK. The best way to begin dealing with the UK's nuclear waste legacy starts with halting the production of any more." Deborah Ardizzone, spokeswoman for the Suffolk-based East Anglian Safe Energy Alliance, said the region would undoubtedly come under scrutiny again. "I don't think any of these sites will be totally excluded, apart perhaps from Orfordness where they would be worried about radioactivity escaping into the sea," she added. David Palk, development control manager for Suffolk County Council, said there was concern that the previous search for a nuclear dumping site had been conducted in secret. "It seems all the Suffolk sites listed failed the criteria at a very early stage, but we would hope that the next process will be conducted in the open," he added. Lord Hanningfield, leader of Essex County Council, said: "I am obviously very concerned that such a study was undertaken in absolute secrecy and without any involvement from the affected community." But he was pleased that the previously secret data had finally been published and that Nirex had committed itself to much more open public consultation in future. "We will obviously expect Nirex to stand by its commitment that the named sites will not be a starting point for the next consultation exercise. Given that south Essex is now a major growth area, I cannot believe that these sites would be identified in any future exercise," added Lord Hanningfield. ---- Threats saved beauty spots from nuclear waste dumps Jun 11 2005 Kirsty Buchanan, Western Mail (IC Wales) http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/newspolitics/tm_objectid=15618521%26method=full%26siteid=50082%26headline=threats%2dsaved%2dbeauty%2dspots%2dfrom%2d%2d%2dnuclear%2dwaste%2ddumps-name_page.html WELSH beauty spots once earmarked as potential nuclear waste dumps were spared after survey staff were threatened, it has emerged. A secret list of sites for the dumping of radioactive waste in the 1980s was disclosed yesterday by Nirex, the firm set up to manage the UK's intermediate level waste. The document, issued under the Freedom of Information Act, shows 19 sites in Wales were initially under consideration but reveals many were then excluded because of "personal threats" against survey teams. The list includes some of Wales' most important wildlife and environmental sites, including the Pembrokeshire islands of Skokholm, Skomer and Ramsey and Newborough Forest in Anglesey. Campaigners at Friends of the Earth Cymru said even cartoon bungler Homer Simpson "would probably have had more sense then to contemplate such a thing". The proposed programme of waste burial was abandoned in 1997 and no alternative sites are being sought. The released papers show the political situation in Northern Ireland excluded the province but Wales, Scotland and England were all considered. Initially 537 sites were identified, most of which were on Government- owned land. "The principles defining the areas of search were treated initially as guidance rather than hard and fast rules," the document states. "The notable exceptions to this strategy were: the exclusion of consideration of sites in Northern Ireland, because of the political situation and removal from consideration of a large proportion of the potential sites in Wales, in particular Forestry Commission landholdings, following previous experience from the LLW/short-lived ILW siting studies when personal threats were received by staff involved in the consideration of such sites." Gordon James, Friends of the Earth Cymru spokesman, said he did not know about any threatening behaviour but added he was astonished by the list of potential Welsh sites. "It is difficult to believe that anyone could have even suggested placing spectacular wildlife treasures such as Skokholm and Skomer on a list of sites suitable for burying nuclear waste," he said. The former arms depot at Trecwn, near Fishguard, was also on the list. It again became the focus for anti-nuclear protests in the late 1990s when new owners offered the site for nuclear waste. Radioactive waste has been created in significant quantities in the UK since the 1940s and the nation has significant amounts which will remain potentially hazardous for thousands of years. The waste is being stored at 34 locations around the UK awaiting a long-term waste management facility and a review is due to be completed next summer. Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said, "It is probably best to have a deep onshore depository in good geological conditions but with the capacity to retrieve waste if that proves necessary. "Such a solution will not come cheap and shows yet again the hopelessly uneconomic nature of nuclear power." Although Nirex has ruled out using its old list as a starting point for any new search, green campaigners remain wary. Friends of the Earth's director Tony Juniper said, "Nirex has made it quite clear that each of the sites considered geologically suitable in the past could be considered suitable in the future. "Every community named on this list should take steps to help halt plans to expand nuclear power in the UK." ---- Scotland's top secret radioactive dump sites JOHN ROSS, Sat 11 Jun 2005 http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=640592005 FIVE previously undisclosed sites in Scotland where the dumping of nuclear waste was considered in the 1980s have appeared on a secret list of highly sensitive locations around the UK. Campaigners pledged to vigorously fight any new attempt to site a UK dump for radio-active nuclear waste in Scotland after the list of locations was released for the first time. The nuclear waste agency Nirex published the list of 537 potential long-term underground nuclear dump sites throughout Britain. Twelve of these, including the five in Scotland, made a shortlist. The Scottish locations were Dounreay and Altnabreac in Caithness, an undersea site off Hunterston and two small Hebridean islands off Barra. Sellafield in West Cumbria was eventually selected but was rejected in 1997 by the government and the proposed programme of waste burial was abandoned. Details of the sites were disclosed for the first time under the Freedom of Information Act. Of the 537 locations initially considered, 156 were in Scotland - 43 in the Highlands, 40 in Strathclyde, 21 in the Western Isles, 17 in Shetland, 15 in Orkney, eight in Grampian, four each in Lothian and Dumfries and Galloway, three in Fife and one in Tayside. Lorraine Mann, the convener of Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping, said: "It is worrying that almost half the shortlist of sites are in Scotland and it's quite clear that Nirex had its attention focused as far north as it possibly could." Chris Murray, the managing director of Nirex, said: "Radio-active waste exists and needs to be dealt with whether or not there is any programme of new build in the UK." A statement from Nirex added: "The geology in the UK has not changed, so sites that were considered to be potentially suitable previously on geological grounds could be considered suitable in a future site selection process." -------- depleted uranium Uranium in well not new, NM city says Lower standards, not higher levels, cited as reason for legal notice Saturday, June 11, 2005 Dana Bowley El Defensor Chieftain Editor Socorro County, New Mexico http://www.dchieftain.com/news/51800-06-11-05.html News that a Socorro water well is in violation of federal drinking-water standards for uranium levels does not represent an increased health risk for residents, a city official says. In fact, said city Utilities Director Jay Santillanes, the level of uranium contamination at the Olson Well has been about the same since it went online more than 30 years ago. The difference now, and the reason the city was required to publish a legal notice to inform residents of the violation, is that the federal standard for maximum uranium contamination in drinking water has been lowered, he said. "The federal government lowered the standard, just like they did with the arsenic standards that go into effect next year," Santillanes said. "There's been no increase in the level in the well. It's been that way since the well went into service in the early '70s." Santillanes said the uranium found in the well water is naturally occurring and is not related to testing done at EMRTC on the New Mexico Tech campus in which depleted man-made uranium was used. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that the uranium is natural, and says natural uranium in drinking water is not uncommon in the West. According to test results from monitoring that ended Jan. 10 at the Olson Well, the uranium level at the well is 31 parts per billion, while the federal standard is now 30 parts per billion. Parts per billion, or ppb, indicates the ratio of the mass of the contaminant to the mass of the water. Thus, in this case, the level indicates that if you isolated a billion grams of water from the Olson Well, you would find 31 grams of uranium in it. Santillanes said the Olson Well is only used as a backup, being brought online only at peak times, such as the summer. Water from the well mixes with water from two other wells before it is distributed in the city, so the concentration is diluted. "It's only a small percentage from that well," he said. "By the time it mixes in, it's well below the standard." Santillanes also said the Olson Well will not be in use much longer. "It will be taken out of service completely when the new well comes online," he said. Drilling on the new well near the end of Evergreen Street, which has been delayed almost a year while a federal agency investigated whether it would impact an endangered species, is scheduled to begin in about two weeks, Santillanes said, and the well is expected to come online in late summer or early fall, barring any further delays. Once the new well is in service, the Olson Well will be shut down and the School of Mines Well will be taken out of service except as a backup, he said. "Once the new well is in operation, (the uranium) won't be a concern anymore," Santillanes said. In the meantime, he said, the city will take what steps it can to try and bring the level below the federal standard, including installing a treatment unit. According to information on the EPA Web site, the reduction in acceptable uranium levels to 30 ppb was approved and published in December 2000, but did not take effect until December 2003, which also marked the start of the phase-in of monitoring standards. That phase-in continues until Dec. 31, 2007. This is the first time the well has been monitored under the new standards. Because it now violates the standards, the city is required to notify the public. While both the city and the EPA say there is no immediate health risk, long-term exposure to excessive uranium in water can have adverse health effects for some people, especially those with compromised immune systems. Excess uranium consumed in water over many years has been linked to an increased risk of cancer and kidney damage. Although the risk at the levels here are considered small, it is recommended that anyone with concerns consult with their doctor. editorial@dchieftain.com -------- japan Japanese nuclear policy to focus on upgraded light-water reactors 06/11/2005 The Asahi Shimbun http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200506110142.html In a policy shift, the government will upgrade existing light-water nuclear reactors and shelve its fast-breeder reactor plans for the nation's power needs over the next few decades, officials said Thursday. The light-water reactors, which use enriched uranium as fuel, will be designed to reduce costs for construction and power generation by 20 percent-and will have much higher safety standards, officials said. The next-generation reactors will be able to operate for longer periods without regular inspections, they said. Currently, nuclear power reactors are inspected once every 13 months. The newer reactors will require safety checks once in every 24 months, they said. The new reactors will also produce 20 percent less waste. "It is necessary to develop new nuclear power reactors that are safe and economical," said an official of the Nuclear Energy Policy Planning Division. "We want to start the new development project under the government's initiative so that development will not be too late." The division is part of the government's Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. The agency made the decision because many of the nuclear reactors now operating in Japan are expected to reach their operating span in 20 to 30 years, officials said. In addition, rapidly growing China and India plan to depend on nuclear power. Japan is trying to position itself to obtain contracts for the dozens of light-water reactors the two countries plan to build. It will be the first time in 20 years for the agency, an affiliate of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, to start a development project for new reactors. The government had been pushing fast-breeder reactors, which use plutonium as fuel, as the future for Japan's energy needs. The technology so far has not proven to be practical. In addition, the government's prototype Monju fast-breeder reactor in Fukui Prefecture has been plagued with problems, including a sodium leak, heavy costs and local protests. The agency will seek funds for research on the upgraded light-water reactors in next fiscal year's budget. The agency's Nuclear Energy Policy Planning Division has examined the development of next-generation reactors since January this year with researchers of electric power companies and reactor makers, as well as other experts. Based on the studies, the group of the experts was to compile a report on Friday. "As a state project, the government should develop next-generation nuclear power reactors, which can be put into practical use in 20 years," said an official of the group. The government's development plans will be based on the report. Japan has been engaged in similar development projects. From 1981 to 1986, the government, along with experts from the private sector, developed an improved version of nuclear power reactors operated by utilities at that time. The upgraded version was the advanced boiling water reactor.(IHT/Asahi: June 11,2005) -------- mideast Saudis Pressured on Nuclear Openness By GEORGE JAHN ASSOCIATED PRESS June 10, 2005 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2005/jun/10/061005169.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Saudi-Arabia.html?pagewanted=print VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States, Europe and Australia are joining forces in an unusually stark reflection of international concern in urging Saudi Arabia to allow nuclear inspectors in the kingdom before a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, officials said Friday. Diplomats accredited to the agency and European officials told The Associated Press that both the European Union and Australia will send formal diplomatic notes to the Saudi government this weekend asking it to consider allowing inspectors of the International Atomic Energy agency into the country. Washington already has done so, but its chief delegate to Monday's IAEA board meeting, Jackie Sanders, will renew the request during a weekend meeting in Vienna with her Saudi counterpart, said the diplomats and officials, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on sensitive issues to the media. The joint diplomatic push is being sparked by concerns that the Saudis could be exempt from any outside policing of their nuclear agenda under an agreement they have negotiated with the IAEA, and by past Saudi nuclear ambiguities, including reported interest in a weapons program. ---- US, Europe urging Saudi Arabia to agree to full nuclear inspections - diplomats VIENNA (AFP) Jun 11, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050611140453.976yj2es.html The United States, Europe and other Western nations are urging Saudi Arabia to agree to full international nuclear inspections, despite Riyadh's desire to sign a protocol that would severely limit investigations by the UN atomic agency, diplomats said Saturday. The European Union is expected this weekend to make a so-called diplomatic demarche, both in Vienna and Riyadh, asking Saudi Arabia not to a sign a protocol, to which it has the right, that would reduce the possibility of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), European diplomats told AFP. Saudi Arabia, a key state in the tense Middle East, is not believed to be a direct nuclear proliferation threat, but diplomats are seeking to calm fears amid a major test of wills with nearby Iran, which US officials suspect of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. There have also been reports -- denied by the Saudis -- that in a crisis they could use their financial clout to get nuclear technology, or even weapons, from countries such as Pakistan, which does have nuclear arms. While diplomats were all agreed that they would prefer full access to Saudi Arabia's nuclear facilities, one non-aligned official said the deal proposed would be for the country to sign a les stringent agreement known as the Small Quantities Protocol (SQP), but also make a commitment to allowing inspections if asked to do so. There would thus be "a goodwill gesture that if the IAEA requests additional access, that