NucNews - November 10, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Nuclear dump inquiry 'far too short' Thursday, November 10, 2005 Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1501665.htm The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says an inquiry into the Commonwealth's nuclear waste dump legislation is too short to properly scrutinise its impact on Territorians. The Senate yesterday passed a motion to refer the Radioactive Waste Management Bill to a Senate committee after the Government shortened the inquiry's timeframe. The inquiry will have until the end of this month to gather submissions on the legislation which opens the way for a nuclear waste facility to be built in the Northern Territory. The ACF's Dave Sweeney says the time restriction is insulting. "Any inquiry is better than no inquiry and any scrutiny is better than none but it's far too short for the complexity of the issue," he said. "And I tell you if nuclear waste lasted the same time as current Senate inquiries and current Senate reviews, it'd be a whole lot less of a problem." -------- britain FRENCH LESSON FOR SELLAFIELD WORKERS Published in Whitehaven News on Thursday, November 10th 2005 http://www.cumbria-online.co.uk/viewarticle.asp?id=300074 USING new French technology to improve the performance of Sellafield’s highly radioactive waste Vit plant means trips abroad for staff. Fifteen employees from Sellafield’s Waste Vitrification Plant have gained international training and experience of operating new nuclear equipment following an agreement with Cogema. Following a contract between British Nuclear Group and Cogema for the supply of new equipment to all three vitrification (VIT) lines, the employees were carefully selected to receive training in a dedicated training facility at Cogema’s Cap La Hague plant in France. With a high level of interest in the opportunity, places were allocated following a series of informal interviews. These applied a number of selection criteria including levels of commitment and the ability and willingness to share information and learning on return. An initial group of six was selected to go to France in September. Nathaniel Martin, David Morris and Mark Mawson were trained on new nuclear container welding technology for three weeks before returning to Sellafield to share this learning with others. David Blake, Gilly Bragg and Kerry Askew will remain in France until November gaining experience operating the new equipment in Cap La Hague’s T7 VIT facility. They will then be followed by John Reed, Dave Bradley and Debs Akitt, who go out to France in November. The final six places will be filled later in the year. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” said Gilly. “I am looking forward to coming back to Sellafield and sharing the knowledge I have gained. The tutors have made the learning most enjoyable, and I have met many people whom I would now class as friends.” Craig Haughin, Project Leader on the VIT assistance programme, said: “This is a tremendous opportunity for these individuals to learn, first-hand, how the new equipment needs to be operated. “This will also be invaluable when we bring the equipment into operation at Sellafield.” ---- Britain buys into next generation of nuclear power David Adam, environment correspondent Thursday November 10, 2005 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1638929,00.html Britain is investing millions of pounds in a US government project to develop a new generation of nuclear power stations, the Guardian has learned. The move restarts UK government funding for research into new nuclear reactor technology and gives its scientists access to international efforts to develop a "generation IV" nuclear power station by 2030. The investment is not directly connected to the coming decision on whether to build new nuclear power stations in Britain, which would use existing reactor designs, but is significant because it shows the government has not ruled out nuclear energy as a long term solution. Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, said earlier this year that any revival of Britain's nuclear industry would be limited to "one generation only." Richard Clegg, head of the Dalton Nuclear Institute at Manchester University and director of science at BNFL, said: "It sends a very important message that the UK government has a strategic interest in keeping the nuclear option open." Britain joined the US Department of Energy's generation IV forum in 2000, alongside eight countries, including France, Brazil and Japan. It supported the project through BNFL but did not commit state funds directly. Leading experts, including Professor King, David Sainsbury, the science minister, and Keith O'Nions, former chief scientist at the Ministry of Defence, have since lobbied for Britain to play a bigger role, so as to guarantee access to new reactor technology. Officials at the Department of Trade and Industry have now set aside £10m over two years. Dr Clegg said: "In order to have a seat at the table and a voice in selection of reactor designs, the UK has got to contribute something. By participating in the programme, our scientists and engineers are able to keep abreast of these reactors, how they work and what they are about." The generation IV scheme has shortlisted six possible designs, which it claims will be cheaper, cleaner and safer than current reactors. The move comes as a report turns up the heat on the nuclear debate by reiterating that new reactors are almost certainly needed if Britain is to meet future energy demands without busting greenhouse gas targets. Based on a meeting of 150 scientists, engineers, economists and sociologists at the Geological Society, the report says nuclear power "will inevitably have a key role in a future clean energy mix". Without new nuclear build, it says, Britain will struggle to plug an anticipated 10,000 MW energy gap - some 20% of demand - which is expected to open by 2015 as existing power stations are retired. Shaun Fitzgerald, an energy expert at Cambridge University, who helped to compile the report, said the poor response to energy efficiency initiatives showed public and government had failed to grasp the scale of the problem. "The 'do nothing' option is not an option." ---- Ageing nuclear stations must be renewed - scientists Thursday November 10, 05:33 AM (Reuters) http://uk.news.yahoo.com/10112005/325/ageing-nuclear-stations-must-renewed-scientists.html LONDON - The country must renew its ageing nuclear power stations or risk missing its targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists said on Thursday. Failing that, the lights will start to go out across the country within a decade as an energy gap of 20 percent emerges between supply and demand for electricity as the nuclear stations are forced by old age to shut down. "Throw away the emission targets and there is no problem. But keep them and the nuclear option has to be the way," John Loughead, director of the Energy Research Centre, told a news conference presenting a report on the future of energy supply. He said nuclear power was not the only option but part of a basket including coal, oil, gas, wind, waves, solar, and biomass as well as increasing energy efficiency and the politically unpalatable task of making people change the way they live. But given the time frame and the need to cut emissions of gases like carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, then nuclear had to be the answer. "We see no way of supplying the energy needs without maintaining the nuclear capacity," Loughead said, noting that the growth of renewables was only gradual and it would take far longer than a decade to change peoples' lifestyles. But Friends of the Earth chief Tony Juniper rejected the conclusions. "We reject nuclear new build. If there is one lesson we have learnt from the past it is that nuclear has always cost far more than its proponents have claimed," he said. "If we take the nuclear route it is likely to be the most expensive. "We have an answer now. Energy efficiency is available and affordable," he added. The report is the result of a two-day meeting last month in London of 150 scientists, economists, technical experts and sociologists. It is a intended to fuel the debate on the future of the country's energy policy in the face of global warming, with the government likely to have to take a decision within a year on whether to renew the decades-old 11 nuclear power stations. It said fossil fuels would remain the country's main energy source for the next 50 years and renewables would play a rising role but need continued government support, as would moves to improve energy efficiency -- particularly in buildings. "We all have to change our lifestyles. We have had 200 years of increasing energy use as a privileged few," said Loughead. "Now the rest of the world