the Saudis would be prepared to grant it," he said. Saudi Arabia wants to agree to IAEA safeguard inspections but also sign the SQP, which is designed to make inspections less burdensome in nations with small nuclear programs, at a meeting of the agency's board of governors that opens in Vienna on Monday. A European diplomat said the Dutch would be making the approach in the Saudi capital Riyadh on behalf of the EU, since the current EU president Luxembourg does not have an embassy there. "The request is for Saudi Arabia to go ahead and sign a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA but not to sign the Small Quantities Protocol," the diplomat said. The safeguards agreement authorizes the IAEA to inspect a country's nuclear facilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which brings together five nuclear-weapons states and 183 non-nuclear-weapons states. Saudi Arabia had previously refused to sign a comprehensive safeguards agreement even though it has signed the NPT and is obliged to do so. The concern over guaranteeing full safeguards inspections in Saudi Arabia is not so much over the Saudi nuclear program itself but "because of the significance of the Saudi role in the region" where the IAEA has for over two years been investigating Iran on US charges that Tehran is secretly developing atomic weapons, the European diplomat said. Another diplomat close to the IAEA said the SQP, offered since 1971, was out of date in an era marked by secret nuclear programs discovered in Iran, Libya and North Korea, where the bar is higher for suspicions of possible atomic activities. The United States and other Western nations have also been lobbying with Saudi Arabia to either not sign the SQP or agree despite this protocol to allow additional IAEA inspections, diplomats said. Developing and non-aligned nations, however, back Saudi Arabia's right to the SQP. A non-aligned diplomat said: "I don't see why it should be a problem for Saudi Arabia to grant further access" once it had signed the protocol unless the Saudis felt this was a blow to their "prestige and credibility." The IAEA is urging its members to accept the deal for Saudi Arabia to sign both a comprehensive safeguard agreement and the SQP, as it wants Riyadh to meet its NPT obligations, sources close to the agency said. Signing of the SQP is automatic if a country qualifies for it, signs the safeguards agreement and also wants the protocol. But the IAEA said in a confidential document distributed to board members on May 6, and obtained by AFP, that the SQP would "reduce to a minimum the safeguards procedures." The IAEA is currently studying the possibility of rescinding the SQP, which leaves the agency with "only very limited means to evaluate any potential nuclear activities," according to the document. The SQP allows states to be exempted from requirements to notify the IAEA of design information for certain facilities and of stocks of natural uranium of up to 10 tonnes. This "small" amount is still enough to make enough enriched uranium to produce at least one atom bomb. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Nuclear Warrior Replaces Bolton as Arms Control Chief by Tom Barry, June 11, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barry.php?articleid=6295 The top U.S. government official in charge of arms control advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons and has deep roots in the militarist political camp. Moving into the old job of John Bolton, the administration's hardcore unilateralist nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Robert G. Joseph is the right wing's advance man for counterproliferation as the conceptual core of a new U.S. military policy. Within the administration, he leads a band of counterproliferationists who – working closely with such militarist policy institutes as the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP) – have placed preemptive attacks and weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national security strategy. Joseph replaced John Bolton at the State Department as the new undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. U.S. security strategy, according to the new arms control chief, should "not include signing up for arms control for the sake of arms control. At best that would be a needless diversion of effort when the real threat requires all of our attention. At worst, as we discovered in the draft BWC (Biological Weapons Convention) Protocol that we inherited, an arms control approach would actually harm our ability to deal with the WMD threat." Before the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks, proponents of national missile defense and a more "flexible" nuclear defense strategy focused almost exclusively on the WMD threat from "competitor" states such as Russia and especially China, and from "rogue" states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea. Joseph and other hard-line strategists advocated large increases in military spending to counter these threats while paying little or no attention to the warnings that the most likely attack on the United States and its armed forces abroad would come from non-state terrorist networks. Instead of advocating improved intelligence on such terrorist networks like al-Qaeda, which had an established record of attacking the United States, militarist policy institutes such as NIPP and CSP focused almost exclusively on proposals for high-tech, high-priced items such as space weapons, missile defense, and nuclear weapons development. After 9/11 Joseph and other administration militarists quickly placed the threat from terrorism at the center of their threat assessments without changing their recommendations for U.S. security strategy. Joseph points to Iran and North Korea, as well as China, as the leading post-Cold War missile threats to the U.S. homeland. Typical of strategists who identify with the neoconservative political camp, Joseph continually raises the alarm about China, alleging that China is the "country that has been most prone to ballistic missile attacks on the United States." Joseph participated as a team member in crafting the influential 2001 report by the National Institute for Public Policy titled "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control." The report recommended that the U.S. government develop a new generation of "usable" lower-yield nuclear arms. The NIPP study served as the blueprint for George W. Bush's controversial Nuclear Posture Review. Joseph was instrumental in inserting the concept of counterproliferation into the center of the Bush administration's national security strategy. Counterproliferation is the first of the three pillars of the administration's WMD defense strategy, as outlined in the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction – a document that Joseph helped draft – and in the White House's National Security Strategy. In 1999, Joseph told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the country was unprepared to defend the homeland against new WMD threats. He recommended that the "United States acquire the capabilities to deny an enemy the benefits of these weapons. These capabilities – including passive and active defenses as well as improved counterforce means such as the ability to destroy mobile missiles – offer the best chance to strengthen deterrence, and provide the best hedge against deterrence failure." Joseph, the founder and director of the Counterproliferation Center at the National Defense University, told the Senate committee: "We are making progress in improving our ability to strike deep underground targets, as well as in protecting the release of agents [meaning radioactive fallout]. We are revising joint doctrine for the conduct of military operations in an NBC environment [meaning one in which nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are the weapons of choice], based on the assumption that chemical and biological use will be a likely condition of future warfare." "In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action," concludes Joseph – and that action includes the U.S. preemptive use of WMDs. Not a high-profile hardliner like John Bolton or former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith, Joseph successfully avoided the public limelight – that is until the scandal of the 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons development program. Press reports and congressional testimony by Central Intelligence Agency officials later revealed that the CIA had vigorously protested the inclusion of any assertion that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons since their intelligence would not support such a conclusion. Alan Foley, the CIA's top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told Congress that Robert Joseph repeatedly pressed the CIA to back the inclusion in Bush's speech of a statement about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger. The new undersecretary of state for arms control has said that his "starting point and first conclusion" in formulating national security strategy is the fact that "nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are a permanent feature of the international environment." As his second conclusion, Joseph asserted that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons "have substantial utility," adding as a corollary that a versatile U.S. WMD capability is essential "to deny an enemy of these weapons" since "the threat of retaliation or punishment that formed the basis for our deterrent policy in the Cold War is not likely to be sufficient." Arms control chief Joseph is a new breed of militarist who believes that in a world where weapons of mass destruction may be proliferating, it behooves the United States to bolster its own WMD arsenal and then use it against other proliferators. -------- u.s. nuc facilities Utilities show interest in new nuclear plants By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer | June 11, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/06/11/utilities_show_interest_in_new_nuclear_plants?mode=PF WASHINGTON --For two months, Ray Ganthner took to the road, visiting a dozen power companies to find out if his bosses should take a $100 million gamble. Asking executives "eyeball-to-eyeball" about their future generating capacity needs, he wanted to know just how serious utilities were about building a new nuclear power plant in the United States for the first time in three decades. "I was surprised at the consistency of the answers," Ganthner, a Lynchburg, Va.-based senior executive for the French reactor manufacturer, Framatome, said in an interview. Based on what he found, AREVA, Framatome's parent company, is now investing $100 million on U.S. marketing and to get a design certificate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its newest reactor, one already being built in Finland. It may be a long shot. Two other manufacturers, Westinghouse and General Electric, have a head start. But the French company's decision to make it a three-way race demonstrates the resurgent interest in nuclear power in the United States, where no new reactor has been ordered since 1973. The 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, followed by the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine ended any U.S. interest in more reactors beyond those already under construction. Recently a consortium of eight U.S. utilities, called NuStart, announced potential sites where one or more of its members might put a new reactor. Two other American utilities are pursuing separate licensing efforts. While no one has yet committed to construction, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman recently told an industry group, "If all goes well, we could see new plants on line by 2014." Westinghouse Electric Co., a subsidiary of the British company BNFL, already has approval from the NRC for its new 1,000 megawatt AP1000 reactor design and General Electric will submit an application for its 1,500 megawatt ESBWR reactor later this year. Both companies are working hard to line up customers, convinced that electricity demand a decade from now will require more large power plants, and that some will be nuclear. "We think everything is heading in absolutely the right direction," says Vaughn Gilbert, a Westinghouse spokesman. "Nuclear has to be part of the energy picture. We expect the U.S. market will come back and eventually be robust." The new reactors are described as "evolutionary" advancements over the 103 now in operation in 31 states. They basically use the same technology, but with fewer valves, pipes and pumps, and -- in the case of Westinghouse and GE -- passive safety systems that, if needed, can shut the reactor down and pour in cooling water without human intervention. Other modifications such as setting the radioactive fuel lower into the ground were added in response to post-Sept. 11 worries about terrorism. President Bush has pushed nuclear power as a way to take the pressure off fossil fuels -- oil, natural gas and coal. While the United States gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power. Even some environmentalists have abandoned their opposition to nuclear power, arguing it is needed to address climate change because reactors do not produce so-called "greenhouse" gases as do fossil fuels. Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing worries about reactor waste and safety. At the heart of the resurgent interest in nuclear power are the high cost of competing energy sources and improved reactor efficiency. A University of Chicago study concluded that a new fleet of reactors can be expected to produce power as cheaply as coal and natural gas, given's today's prices. "People are getting comfortable with nuclear," Paul Dabber, a vice president for mergers and acquisitions at J.P. Morgan, told a conference on new reactor technology in February. One reason is that existing nuclear power plants have been making profits, he said. Wall Street has long been skeptical about committing $2 billion or more to a new nuclear reactor and investors still consider such a venture risky unless the government provides tax breaks or other incentives to get the first group of reactors started. Without some government help, no new reactors are likely to be built before 2025, says the Energy Information Agency, the government's energy statistical agency. Congress is considering loan guarantees for new-design reactors, and lawmakers are expected to come up with other tax breaks to stoke investor interest. But a Bush proposal to provide "risk insurance" to protect the industry against licensing or legal delays has attracted little interest on Capitol Hill. No one has yet committed to building a new reactor and despite the optimistic rhetoric, utilities are moving toward that decision cautiously. A premature pronouncement about a new reactor could rattle investors and depress a utility's stock, industry experts say. Utilities and investors still remember the pitfalls of long licensing delays that doubled and tripled the cost of many reactors in the 1980s. In one of the biggest cost overruns, the proposed twin-reactor Seabrook plant in New Hampshire was projected to cost $850 million in 1976 and be finished in six years, but ended up costing $7 billion when completed in 1990 even though the second reactor was canceled. "My company lost $5 billion to $10 billion on the last round of nuclear construction," Exelon chairman John Rowe said in a recent speech, explaining why he is approaching new reactor investments with caution. Rowe, whose Chicago-based utility company owns 17 nuclear reactors, more plants than any other utility, also says his company won't invest in a new plant until there is more progress in dealing with reactor waste. A proposed waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has had a string of setbacks and the date for its completion is optimistically put at 2012. Still, Exelon and two other utilities, Dominion and Entergy, have separately applied to the NRC for early site permits for reactors with the idea of shortening the licensing process if a decision is made to go ahead with one. "There is a growing recognition that if we are going to meet our future need for electric energy and also reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases ... we simply must build the next generation of advanced nuclear energy plants," said Marilyn Kray, an Exelon vice president and head of the NuStart consortium. In an interview, she said the goal is to preserve the nuclear option by testing the NRC's streamlined licensing process. Also testing the water is Duke Energy, based in Charlotte, N.C., which, moving on its own, is talking about possibly having a new reactor operating by 2014. Dominion, based in Virginia, also is making plans to seek an NRC reactor construction permit. Neither company has made a final decision. The Energy Department is paying half the cost of the various initial licensing efforts, including an expected $46 million next year. "Adding nuclear capacity ... makes a lot of sense," says Henry "Brew" Barron, in charge of nuclear operations at Duke Power, a subsidiary of Duke Energy that serves 2 million customers in the Carolinas. By 2014, Duke will need at least one more large power plant to meet demand in one of the country's fastest growing regions. Many other utilities around the country are facing similar electricity demands. Once the logjam is broken with the first orders, the U.S. reactor market could become the world's second largest, after China, given expected growth in U.S. electricity demand and environmental and cost concerns about rival fossil fuels, says Andy White, president of GE Energy's nuclear business. "We've probably never had a better situation," White said in an interview, predicting that 60 or more new reactors may be built in the United States over the next 20 to 30 years with several designs finding customers. On the Net: Energy Department: http://www.ne.doe.gov/ NuStart: http://www.nustartenergy.com/ Westinghouse: http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ General Electric: http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge--nuclear/en/index.htm Framatome: http://www.framatome.com/ Areva: http://www.areva.com ---- New nuclear plants would differ little from old Posted 6/11/2005 2:52 PM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-11-new-nuclear-plants_x.htm http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Future-Reactors.