want to become equally privileged." ---- Britain Must Renew its Nuclear Stations - Scientists Story by Jeremy Lovell REUTERS UK: November 10, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33408/newsDate/10-Nov-2005/story.htm LONDON - Britain must renew its ageing nuclear power stations or risk missing its targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists said on Thursday. Failing that, the lights will start to go out across the country within a decade as an energy gap of 20 percent emerges between supply and demand for electricity as the nuclear stations are forced by old age to shut down. "Throw away the emission targets and there is no problem. But keep them and the nuclear option has to be the way," John Loughead, director of the UK Energy Research Centre, told a news conference presenting a report on the future of energy supply. He said nuclear power was not the only option but part of a basket including coal, oil, gas, wind, waves, solar, and biomass as well as increasing energy efficiency and the politically unpalatable task of making people change the way they live. But given the time frame and the need to cut emissions of gases like carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, then nuclear had to be the answer. "We see no way of supplying the energy needs without maintaining the nuclear capacity," Loughead said, noting that the growth of renewables was only gradual and it would take far longer than a decade to change peoples' lifestyles. But Friends of the Earth chief Tony Juniper rejected the conclusions. "We reject nuclear new build. If there is one lesson we have learned from the past it is that nuclear has always cost far more than its proponents have claimed," he said. "If we take the nuclear route it is likely to be the most expensive. "We have an answer now. Energy efficiency is available and affordable," he added. The report is the result of a two-day meeting last month in London of 150 scientists, economists, technical experts and sociologists. It is a intended to fuel the debate on the future of the country's energy policy in the face of global warming, with the government likely to have to take a decision within a year on whether to renew the decades-old 11 nuclear power stations. It said fossil fuels would remain Britain's main energy source for the next 50 years and renewables would play a rising role but need continued government support, as would moves to improve energy efficiency -- particularly in buildings. "We all have to change our lifestyles. We have had 200 years of increasing energy use as a privileged few," said Loughead. "Now the rest of the world want to become equally privileged." -------- canada CEO energized to rebuild nuclear trust Energy boss says options must be credible By Gyle Konotopetz - Business Edge Published: 11/10/2005 - Vol. 5, No. 39 http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/11134.cfm Duncan Hawthorne is a man who clearly gets a charge out of tackling the loftiest of challenges. The son of a Scottish shipyard electrician emerged from the shop floor of British Energy to toil his way into senior management with the Glasgow company, and today is one of the world's leading authorities on nuclear power. So you won't see him wincing over his current challenge at Bruce Power, one of Ontario's largest independent power generators. As chief executive officer of Bruce Power, Hawthorne faces the monumental task of spearheading the restoration of one of the nuclear generating stations at the Bruce plant on Lake Huron, a complex $4.25-billion project that is regarded as a crucial test case for the global nuclear industry. Formed in 2001, Bruce Power is Canada's first private nuclear generator. Hawthorne's illustrious career spanning three decades in the power-generation industry has been highlighted by numerous awards, including a recent distinction as the Energy Council of Canada's Energy Person of the Year. He is Canada's leading advocate of nuclear power. Yet, the exuberant Hawthorne is not one who is especially fond of dwelling on past achievements. His eyes are firmly cast on the next prize. When you're Duncan Hawthorne, there's always one more mountain to climb. 1. You were recently honoured as Energy Person of the Year. What does that award mean to you? "It's a great honour to get the reward. Yeah, I was very pleased with it. It's one of those awards that transcends all energy sectors. So given that I'm the first person from the nuclear energy to get it is important because it gives recognition to the industry. If you look at the way the industry has been viewed over the last six or seven years, we seem not to be a technology that's in favour. So, since Bruce Power came into existence in 2001, we've tried hard to kind of rebrand the industry somewhat. So this award to me is a kind of recognition that some progress has been made." 2. Is the public's negative perception of the nuclear industry improving at all to your satisfaction? "Well, obviously people have got long memories where bad news is concerned. So I look at it on a basis of steady progress. We've made good progress. We returned two of the shut-down reactors (at the Bruce Power plant) to service in 2003. Certainly, in the local community, people are really supportive. Even if you look at the opinion polls, you'll see that the support for nuclear is growing. A poll has just come out that shows that a majority of Canadians support nuclear power." 3. How do you see the nuclear power industry evolving in Canada? "People are looking to Ontario because they know that decisions are much more pressing here. The power authority (in Ontario) has been given a (mandate) by the government to recommend a supply mix and most people, I think, believe that that recommendation will include a role for nuclear. Obviously, similar conversations have taken place throughout the world. The U.S. Department of Energy has tried to create a favourable climate for nuclear. So the announcement we made recently on the Bruce restart project caught international attention. That appeared in the Wall Street Journal, in the Miami Herald and throughout the U.K. So people are looking at Ontario to see what kind of decisions are made here." 4. What is the status of the Bruce Power project? "We have committed to a $4.25-billion program of work which would see us return to service Bruce Units 1 and 2 which have been laid up since the mid-1990s. Also, when it becomes necessary, we will invest to extend the life of Units 3 and 4. So it's a very significant investment in nuclear technology." 5. What's the timeframe in completing that project and how confident are you that it will be accomplished? "We expect to have the first power from this project in 2009. It'll be the biggest nuclear refurbishment ever undertaken and obviously a very complex project. In terms of how confident we are to do it on time and on budget, we've actually contracted with many of the major players on the nuclear scene and we've done it in a way that much of the project cost is fixed-price. So it gives us high confidence that we can do it on time and on budget. This is a chance for us to prove that the industry can be trusted again. It's great that we've been able to attract the investment, which in itself is a vote of confidence. What needs to happen now is that we have to demonstrate to the public that we can actually deliver on one of these projects." 6. What are the major obstacles that you foresee in completing the project? "We're doing things that haven't been done before in terms of stripping out the reactor internals and replacing steam generators. These are projects that haven't actually been undertaken before. There's a degree of first-of-a-kind risk in some of the tasks. It involves multiple contractors, all of whom have to be co-ordinated, so it's not an easy project by any means." 7. What's your response to critics who complain that the public sector is footing part of the bill? "My position is that the vast majority of the risk falls upon the private sector. The public-sector investment is minimal in comparison to that of the private sector. Don't forget that the province still owns these assets. So we're investing $4.25 billion in private-sector funds in assets that are still owned by the province. We carry all the operational risk. We share benefits of the business plan with the province but we take all of the risk of performance, so I think it's a pretty good model." 8. On a global basis, how important do you think nuclear energy will become in the next decade? "I think it's certainly going to get a second chance. The U.S. Department of Energy has talked about what they're going to be doing. China is going to multiply its nuclear fleet by six times and India by four times. Russia is going to double its nuclear fleet. In the U.K., (Prime Minister) Tony Blair gave a speech recently saying that he would be looking seriously at renewing a nuclear program. There's also more interest in Finland and France. So you're seeing a growing interest in nuclear and obviously the reasons for that are clear with high gas prices, significant volatility in gas prices and some concern about security of supply. All of those things kind of lead you to a view that nuclear will become part of the mix in most countries." 9. How do you respond to environmental concerns over nuclear power? "I say, 'if you don't want nuclear power, then tell me what the credible option is.' And don't tell me that people don't want energy because they do. There are also a growing number of environmentalists that have come around to the view that nuclear, if you care about the environment, is a credible option. And some of the original founders of Greenpeace now speak very positively on nuclear power. So environmentalists are really in a bit of a dilemma now because they can't be seen to do a complete U-turn, while at the same time I think they acknowledge that for climate-change reasons, you have to consider nuclear (over fossil fuel). So my message to them generally is that they have to be a bit more open-minded. I don't think any technology is perfect and I don't profess that nuclear is either. But it does offer some advantages over fossil fuel." 10. After spending most of your career with British Energy in the U.K, what initially brought you to Canada and Bruce Power? "I came to North America in 1997 with the intention of acquiring nuclear plants. I originally started in a joint venture in the U.S. with AmerGen where we (British Energy) acquired power plants. Then the opportunity came up here and led to the activities to acquire the Bruce site. Then I took over as the chief executive officer. At the time, British Energy got into some financial distress in the U.K. and had to sell its Bruce assets to a combination of Canadian companies - TransCanada, Cameco and Borealis. So I left British Energy to become the chief executive officer of Bruce Power. So, despite my dubious Canadian accent, we are now an all-Canadian company." 11. You spent 26 years with British Energy. How did you get your start with that company? "I actually left school at 15 and started as a craft apprentice with British Energy (in Glasgow, Scotland). Then, when I was 21, I had the chance to go back and do a university degree through a scholarship that the company ran. I came back from university (Strathclyde University in Scotland) as a junior engineer." 12. How do you reflect on your experience at British Energy? "I've got a kind of career that is not really normal. Not many people would start where I did on the shop floor and end up where I am today. My experience with British Energy has given me a good grounding. I feel that when I speak to people on power plants, I can speak their language because I've done their job, having worked my way from the shop floor through a lot of positions. That gives you a certain degree of credibility when you interact with people when you've been in their place before." 13. To what do you attribute your success in working your way up to your current role as a CEO? "I think it was a willingness to take on more or less any challenge rather than settling for where I was. I've always had a desire to see how far I could go. And the way to get there is to learn the job you're in well, and then look for opportunities to kind of stretch yourself. That's been the kind of model I've used my entire career." 14. Did you always have that sort of attitude, even during your youth in Scotland? "I was the youngest of three brothers and there was only four years between the three of us. As you know, brothers can be very competitive and, being the baby and behind them if you like, I think it helps you get some kind of drive. You had to fight for your position in life. That kind of helped me grow up quickly. That competitive drive has been in me for as long as I could remember. People who know me would tell you that I'm pretty competitive with just about anything I do." 15. What was your boyhood dream? "It was the same as everyone else. I wanted to be a soccer player. Every young boy wants to be a sportsman of some type. I grew up playing soccer and wanted to do that, but then you get to an age where you realize it's not going to happen. I was born on the River Clyde and everyone worked in the shipyards. My father and my two brothers worked there, but I chose a different path by going into the power industry. That was kind of a divergence from the family business. My father was an electrician, my older brother was an electrician and my other older brother was a welder. So it was very much a working-class family and the shipyards was the place where everyone in our area worked because it was by far the biggest employer." 16. How would you describe your business philosophy? "I think people will tell you that I'm really informal with people and very visible with staff. And part of that has to do with my upbringing. I have a simple view that there are experts at every level of an organization and, if you can have a way to have them work with you willingly, then you're going to be successful. I believe my style is very open and communicative with people. My experience has been that people respond to that because they've never been asked before what they think about things and no one's really taken advantage of the expertise that they have. So I consider a key part of my job is talking to people, listening to people and giving them a chance to be successful in their own right. So I think it's more of an enabling style and certainly not a command-and-control style." 17. Is this a particularly stressful business? "It can be, because obviously we're in a marketplace that is quite stressed itself because right now there isn't a lot of generation surplus here. So there's always a bit of pressure to perform. And at the same time, of course, the nuclear energy industry is a highly technological industry in its own right and there's a lot of complexity there that you have to keep on top of. But I don't believe any job's stressful if you enjoy doing it. It's a very exciting job. No two days are the same. I personally don't think it's stressful. In fact, having every day be the same would be extremely stressful for me. I like the challenge of the job, so I don't actually suffer from stress too much at all. I have the ability to switch off very quickly. I don't carry work home with me. I just feel that the job will kill you quickly if you can't just close the book on it. I play golf, but I'm also quite happy to sit home and read a book or watch television. I can easily unwind." 18. At what point will you put your feet on your desktop, raise a glass and pronounce that you've done it? "Oh, that won't be for a long time yet. I believe we are capable of doing a lot more and I'm not even close to thinking about calling it quits yet. The job's easy to do when the company is growing and developing, and there's a lot of optimism about the place. You get your energy from everyone around about you. You know, nothing happens quickly in nuclear energy. We've made a lot of promises that we can restart these two reactors, so people are going to be looking really hard to see if we're successful or not. So there's a lot of expectation hanging on us and I believe this will be a really important watershed for the industry. If we can deliver this project on time and to budget, then it will tell everyone that the nuclear industry is worthwhile again. "It's very challenging to manage a project like this, but it's also a healthy position to be in because we have an opportunity now." 19. What if it's not successful? "We're spending shareholder dollars here so, if this were proven to be a risky business, then the prospect of anyone putting significant money behind something like this would be significantly reduced. This is a test case - a test case for the nuclear industry. If you ask people about nuclear projects right now, people will say they never come in on time or on budget. And people will point to field projects in the past. And, for me, I'd love to be in a position where they could point to Bruce Power as a successful project." 