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON — The new generation nuclear reactors being talked about after a pause of three decades are not much different from those of the past, though the designs should make them safer, more efficient and easier to build. Two designs likely to be pursued adopt a passive safety system requiring less involvement by operators to shut the system down and ensure that the reactor core doesn't overheat. A third design would have more redundant and isolated safety systems than current reactors plus a double-walled concrete containment dome better able to withstand an airplane crash. Still awaiting Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval, all three designs are "evolutionary" advancements from the "light-water" reactors in use in the United States and Europe today. These reactors use ordinary water to slow, or moderate, the fission process as well as for emergency cooling if needed. A Generation IV gas-cooled reactor would be the next step in design advancements, probably after 2030, in the United States. The three reactor designs attracting the most interest are being developed by Westinghouse, a subsidiary of the British company BNFL; General Electric; and the French conglomerate AREVA, whose Framatome subsidiary designed France's reactors. All three manufacturers say their new designs have been simplified to increase safety and have fewer moving parts, valves and pumps. Here are some characteristics of each of the top three light-water reactor designs and a next-generation gas-cooled reactor: _The Westinghouse AP1000: This would have one-third fewer pumps, half as many valves, and more than 80% fewer pipes than current reactors. It can be built using modular units manufactured in a factory and transported to the reactor site, cutting construction time to three years. It relies on a largely passive safety system. The cooling water for use in event of a buildup of excess heat is above the reactor core and uses gravity and natural circulation for emergency cooling if needed. In current reactors, cooling water must be pumped into the core. _General Electric's ESBWR: This has a 1,500 megawatt boiling water design, meaning the cooling water is not under pressure and is allowed to boil with steam passing over the top of the reactor into the turbines. ESBWR stands for "Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor," reflecting that its design removes many complexities of current reactors. It has 25% fewer pumps, valves, motors, piping and cabling and is designed to respond more quickly to a loss of coolant situation. Modular construction and a smaller plant size allow for faster construction. _AREVA's EPR: A 1,500 megawatt pressurized water reactor that's an evolutionary design based on the French and German reactors designed by Framatome and Siemans. It is a simplified design using existing technologies, with fewer parts. While it maintains an active rather than passive safety system, the EPR has a number of design improvements, including a double-wall concrete containment dome for greater protection against an aircraft crash. The design also extends the dome over the spent fuel pool and two of the four safety buildings. If there is a severe accident and meltdown, the reactor vessel is designed to capture the core melt in a cavity below the containment building. _Generation IV reactors: These reactor technologies reflect a "revolutionary" step from the "Generation III" and earlier design light-water reactors. Development for commercial use won't occur until 2030. They produce more heat and less waste with different cooling mechanisms than the light water reactors, and would be able to produce hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels to power everything from cars to electric lamps. An international effort has been under way since 2000 to examine various technologies, using a gas such as carbon dioxide, water, liquid metal or even molten salt for cooling. A gas-cooled reactor known as the pebble bed is being developed in South Africa and was touted for the U.S. market until Exelon, the Chicago-based utility, pulled out of the project. Instead of fuel rods, the pebble bed uses coated graphite pebbles filled with uranium fuel. The decay heat is transferred to helium, an inert gas, that eventually moves to a gas turbine to produce electricity. The Energy Department is planning a $1.25 billion program to build a gas-cooled Generation IV experimental reactor in Idaho. It would produce both hydrogen and electricity and could become a prototype for future commercial reactors. -------- ohio Engineer fired from Davis-Besse disputes FirstEnergy's claims Aborted cleaning, inspection of reactor lid left hole undetected Saturday, June 11, 2005 John Mangels Cleveland Plain Dealer Science Writer http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/111848250518493.xml&coll=2 When federal regulators banished Andrew Siemaszko from the nuclear industry in April, they said the former Davis-Besse engineer deserved the unusual punishment because he intentionally misled others about his inability to fully clean and inspect the reactor's steel lid in 2000. Hidden beneath a thick crust of dried acid that Siemaszko left on the dome when his bosses halted the work was a widening rust hole. The pineapple-size cavity brought Davis-Besse to the brink of a major nuclear accident before its discovery in 2002. Plant owner FirstEnergy Corp. fired Siemaszko, and he is the only person the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has disciplined in its three-year investigation of the Davis-Besse debacle. But there is ample informa tion in the NRC's and FirstEnergy's files that con tradicts the agency's basis for barring Sie maszko from future reactor work. The NRC appears to have overlooked or ignored records backing Siemaszko's claim that he didn't mislead anyone. Documents show that numerous utility and NRC officials knew Siemaszko's efforts to remove corrosion from the lid during the 2000 refueling shutdown were unfinished, and that the lumps of dried acid he couldn't dislodge prevented inspection of some areas of the vulnerable dome. The NRC also seems to have repeatedly misinterpreted a key piece of evidence it used against Siemaszko - characterizing his written description of successfully completing preparatory work as if it were a description of the completed lid-cleaning process. Taken together, those actions have convinced Siemaszko and his supporters that the NRC is wrongfully targeting him for blame in the high-profile incident. "The NRC is railroading Andrew. It's a shameful performance," said David Lochbaum, a veteran nuclear engineer with the watchdog group the Union of Concerned Scientists. Siemaszko has appealed his five-year expulsion from the nuclear industry. Lochbaum's organization and the environmental group Ohio Citizen Action have told the NRC they plan to intervene on the engineer's behalf. Because of the appeal and a federal grand jury investigation into the Davis-Besse affair, the NRC will not discuss Siemaszko's case, except to say that the agency could still discipline others. However, the five-year statute of limitations for penalties related to the lid-cleaning work expires this month. FirstEnergy also declined comment. The utility hired Siemaszko in July 1999 as a lead systems engineer at the Davis-Besse plant, on the Lake Erie shoreline near Toledo. His responsibility was the reactor's cooling system. Over the years, pressurized coolant leaking from the reactor's radioactive core had seeped onto the huge carbon steel lid that caps the atomic