20. Beyond the current project, what's your next great challenge? "I'd like to be the first company to build a new nuclear plant in North America. We have plenty of space here to build a new nuclear plant. We have good employees and great community around us. If we can do this refurbishment, then I see no reason why we couldn't be seriously considered for the first new nuclear plant in North America for a number of years. It's not a speedy process. It would probably take eight years. We could get started on that early next year. The first few years would be spent on environmental approval and licences. Someone has to go first - and I'd like it to be us." Duncan Hawthorne * Title: President/CEO, Bruce Power. * Born/raised/age: Greenock, Scotland/50. * Residence: Kincardine, Ont. * Education: Strathclyde University (Scotland), MBA degree and honours degree in control engineering. * Career: Hawthorne was appointed president and CEO of Bruce Power in 2001. He spent the previous 26 years with British Energy based in Glasgow, Scotland, and has also worked in power plants in the U.S. He started with British Energy as a craft apprentice and was executive director when he left that company to join Bruce Power. * Moonlighting: Hawthorne is chairman of the Canadian Nuclear Association and chairman-elect of the board of governors of the World Association of Nuclear Operators-Atlanta. * Accolades: Hawthorne was recently honoured as Energy Person of the Year by the Energy Council of Canada and is also a recipient of the Ian McCrae Award for leadership in the Canadian nuclear industry. * Passions: Golf, downhill skiing, John Grisham novels. Bruce Power * Brass: Duncan Hawthorne, president/CEO; Robert Nixon, chief nuclear officer; Keith Wettlaufer, chief financial officer; Dwight Willett, executive vice-president, corporate services. * Power Profile: Formed in 2001, Bruce Power is Canada's first private nuclear generator and one of Ontario's largest independent power generators. It is a partnership among Cameco Corp., BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust (established by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System), Power Workers' Union and the Society of Energy Professionals. Bruce Power is the licensed operator of the Bruce A and Bruce B nuclear generating stations on Lake Huron, approximately 250 kilometres northwest of Toronto. * Output: Six of Bruce Power's eight CANDU reactors are currently operational and the combined net output of the stations is approximately 4,640 megawatts of emission-free electricity. * Focus: Bruce Power recently reached an agreement with the Ontario Power Authority to launch a $4.25-billion investment program to restore the Bruce A generating station, beginning with the restart of Units 1 and 2. The restart of these units would boost Bruce Power's output to 6,200 megawatts, making it the supplier of about 25 per cent of Ontario's electricity on a typical day. * Web Watch: www.brucepower.com * Address: P.O. Box 3000, Tiverton, Ont. N0G 2T0. * Phone: 519-361-2673. (Gyle Konotopetz can be reached at gyle@businessedge.ca) ---- Westinghouse bidders narrowed to four By Thomas Olson PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, November 10, 2005 http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_392991.html The British owner of Westinghouse Electric Co. has narrowed the list of bidders for the Monroeville-based company to four companies, including rival General Electric, said a published report Wednesday. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is in serious talks with U.S.-based Shaw Group and GE, as well as Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toshiba, said The Times of London. Whichever is chosen to acquire it, Westinghouse is expected to fetch about $1 billion. "We expect there should be a decision early next year," said Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert. But he declined to comment on bidders "until the process is much farther along." BNFL has said it wants to focus on cleaning up nuclear plant sites in the United Kingdom. Westinghouse provides nuclear power plant design, fueling and servicing, not site cleanup. Gilbert did say, however, that BNFL intends to sell Westinghouse "as a single entity," rather than dismantle and sell the nuclear power company piecemeal. BNFL acquired Westinghouse in 1998 for $1.2 billion. It has 8,800 employees worldwide, including about 3,000 in Western Pennsylvania. At the end of its heyday as a Pittsburgh-based conglomerate in the late 1990s, debt-laden Westinghouse was repeatedly broken into business units and auctioned off. For instance, Siemens Corp. bought the non-nuclear power-generation business in 1997. These days, however, Westinghouse is in a stronger position to negotiate. Two weeks ago, Duke Power committed to seek a license to build and operate two AP1000 nuclear reactors, an innovative design Westinghouse spent a decade developing. Westinghouse is also a favorite to win an $8 billion contract to develop four huge power plants in China. Once a Westinghouse buyer is chosen, it could take another year before a proposed sale receives approvals from the British government, which owns BNFL, and the U.S. government. Thomas Olson can be reached at tolson@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7854. -------- china Qinshan nuclear plant to add new ractors 2005-11-10 09:01:11 (Source: China Daily) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/10/content_3758764.htm BEIJING, Nov. 9 -- The Zhejiang-based Qinshan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co. Ltd has signed agreements with engineering and construction supervision companies to expand the Qinshan nuclear project by adding two more reactors. The Qinshan plant, China's first nuclear base, already has five reactors. There are currently nine in the country in total. The venture is a subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), which last month got government approval to add two new nuclear reactors to the Qinshan plant. Yesterday in Beijing the venture inked contracts with three subsidiaries of the China Nuclear Engineering Group Corp and two local companies in Shanghai and Zhejiang for infrastructure construction, equipment installation and supervision of the expansion project. The CNNC has budgeted some 400 billion yuan (US$49.3 billion) to build at least 30 nuclear plants which will produce 4 per cent of the country's total electricity generation by 2020. "The three pacts are the most important agreements reached for nuclear plant expansion and mark a significant development of the Qinshan project," Li Yongjiang, chairman of the venture's board told the signing ceremony yesterday. The accords involve an investment of 2.5 billion yuan (US$308 million). The whole project, including buying procurement and designing technology, Li said, cost around 14 billion yuan (US$1.7 billion) to 15 billion yuan (US$1.8 billion) Seventy per cent of the two new reactors' components will be supplied by domestic manufacturers. The Shanghai Electric Group and the Harbin Power Equipment Co are the two main domestic equipment suppliers for the expansion project. The remaining 30 per cent of the equipment will come from foreign firms such as Areva and Mitsubishi, Li told China Daily. The expansion project is expected to begin in the first quarter of next year, with the first new reactor scheduled to go operational in December 2010 and the second 10 months later, a CNNC statement said. The nation's power consumption is estimated to more than double to 4.6 trillion kilowatt-hours between now and 2020. -------- depleted uranium Radioactive legacy a threat in Iraq November 10 2005 at 10:10AM Independent Online South Africa http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=qw1131626353645B262 Geneva - Iraq faces a massive 40 million dollar (about R264-million) environmental clean-up campaign to tackle the lethal toxic and radioactive legacy of more than two decades of conflict and neglect, a UN agency and Iraqi authorities said Thursday. Five sites near Baghdad, described by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as "the tip of the iceberg", have been identified for an initial clean-up, but there are thought to be thousands more. "There are thousands of polluted areas in Iraq, either from industrial or military pollution," Iraq's environment minister, Narmin Othman, said at the launch of a UNEP assessment of environmental "hotspots" in Iraq. The UNEP report highlighted the Al Qadyissa metal plating facility, bombed during the US invasion of Iraq, where several tons of cyanide pellets are scattered around a site that is accessible to children. tons of cyanide pellets are scattered around... accessible to children Other immediate priority areas include pesticides and petrochemicals warehouses and a military scrapyard. Many of them have been contaminating farm land and drinking water, or are close to impoverished communities who looted sites without knowing the risks. The Ouireej site was a military ammunition dump. Two people have been killed by explosions and by poisoning during clean-up attempts there over the past two years, according to the report, which included pictures of children playing in the site. "Wars, conflicts, instability and the poor environmental management of the previous regime have left their scars on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi environment," UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said. A UNEP expert, Mu ralee Thummarukundy, said the five sites were not the worst cases of pollution but were chosen initially because of their proximity to local communities and security conditions. The report did not cover pollution caused by uranium-hardened shells used during tank battles or aerial bombardments in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. "We do not only have chemicals, we even have radiation. We have depleted uranium radiation, a good programme has identified 311 sites polluted by depleted uranium, especially in the south," Othman told journalists. Toepfer said a separate project was being set up with British funding to train Iraqi experts to deal with depleted uranium, which was used to harden munitions. He declined to comment on the level of danger the depleted uranium might represent. Five key causes of severe pollution by chemicals and heavy metals were identified, ranging from the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, the two Gulf Wars, to years of environmental neglect under Saddam Hussein's regime and looting which spread contamination. - Sapa-AFP ---- Veterans Contaminated With Radiation Fight To Get Help From VA November 10, 2005 NY1 News http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=8&aid=54878 As the nation prepares to celebrate Veterans Day Friday, some soldiers who served in Iraq say they don't feel they are being honored. NY1's Dean Meminger has been following the story of city soldiers who say their tour of duty left them poisoned, and he filed this update. Wearing buttons that say “no depleted uranium weapons,” veterans and their supporters gathered in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs Thursday to say not enough is being done to treat soldiers who have depleted uranium, or DU, in their bodies. “It just feels like my bones are hurting all the time,” said Iraq War veteran Herbert Reed. “I am constantly fatigued. I still have the blood in my urine and my stool." DU is a slightly radioactive heavy metal left over in the process of creating nuclear fuel. The military uses it in missiles and tanks to make them stronger. But when it's hit or explodes, soldiers can get wounded by radioactive shrapnel or breathe in radioactive particles. Nine local soldiers from the war in Iraq came forward last year saying private doctors confirmed they had high levels of DU. Several elected officials have expressed concern, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, Congressman Joseph Crowley, and now Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, who says he's introducing state legislation to address the issue. “We have a ticking time bomb,” said Dinowitz. “We should not wait decades like we did when it came to Agent Orange to address a significant health problem that affects the people who we’ve sent over to fight on our behalf." “This legislation is requiring the federal government to be accountable for borrowing state assets in National Guard troops who are coming home sick and are asking for the Veterans Administration to take care of us, and are being sent away," said Gulf War veteran Melissa Sterry. Similar legislation has already been passed in Connecticut. The veterans who say they continue to suffer from depleted uranium have become activists for other soldiers, and they say they will continue to fight the military and force politicians to join the battle. “It makes me feel good that I was patriotic as a soldier and I can be patriotic and try to help out soldiers who are not getting the message conveyed to them from their own government,” said Iraq War veteran Gerard Mathew. “What this does is let other soldiers know that there is someone fighting for them back home and there are people who care, and we as veterans are taking up the fight,” said fellow Iraq War veteran Raymond Ramos. The veterans say they want soldiers tested before and after combat. - Dean Meminger ---- Govt demands payment to dispose of DU scrap The Yomiuri Shimbun (Nov. 10, 2005) http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/science/20051110TDY02008.htm A metal factory owner who found depleted uranium (DU) in imported scrap was asked to pay more than 220,000 yen when he asked the Education, Science and Technology Ministry to dispose of the hazardous material for him, The Yomiuri Shimbun learned Wednesday. The factory owner has refused to pay, leaving 40 kilograms of the material suspected as causing serious health problems, including cancer and kidney ailments, improperly stored. The factory owner said two lumps of DU, weighing 10 kilograms and 30 kilograms, were found among 16 tons of scrap metal recently imported from the United States to produce aluminum alloy. The 1957 Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law stipulates the three nuclear elements of uranium, thorium and plutonium can be transferred only between businesses licensed to handle the materials. The law fails to accommodate instances in which operators such as the Hyogo Prefecture factory unintentionally come into possession of the radioactive elements. The factory owner correctly reported finding the hazardous material to the ministry. But the ministry said it had to comply with the law by instructing him to obtain a license to handle the material--a procedure that requires a 227,200 yen application fee. This shortcoming of the nuclear regulation law was pointed out at least five years ago, but the ministry has failed to plug this oversight. In 2000, the then Science and Technology Agency said it would enhance the regulations on nuclear material in response to a string of cases in which hazardous materials were found across the country. In one highly publicized case that year, a small amount of monazite--a mineral that is a phosphate of thorium--was found in a package sent to the Prime Minister's Office. The agency, which was later merged into the Education, Science and Technology Ministry, said that year it was considering a range of measures in response to the incident, including a nationwide search for nuclear materials held at unlicensed facilities and creating a scheme to accept unwanted radioactive material. But none of those measures have been implemented. The ministry now says it has yet to decide where to store unneeded nuclear materials because such a plan would inevitably be opposed by neighboring residents. ---- UN warns on Iraq environment fate Thursday, 10 November 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4425562.stm Inspectors found much of the waste rotting and abandoned http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41006000/jpg/_41006050_iraq_unep203.jpg Derelict factories, military scrapyards and battle sites across Iraq pose a threat to the environment and to public health, the United Nations has said. The UN Environment Program has trained Iraqi specialists in detoxification, but says any clean-up could cost up to $40m (£23m). Chemical spills, unsecured hazardous material and widespread pollution by depleted uranium are among the issues. Without clean-up, heavy metals can poison ground water, causing illness. The Unep has examined five sites as part of its training efforts, and is concerned by the results. "There are hundreds, probably thousands of other sites with the need of assessment," said Mural Thummarukudy, Unep's manager in Iraq, who appealed for donations. String of wars Among the five sites already probed are a metal plating facility at al-Qadyissa that was bombed, looted and then demolished in 2003. Several tons of cyanide remain on the site, which is now an unsecured area used as a playground by local children. The other sites include an old sulphur mine, a munitions factory containing unexploded ordnance and an abandoned petrochemicals plant. Narmin Othman, Iraq's environment minister, said that some 311 sites were polluted by depleted uranium, the Associated Press reported. Many of Iraq's potential danger spots were either damaged or destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the 1991 Gulf war or the US-led invasion in 2003. In addition, many of the sites have been looted in recent years as insurgents and militias raid them for weapons and materiel, with little thought for potential environmental effects. ---- Iraq faces massive clean-up of lethal pollution GENEVA (AFP) Nov 10, 2005 http://www.terradaily.com/2005/051110122747.v2zaqhv6.html Iraq faces a massive 40 million dollar (34 million euro) environmental clean-up campaign to tackle the lethal toxic and radioactive legacy of more than two decades of conflict and neglect, a UN agency and Iraqi authorities said Thursday. Five sites near Baghdad, described by the UN Environment Programmeas "the tip of the iceberg", have been identified for an initial clean-up, but there are thought to be thousands more. "There are thousands of polluted areas in Iraq, either from industrial or military pollution," Iraq's environment