pile. When the chemical-laced coolant contacted the hot metal, it flashed to steam, leaving behind dried chunks of boric acid. Plant officials wrongly believed coolant was leaking from gaskets above the lid. As it turned out, parts of the lid itself were cracked. Whatever the source, though, the acid buildup prevented thorough checks for cracks or corrosion. Siemaszko discovered that workers had not fully cleaned the rock-hard acid deposits and inspected the lid for corrosion damage since at least 1994 - a violation of plant procedures. The cleaning can be done only when the reactor is shut down for refueling every 18 to 24 months and the lid is removed. Even then, workers have a hard time getting to much of the 80-ton dome, especially the top, because it is covered by a service platform and insulation. Soon after arriving, Siemaszko began pressing his bosses to do a thorough cleaning during the next scheduled shutdown in April 2000. He proposed blasting loose the acid deposits with streams of hot water, a method used at the Arkansas reactor where he had worked for a decade before coming to Davis-Besse. Siemaszko's supervisors were concerned about containing the runoff, limiting the radiation dose the workers received, and ensuring that the spray-cleaning didn't affect other work going on nearby. They also were on a tight schedule, pushing to get the reactor back online to minimize the amount of costly replacement power FirstEnergy had to buy to supply its customers. Siemaszko convinced them the job was manageable and wrote the required paperwork describing how the work would be done. He estimated it would take four hours, followed by an inspection. "Should additional cleaning be required, the process will be repeated until most boric acid deposits are removed or as directed by RP," he wrote, referring to the plant's radiation physics department, which monitored workers' exposures. On an otherwise blank page of the order authorizing the cleaning, Siemaszko wrote "work performed without deviations." It is the first of two statements the NRC concluded were deliberately misleading. But the date of Siemaszko's signature - April 25 - is three days before the cleaning operation started. That bolsters his claim that he was describing the completion of preparatory work, not the cleaning itself, which Siemaszko wasn't certified to sign off on. Siemaszko and colleagues began cleaning on the morning of April 28, 2000, and worked throughout the day. The acid was "lavalike," forcing the workers to try to pry it loose with a crowbar in addition to the pressure-spraying. At the end of their 12-hour shift, the cleaning still wasn't finished and the workers had exceeded the radiation dose predicted for the job. Before he left, he says he briefed outage managers that more cleaning was needed. Siemaszko's next scheduled shift was April 30. Returning from his day off, Siemaszko found his cleaning scaffolding removed and workers preparing to reinstall the lid on the reactor. An article published a day earlier in Davis-Besse's employee newsletter claimed the lid "was successfully cleaned yesterday" and lauded Siemaszko. When he protested to supervisors that he wasn't finished and asked for more time, Siemaszko said they told him he had done as much as possible and could complete the work during the next refueling shutdown in 2002. "I could go and kill myself and they wouldn't listen," he said. "I was a guy with 10 months of experience at their company and I am asking for 10 days and $5 million of their money" to wrap up the cleaning. He was told to finish his paperwork. On a report documenting the condition of the lid and co-signed by engineering supervisor Glenn McIntyre, Siemaszko wrote, "Accumulated boron deposited between the reactor head and the thermal insulation was removed . . . no boric acid-induced damage to the head surface was noted during the subsequent inspection." The NRC decided that statement also was misleading because he didn't note that some acid remained and the inspection was limited to areas where the sludge had been removed. As a result, the agency says, FirstEnergy missed a chance to find the worsening hole. Siemaszko has acknowledged he could have been more clear in his written description of cleaning and inspection results. He contends that his repeated requests to finish the job supplemented the report. But was anyone at Davis-Besse or the NRC misled by what Siemaszko wrote? At the time the reactor was being readied for restart, at least three Davis-Besse supervisors knew the cleaning and inspection weren't complete, FirstEnergy's probe of the rust hole incident shows. One of them, outage director Scott Coakley, told the company's investigators he decided the remaining acid deposits weren't coming loose and the lid was as clean as it was going to get, according to the investigator's notes. Joe Rogers, another outage director, told FirstEnergy investigators the amount of acid on the lid wasn't a secret; it was posted on the outage control center's task board. Most plant management knew there was material left uncleaned, Rogers said. As the plant continued to operate, the list of those knowledgeable about the unfinished cleaning and inspection grew. By autumn 2001, according to a Davis-Besse manager's count, it included at least nine more plant and FirstEnergy personnel, some of whom had reviewed videotapes of the work. The utility also briefed top NRC officials in writing and in person about the cleaning and inspection results. The NRC was concerned about cracks in the lid's control-rod nozzles and was considering ordering Davis-Besse to shut down by the end of 2001 for a costly unscheduled inspection. FirstEnergy acknowledged the likelihood of such cracks, but was lobbying to delay the inspection until a regular refueling shutdown in April 2002. The briefing materials FirstEnergy provided the NRC included diagrams of the lid areas that were covered by acid and the cleaning and inspection videotapes from 1996, 1998 and 2000. In letters to the NRC on Oct. 17 and Oct. 30, 2001, FirstEnergy nuclear division Vice President Guy Campbell wrote that Siemaszko's crew had cleaned the lid "to the extent possible" but that the remaining acid prevented inspection of 24 of the 69 lid nozzles. The company's submissions undermine the NRC's claim that Siemaszko deceived the agency and FirstEnergy. They were not enough, however, to dissuade the NRC from letting Davis-Besse skip the deadline for lid inspection and operate 75 more days, until mid-February 2002. The delayed inspection confirmed that five nozzles on the lid were cracked and at least three were leaking. During repairs, workers stumbled upon the rust hole. Until the cavity's discovery, FirstEnergy regularly praised Siemaszko's work habits. "Thanks for the detailed writeup of [outage] issues," supervisor McIntyre e-mailed days after the 2000 lid cleaning. "You are aggressive, confident of your abilities and always want to do the right and proper thing." Siemaszko got excellent marks in his 2000 and 2001 annual reviews, the latter rating him "highly effective" in demonstrating honesty, integrity, trust and safety-consciousness. Seven months after that assessment, FirstEnergy fired him over the rust hole affair when he refused to resign. Nuclear division President Robert Saunders wrote the NRC that Siemaszko failed to do his job "to even minimal company standards." He blamed the engineer for not finding the hole and for being the main source of misleading information the company provided to the NRC. Though Siemaszko can return to a reactor job in five years when the NRC's ban expires, the Polish-born engineer believes he has become a pariah and will never be able to work in the nuclear industry again. He owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills and lost his house to foreclosure. He only recently found contracting work in the South, where he moved with his wife. "I spent 20 years getting to where I got," he said. "I spent 20 years listening to the Polack jokes. Finally I got to the highest level in my profession. Now I'm 51 years old and I'm back to entry level. I have no money, no profession. This is a tremendous blow." -------- wyoming WY: Radar site tied to base selected for closure Associated Press Last modified June 11, 2005 - 12:08 am http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/06/11/build/wyoming/50-radar-site.inc GILLETTE - Residents of northeastern Wyoming are wondering what the recommended closure of South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base will mean for the Air Force's monitoring of a former nuclear-powered radar site outside Sundance. The Warren Peak radar station operated in the 1950s and 1960s, watching for any missiles the Soviet Union would have fired over the Arctic. A nuclear reactor powered the station. When the site was decommissioned in 1968, the Air Force discovered that a tank holding cesium-137 had leaked. The reactor and tank were removed, and tests showed no life-threatening levels of cesium-137, which can cause cancer. In 1969, the Air Force promised to continue monitoring the site for 75 years. That task has been overseen by Ellsworth Air Force Base, near Rapid City, S.D. Tim Pavek, the environmental engineer at Ellsworth who manages the Warren Peak program, said the program won't be abandoned if Ellsworth is closed, as the Pentagon recently recommended. Who would take over the monitoring is still undecided, however. "I don't want Wyoming to be stuck with the cleaning bill," said one longtime Sundance resident, Genevieve Redfield, whose late husband was stationed at Warren Peak. Redfield praised the Ellsworth monitors. "They've been very good. If there's a problem, they tell us. They are honest with us," she said. In 2000, Ellsworth began reassessing the Warren Peak program, installing eight monitoring wells on the site and two more off the site to detect any potential movement of contaminants. Pavek said a team of environmental technicians is gathering information from those installations and will report its findings in September. Crook County Commissioner Steve Lenz said he doesn't think the Department of Defense will disregard its commitment to the site. "It's not something we're taking lightly," he said. "We're convinced the Department of Defense or Nuclear Regulatory Commission will continue to monitor that." -------- MILITARY -------- asia Uzbeks silenced by their fear Agence France-Presse SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 2005 http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/06/10/news/uzbek.php FERGANA, Uzbekistan The inhabitants of Central Asia's Fergana Valley, still in shock after the Andijon massacre last month, are afraid to speak out as the domestic media draw a propaganda curtain over the killings. At a bazaar in the city of Fergana, about 100 kilometers, or 60 miles, southwest of Andijon, a group of women in colorful Uzbek robes were selling pasta and oriental spices. "Andijon? We don't have time to talk about it," they said, turning away. "Here everything is calm; everything is fine." Human rights groups say hundreds of people, many of them unarmed demonstrators, were killed as troops opened fire in Andijon after rebels seized government buildings. The Uzbekistan authorities have put the official death toll, including those of law enforcement officers, at 173. Numerous arrests of opposition activists as part of a crackdown after the massacre have sown fear among the population. Most people avoid contact with journalists. At the end of May, a witness to the Andijon insurrection who had shown a journalist from U.S.-funded Radio Liberty a burial site for the victims was reportedly stabbed to death by unidentified attackers. Almost 150 people wounded during the Andijon insurrection, including about 100 civilians and 50 soldiers, are still recovering in Fergana's two hospitals under strict police guard, a hospital source said. "The memories of Andijon are still fresh but people are afraid to talk for fear of reprisals," according to one Fergana inhabitant, who said her neighbor's son was shot and killed by security forces when he went out to buy some bread on May 13. "I don't think the Islamists were firing into the crowd. The order to fire came from the powers-that-be," said the female resident, requesting anonymity. "We will never be able to live like before," she added in hushed tones as a television news reader from Uzbekistan's main channel stated that "the majority of those who participated in the Andijon events were young people who fell under the influence of Islamists." The television showed interviews with two men arrested by the police after the insurrection, then released because they "understood their mistake." With tears in their eyes, the men said they regretted their participation in the incident. The Uzbek daily newspaper Pravda Vostoka said "many foreign media outlets have published deceitful information" saying that "the military opened fire on peaceful demonstrators." The administration of the Fergana region, which neighbors Andijon, has begun an anti-Islamist campaign. "We are explaining to people the danger of Islamist movements, the difference between traditional Islam and radical Islam," a local official said. "The majority of the population has very little information on what happened in Andijon," said Tokhtasyn Alidjonov, representative of the opposition democratic Erk, or Freedom Party in Fergana. "Many believe the official propaganda," he said. Access to independent information in Uzbekistan is limited to a few hours of Uzbek language broadcasts from BBC and Radio Liberty and the few Internet news sites that are not blocked. "The authorities can deceive the Uzbeks, but they can't deceive the whole world," said an elderly bearded man, Alidjonov, who goes by one name. "Andijon is a national tragedy," he said, in tears. "I don't understand how people can accept it." -------- latin america The United States Doesn't Understand Latin America by Mario Osava June 11, 2005 (Inter Press Service) http://www.antiwar.com/ips/osava.php?articleid=6290 RIO DE JANEIRO – The U.S. government, whose proposal was voted down this week in the Organization of American States (OAS), is piling up defeats in Latin America because of a vision of the region that is "distorted" by its "war on terrorism," according to analysts. Washington has an erroneous perception of Latin America not only because it is concentrating its attention on other regions, like the Middle East – especially the war in Iraq – but also because it looks at this region "through the 'fight against terrorism' lens," Clovis Brigagao, director of the Center of Studies on the Americas at the University of Rio de Janeiro, told IPS. The 35th OAS general assembly, which ended Tuesday in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, approved a declaration that discarded a U.S. proposal for the creation of a mechanism to evaluate and "oversee" democracies in the region. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has argued that it is not enough for governments to be democratically elected; they must also govern in a democratic manner. She also noted that several countries in the region are facing crises threatening the institutions of democracy. The case of Ecuador (where then President Lucio Gutiérrez was removed in April after massive protests), and the current social upheaval in Bolivia (where President Carlos Mesa offered to resign Monday for the second time in less than three months) are concrete examples. But analysts agree that the true target of such statements by Washington is Venezuela, which is ruled by left-leaning President Hugo Chávez, an outspoken critic of many of the policies followed by the George W. Bush administration. The OAS has no mandate to evaluate democracies in the region, said Venezuelan Foreign Minister Alí Rodriguez. His Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim, meanwhile, said democracy "cannot be imposed, but is born of dialogue," reflecting the consensus reached in the Declaration of Florida, the final statement signed by the ministers meeting in Fort Lauderdale. But this was just the latest of a string of U.S. defeats suffered in the region since it failed to obtain Latin American support in the United Nations Security Council for its 2003 invasion of Iraq. In April, Washington's first choice as candidate for secretary-general of the OAS, former Salvadoran president Francisco Flores, was forced to pull out of the race because of a lack of support from the rest of the hemisphere. The U.S. then shifted its backing to Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, who in the end was beat out by Chilean Interior Minister Jose Miguel Insulza. And back in November 2004, the main U.S. initiatives were voted down in the sixth conference of defense ministers of the Americas in Quito, Ecuador. Despite support from Central American nations, the proposal to make national sovereignty subordinate to the Inter-American Defense Board in security questions was not approved. Nor was the idea of concentrating resources on the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. Another proposition that was not accepted was the idea of drawing up a list of terrorist organizations, whose members would be denied visas and subject to arrest. Added to all of these lost battles was the suspension of negotiations for the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), because