minister, Narmin Othman, said at the launch of a UNEP assessment of environmental "hotspots" in Iraq. The UNEP report highlighted the Al Qadyissa metal plating facility, bombed during the US invasion of Iraq, where several tonnes of cyanide pellets are scattered around a site that is accessible to children. Other immediate priority areas include pesticides and petrochemicals warehouses and a military scrapyard. Many of them have been contaminating farm land and drinking water, or are close to impoverished communities who looted sites without knowing the risks. The Ouireej site was a military ammunition dump. Two people have been killed by explosions and by poisoning during clean-up attempts there over the past two years, according to the report, which included pictures of children playing in the site. "Wars, conflicts, instability and the poor environmental management of the previous regime have left their scars on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi environment," UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said. A UNEP expert, Mu ralee Thummarukundy, said the five sites were not the worst cases of pollution but were chosen initially because of their proximity to local communities and security conditions. The report did not cover pollution caused by uranium-hardened shells used during tank battles or aerial bombardments in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. "We do not only have chemicals, we even have radiation. We have depleted uranium radiation, a good programme has identified 311 sites polluted by depleted uranium, especially in the south," Othman told journalists. Toepfer said a separate project was being set up with British funding to train Iraqi experts to deal with depleted uranium, which was used to harden munitions. He declined to comment on the level of danger the depleted uranium might represent. Five key causes of severe pollution by chemicals and heavy metals were identified, ranging from the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, the two Gulf Wars, to years of environmental neglect under Saddam Hussein's regime and looting which spread contamination. ---- U.N. Issues Warning On Iraq Environment BBC, Thursday, November 10, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4425562.stm Derelict factories, military scrapyards and battle sites across Iraq pose a threat to the environment and to public health, the United Nations has said. The U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) has trained Iraqi specialists in detoxification, but says any clean-up could cost up to $40 million (£23 million). Chemical spills, unsecured hazardous material and widespread pollution by depleted uranium are among the issues. Without clean-up, heavy metals from the depleted uranium weapons can poison ground water, causing illness. The UNEP has examined five sites as part of its training efforts, and is concerned by the results. "There are hundreds, probably thousands of other sites with the need of assessment," said Mural Thummarukudy, UNEP's manager in Iraq, who appealed for donations. Among the five sites already probed are a metal plating facility at al-Qadyissa that was bombed, looted and then demolished in 2003. Several tons of cyanide remain on the site, which is now an unsecured area used as a playground by local children. The other sites include an old sulphur mine, a munitions factory containing unexploded ordnance and an abandoned petrochemicals plant. Narmin Othman, Iraq's environment minister, said that some 311 sites were polluted by depleted uranium, the Associated Press reported. Many of Iraq's potential danger spots were either damaged or destroyed during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the 1991 Gulf war or the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In addition, many of the sites have been looted in recent years as insurgents and militias raid them for weapons and materiel, with little thought for potential environmental effects. ---- U.N. Urges Cleanup of Iraq Waste Sites By UTA HARNISCHFEGER Associated Press Writer, 10 November, 2005 http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/news-0097900.html http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-hazardous-waste,0,7771674.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines GENEVA -- Thousands of contaminated industrial and military sites left over from wars in Iraq must urgently be cleaned up to stop them from further harming people's health and the environment, a U.N. agency said Thursday. The U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP, has assessed five contaminated sites during the past 18 months to train Iraqi specialists to detect the risks, analyze harmful chemicals and eventually clean up such sites. "We are still at the beginning," said Narmin Othman, Iraq's environment minister. "We have thousands of polluted areas, and we need millions and millions (of dollars) to clean them up. The challenge now is to identify and assess all such areas of contamination in Iraq and systematically restore them." The sites include chemical and petrochemical factories, mines, military scrap-yards and sites polluted by depleted uranium. Almost all the sites have been repeatedly looted after they were destroyed or bombed during conflicts, including the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the 1991 Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Leaking heavy metal wastes contaminate the soil, ground and drinking water, UNEP said. Children from nearby dwellings often play on such sites and touch or even ingest toxic materials, the agency noted. UNEP estimates it will cost about $40 million to tackle the operation's next stage, which includes cleaning up an additional 20 areas and assessing other sites, implementing environmental legislation, and buying back military scrap material. Most importantly, Iraq must build a hazardous waste treatment facility, UNEP said. One of the five sites recently assessed by UNEP -- a metal plating facility near Baghdad damaged by ground and air strikes in 2003 -- is believed to contain several tons of acutely toxic sodium cyanide, which is lethal at a dose of less than one ounce. "These are ... sites that have a history of contamination, all of which are linked to massive neglect," said Klaus Toepfer, UNEP executive director. He said Iraq's lack of investment into environmental matters had further aggravated the situation. -------- iraq / inspections Council Transfers Funds To Nuclear Watchdog Agency Thursday, 10 November 2005, 2:49 pm Press Release: United Nations http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00159.htm At Iraq's Request, Security Council Transfers Funds To Nuclear Watchdog Agency New York, Nov 9 2005 Responding to a request from the Baghdad Government, the Security Council today transferred more than $2 million of residual Oil-for-Food funds earmarked for the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), settling Iraq's outstanding arrears with the Agency. Under Security Council resolutions on Oil-for-Food, 0.8 per cent of Iraqi oil revenues was allocated to UNMOVIC, which inherited from the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) the task of verifying Iraq's compliance with its obligation to renounce weapons of mass destruction. Previously, the Council approved transfers of some $20 million out of the escrow account to cover Iraq's dues to the UN regular budget, peacekeeping and Tribunal activities. -------- u.s. nuc weapons U.S. Will Remove 200 Tons of Uranium from Weapons Stockpile WASHINGTON, DC, November 10, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-10-03.asp U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced Monday that the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration will remove up to 200 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from further use as fissile material in U.S. nuclear weapons and prepare this material for other uses. Secretary Bodman revealed the new policy while addressing the 2005 Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference in Washington, DC. The decision addresses the highly enriched uranium that becomes available when nuclear weapons are dismantled and from reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile as directed by President George W. Bush in May 2004. The 200 metric tons is the largest amount of special nuclear material to be removed from the stockpile in the history of the nuclear weapons program, Bodman said. “The President’s decision to reduce the nuclear weapons stockpile by nearly half - to the smallest size since the Eisenhower administration - enables us to dispose of a significant amount of weapons-grade uranium,” Bodman said. “This is material that will never again be a part of a nuclear weapon.” As the highly enriched uranium (HEU) is withdrawn over the next few decades, Bodman said about 