of the resistance of many countries, especially Brazil, to the terms set by the United States. This series of failures is due to "waning interest," since "Latin America has become a lower priority for the United States," Rosendo Fraga, director of the New Majority Center think-tank in Argentina, commented to IPS. "Today a defeat in the OAS is not such a big deal for Washington as it was during the Cold War," he said. For Jorge Chabat, professor of international studies at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching, "it is no longer so easy for the United States to set the agenda in Latin America," although it cannot be said that Washington no longer has influence and power in the region. "On some issues, Washington cannot make a move on its own, but seeks and needs support," because if it imposed its will, "as it did in the past, it would pay very high costs," he added. Chabat also agrees that the region has lost importance for Washington, which is saving up on its diplomatic resources, and prefers "consensus and even an apparent defeat," because "it is not interested in spending on things that are not priorities, and Latin America no longer is, for now." The loss of interest became very evident during George W. Bush's first term (2001-2005), when Latin America was free to "forge new alliances," like the Group of 20 developing nations in the World Trade Organization, or the Group of Three formed by Brazil, India and South Africa, said Brigagao. But there has been a change since Bush's reelection in 2004, as reflected by the Latin America tours made by Rice and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this year. The problem is that the Latin America policy of the current administration lacks direction, as it is subordinate to an "interventionist" fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, said the Brazilian analyst. Besides, "Latin America has matured," with "more balanced governments and greater confidence in democracy," as reflected in the OAS Democratic Charter and other mechanisms like the democracy clauses in subregional trade blocs, including the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Andean Community, he added. Brazil is playing a key role in that process because it has economic interests and investments in many Latin American countries today and a significant level of foreign trade with the rest of the region. That gives it an interest in stability in those countries, and has led it to "occupy part of the space that was once filled by the United States," Brigagao noted. With additional reporting by Diego Cevallos in Mexico and Marcela Valente in Argentina. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Panel Chairman Leaves Hearing Sensenbrenner Ends Patriot Act Meeting as Democrats Plug On By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, June 11, 2005; A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061002110_pf.html After repeated criticism of the Bush administration, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee yesterday gaveled a hearing to a close and walked out while Democrats continued to testify -- but with their microphones shut off. The hearing's announced topic was the USA Patriot Act, which granted broad new powers to federal law enforcement after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Republicans had presented several witnesses at earlier hearings who supported the administration's call for reauthorizing the legislation. But yesterday, when four witnesses handpicked by the Democrats launched into a broad denunciations of President Bush's war on terrorism and the condition of detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) showed his pique. He urged witnesses to "wrap it up" and repeatedly told committee members that their time for questioning had expired. "We ought to stick to the subject," the chairman scolded at the end. "The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions." "Will the gentleman yield?" Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) asked. "No, I will not yield," replied Sensenbrenner, 61, the heir to a paper fortune who is known for a brusque insistence on decorum. He completed his reproof of the witnesses and left the Rayburn House Office Building hearing room amid a cacophony of protests from Democrats seeking to be recognized. Democrats charged that the episode was another example of Republicans abusing their control of Congress and trying to stifle dissent over Bush's approach to counterterrorism. During the two-hour hearing, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) accused Amnesty International of endangering U.S. soldiers because a top official of the group had called the prison at Guantanamo Bay a "gulag." Sensenbrenner did not allow a group official who was testifying, Chip Pitts, chairman of Amnesty International USA, to respond until Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) raised a "point of decency." C-SPAN2 continued televising the proceedings for six minutes after Sensenbrenner had departed, with lettering on the screen explaining the strange circumstances. Democrats said the incident was reminiscent of a hearing in 2003 in which Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) summoned a Capitol Police officer during a heated exchange between members of the two parties. As Sensenbrenner left, Nadler continued talking and was applauded after saying that "part of the problem is that we have not had the opportunity to have hearings on all these other administration policies that have led to abuses." "The other thing that I wanted to say -- and that I will say at this point, even though the chairman is not going to listen," Nadler said. Then his voice faded out. "I notice that my mike was turned off," Nadler said, speaking up, "but I can be heard anyway." One of the witnesses then began giving impromptu testimony. James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said he thought the turn of events was "totally inappropriate -- no mike on, and no record being kept." "But I think as we are lecturing foreign governments about the conduct of their behavior with regard to opposition," Zogby said, "I'm really troubled about what kind of message this is going to teach to other countries in the world about how they ought to conduct an open society that allows for an opposition with rights." The other witnesses arranged by the Democrats were Carlina Tapia-Ruano of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Deborah N. Pearlstein of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First. Congress is debating what changes to make when reauthorizing the Patriot Act, which expanded the power of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to intercept information and share data obtained through foreign and domestic surveillance. Congress passed the act with scant dissent six weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Most of the provisions are not considered controversial. For a second day, Bush said federal, state and local law enforcement officials will be hamstrung if Congress fails to permanently renew the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire at the end of this year. "The Patriot Act has made a difference for those on the front line of taking the information you have gathered and using it to protect the American people," Bush told employees at the National Counterterrorism Center in Tysons Corner. Sens. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) recently told a congressional committee they have not documented any cases of abuse of the act, but only because the law makes it nearly impossible for Congress to provide thorough oversight and investigate possible misuses of the law. Staff writer Jim VandeHei contributed to this report. -------- ACTIVISTS New Zealand Anti-war protestors' charges dismissed District Court dismisses trespass charges against activists arrested for trying to attend court hearing 11 June 2005 NZ City http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.asp?id=51908&c=w Five anti-war activists are claiming vindication following the dismissal of trespass charges against them. It follows their arrest in March when they tried to attend the hearing of another protestor who was arrested at a demonstration against the war on Iraq. They were denied access to the courtroom and arrested because one was carrying a newspaper, which was declared propaganda by the court manager. An Auckland District Court judge has now cleared the group of trespass. The activists say there were no grounds for them to be arrested in the first place, and the court manager made up his own rules. The arrests are the subject of a Police Complaints Authority Investigation.