160 metric tons will be provided for use in naval ship power propulsion, postponing the need for construction of a new uranium high enrichment facility for at least 50 years. About 20 metric tons will be down-blended to low enriched uranium (LEU) for eventual use in civilian nuclear power reactors, research reactors or related research. Down-blending this material will eliminate its potential usefulness to terrorists, said Bodman. Approximately 20 metric tons will be reserved for space and research reactors that currently use HEU, pending development of fuels that would enable the conversion to LEU fuel cores. HEU is stored at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Bodman said the Energy Department is expediting construction of a facility that will permit the consolidation of all HEU at Y-12 in a modern, highly secure building. "The need for peaceful nuclear power all over the globe has never been more apparent … while at the same time, the proliferation threat posed by nuclear materials and technology has never been more grave," Bodman told the conference. Rapid global economic growth means a parallel growth in worldwide energy demand. "The world will need much more energy in the coming decades," said Bodman. "The Energy Information Administration estimates perhaps as much as 50 percent more by 2025, with more than half of that growth coming in the world’s emerging economies." In Bodman's view, the answer is nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is manifestly safe," he said. "It is clean. It is efficient and affordable. And it produces no greenhouse gases, which has to be a consideration at a time when concerns about greenhouse gas emissions drive the global public policy debates." Bodman said the Bush administration believes that nuclear power will play an enlarged role to meet the global demand. "Our government has taken a number of dramatic steps recently that are setting the stage for an expansion of nuclear power," Bodman said. The energy secretary made no mention of the nuclear waste disposal problem that has left 77,000 tons of spent fuel from reactors and high radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production without a permanent disposal site. While the Bush administration has approved a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, it is stalled and is now being redesigned before a license application can be made. Described as an annual nuclear reality check, the Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference attracted 750 policymakers, experts, academics, journalists and students from around the world. They heard presentations on the Iranian stalemate, the challenge of negotiating with North Korea, how to prevent catastrophic terrorism, the implications of the nuclear deal with India, the history of the nuclear age, prospects for outer space security, and reforming the nuclear fuel supply. Fresh from receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei proposed four "yardsticks" against which to gauge performance in the world's efforts to curb nuclear proliferation and advance arms control. The yardsticks are effectiveness of nuclear verification, control of sensitive nuclear technology, protection of nuclear material, and compliance with commitments not to proliferate. In an effort to "stay ahead of the game" in nuclear verification, Dr. ElBaradei said the IAEA is exploring innovative technologies for detecting undeclared nuclear facilities and activities. He called for the establishment of a mechanism under which countries systematically share information with the IAEA on the export of sensitive nuclear material and technology. Dr. ElBaradei commended the countries that are converting their research reactors from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium and returning the HEU to the country of origin, an effort that receives the support of the IAEA, Russia and the United States. "Seven such transfers of fresh fuel back to Russia have been made since 2002, and we are continuing to work on arrangements for the repatriation of spent research reactor fuel of Russian origin," he said. The fourth yardstick measures performance in complying with non-proliferation and arms-control commitments. For compliance to be effective, it must be backed by credible mechanisms to deal with cases of non-compliance, said Dr. ElBaradei. The potential for being referred to the UN Security Council has acted as an inducement for compliance in some cases, but North Korea's referrals to the Council in 1992 and again in 2003, resulted in little to no action. To be effective, ElBaradei said, the Security Council "must be ready at all times" to cope with emerging threats to international peace and security. At the same time, he said, confidence in nuclear disarmament commitments would be enhanced if nuclear-weapon states were to reduce the strategic role currently given to nuclear weapons. A good beginning would be to move away from the Cold War status of maintaining these weapons on hair-trigger alert. ElBaradei pointed out that, to date, "we have not even begun to consider an approach that could replace nuclear deterrence." Alexei Arbatov of Russia, Director of the Center for International Security at the Institute for World Economy and International Relations, is a scholar in residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center. From 1993 until 2003, Dr. Arbatov served as a Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. His remarks to conference delegates were critical of the Bush administration. Four decades of US-Soviet and then US-Russian bilateral negotiations and agreements on nuclear disarmament were swept away after George W. Bush came to power in the United States, he said. "The new U.S. administration rejected any new strategic offensive arms treaty, claiming that termination of Cold War confrontation era and movement of the two countries towards strategic partnership made arms control irrelevant. Each country was supposed to independently shape its own nuclear policy and program of nuclear force development, proceeding from its own conceptions of national security," Arbatov said. While the START I treaty between the United States and Russia remains in effect through 2008, the negotiated START II and START III treaties never progressed. In Russia, he said, "this position was perceived with suspicion and displeasure. It was concluded that while being aware of the critical condition of the Russian defense complex and its inability of sustaining the nuclear forces at the level of the START I, and even START II treaties, Washington decided to decisively tip the strategic nuclear balance between Russia and the United States and become the only nuclear superpower which would be beyond the reach for any other country of the world." "The point is," said Arbatov, "that it was not arms control that was a legacy of Cold War, but rather mutual nuclear deterrence relationship between the U.S. and the Russia, while arms control was just an instrument to stabilize this relationship at lower levels of forces and ensure predictability. Doing away with arms control could in no way lead to abandoning mutual nuclear deterrence, but rather would make it less stable, regulated and predictable with negative strategic, political and economic consequences." The Russian concluded that the improved political relations between his country and the United States "should not make arms control irrelevant – rather they should open the way to more radical agreements as an instrument for facilitating still better security relationship and liberate it from reliance on mutual destruction." Arbatov said he would like to see "a new mode of strategic relationship, which is not based on mutual nuclear deterrence and assured destruction capability." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- pennsylvania Uranium-contaminated waste dumping draws protests By Jackie Beranek 11/10/2005 Uniontown, PA Herald Standard EAST HUNTINGDON TWP. - Residents packed the basement of a Ruffsdale church Wednesday afternoon to voice their concerns about uranium-contaminated ash expected to be transported from an Allegheny Township treatment plant lagoon sometime within the next 45 days to the Greenridge Landfill in East Huntingdon Township. The landfill is located less than a quarter of a mile from Alverton Elementary School and Southmoreland Junior and Senior High schools. The Southmoreland athletic stadium is also located in the area in addition to the school's softball and baseball fields, track and tennis courts. The residents all said they wanted one thing: the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to take another look at the plan and find another landfill to accept the uranium-contaminated waste. DEP community relation's specialist Betsy Mallison said in October DEP issued a permit to the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority to remove 12,000 cubic meters of uranium-contaminated ash from a former wastewater treatment lagoon in Allegheny Township. Robert N. Kossak, manager of the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority, said the ash was contaminated between 1978 and 1984 by uranium from the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. and its successor companies, Atlantic Richfield and Babcock and Wilcox. According to Kossak, the companies manufactured nuclear material for military and industrial use at sites in Apollo and Parks Township in Armstrong County. Kossak said the companies had a contract with the Kiski Valley's sewage processing authority to treat the wastewater from those sites. At a 9:30 a.m. meeting Wednesday, East Huntingdon Township Supervisor Howard Keefer said the township was notified by DEP that some waste would be coming to the local landfill but Keefer said DEP did not inform the supervisors that it was contaminated with uranium. Ruffsdale attorney Farley Kalp told the residents at the afternoon meeting that letters have been sent to DEP by Southmoreland Superintendent Dr. John K. Halfhill, the supervisors, Joel Suter, Keefer and Paul Hodgkiss and by local advocates Chuck and Julie Marhefka. Mallison told the three dozen or so residents assembled at the afternoon meeting that 27,000 tons or 800 truck loads of uranium-contaminated ash from Kiski is more than likely headed their way. "The material is municipal waste," said Mallison. "It does have low levels of uranium in it but we don't believe it is of any risk to any residents in any of the areas that the material might go." Mallison additionally said Greenridge Landfill is part of the bidding process for the material and offered the low bid of $299,000. Kossak said it will cost his authority $599,000 to ship the material to the Westmoreland County landfill in Alverton. Mallison said only a few conditions were placed on the landfill. One of the conditions is that the landfill use a radiation monitor and the other is that when they mix the ash at the Kiski authority they make sure that there is a very low amount of uranium before it is sent to the landfill. Mallison said to her knowledge no other landfill in Southwestern Pennsylvania has accepted this kid of waste. "Landfills take in all kinds of waste including infectious and asbestos waste," continued Mallison. "They have to submit a form to DEP every time they want to take a different kind of waste." Mallison said DEP has been studying uranium-contaminated waste for 10 years and that's why they can make the statement "it is not going to leech (leak) out." Dwight A. Shearer, chief of DEP Radioactive Materials Section, said the material would be placed in plastic-lined trucks so that the ash doesn't fly all around. He also said the ash would be monitored when it leaves the Allegheny Township lagoon. Shearer said when the material is put into the Greenridge Reclamation Landfill it will be in a plastic-lined containers and will have to go through the radiological monitor. "All of the landfills are now required to have radiological monitors and we don't expect to see even a blip on the monitor when it arrives because the amount of uranium-contaminated waste is so low," said Shearer. "However, if it does register it will be sent back and remixed." Community activist Patty Ameno of Leechburg told residents that she fears that those who live near the landfill are about to inherit the Kiski Valley's nuclear problems and told the crowd that "people need to scream" to get DEP's attention." Scottdale Public Library Director Patty Miller said, "Honestly, I have more concerns now than when I came in. I need more information because people are going to ask me when they come into the library." Miller said she would call Scottdale Borough Manager Barry Whoric, landfill officials and the East Huntingdon Township supervisors to express her concerns and to see what can be done to stop this from happening. Scottdale Mayor Patricia Walker said, "A lot of people are saying a lot of things but I feel that their minds are all ready made up. They got the price they wanted but I have to ask myself if money is the bottom line." Walker said she is additionally concerned about the school children and what this will do for property values in the area. "I will alert borough council and Barry Whoric and he can bring it up on the agenda," she concluded." Mallison said the final decision is up to Kossak and Kossak said he will discuss the crowd's concerns with his board of directors. Shearer reminded residents that they come in contact with a certain amount of radiation every day because it's a constant source. He additionally said earlier this year The Nuclear Regulatory Commission deregulated the Kiski ash and said it is no longer a regulated material. -------- vermont Vermont Delegation Calls For NRC Evaluation Of Vermont Yankee U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242 November 10, 2005 http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200511/111005d.html Vermont’s Congressional delegation today sent the following letter to Nils J. Diaz, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, after a recent NRC inspection discovered more than 40 additional cracks in the steam dryer at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. These cracks are in addition to 18 cracks found during inspections of the steam dryer in 2004. In the letter, Vermont’s Congressional delegation wrote: “We request that the condition of the steam dryer be fully evaluated, using the techniques of the most recent inspection and any other appropriate means, as the NRC considers Entergy Nuclear's request to produce an additional 100 megawatts of power from Vermont Yankee.” ”As the NRC reviews the Vermont Yankee power uprate request, we believe it is essential that our constituents receive needed information about whether the plant’s steam dryer will be able to withstand boosted power conditions and operate safely and reliably,” the letter said. The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Jeffords is Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has oversight of the NRC. Rep. John Olver, D-Ma., joined Vermont’s delegation in signing the letter. The text of the complete letter follows. A PDF is also available. November 10, 2005 The Honorable Nils J. Diaz Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dear Mr. Chairman: We write in response to the announcement today of the discovery, during a recent scheduled outage, of more than 40 additional cracks in the steam dryer at Vermont Yankee. We understand that a Region 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspector was dispatched to assist the resident inspector in the determining whether these cracks pose safety and operational concerns for the plant’s current power production. We request that the condition of the steam dryer be fully evaluated, using the techniques of the most recent inspection and any other appropriate means, as the NRC considers Entergy Nuclear's request to produce an additional 100 megawatts of power from Vermont Yankee. We understand that these cracks were discovered through the use of enhanced visual inspection techniques. As you know, these cracks are in addition to some 18 cracks, both hairline and larger, that were discovered through visual inspections of the plant’s steam dryer in April and May of 2004. Steam dryer cracking is of concern at many boiling water reactor facilities. We know that cracking problems have persisted at the Quad Cities facilities’ steam dryers, despite repeated fixes, and that uprated power conditions at those facilities place additional stresses on dryer performance. While the steam dryer itself is not a safety-related piece of equipment, its proper functioning is important to the plant’s safe and reliable operation. Steam dryer cracking could result in pieces breaking off, and falling back into the steam lines that lead out of the reactor. In the case of the Quad Cities reactors, these plants have been forced to shut down because of cracking, making their operation less reliable. As the NRC reviews the Vermont Yankee power uprate request, we believe it is essential that our constituents receive needed information about whether the plant’s steam dryer will be able to withstand boosted power conditions and operate safely and reliably. The functioning of this piece of equipment should receive the Commission’s full and thorough attention during the review of the uprate application. We look forward to a prompt reply. Sincerely, (Signatures of Sens. Jeffords and Leahy, Reps. Sanders and Olver) -------- washington Congress requires quarterly reports on Hanford waste treatment plant 11/10/2005, 11:30 p.m. PT The Associated Press http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/washingtonstate/index.ssf?/base/news-16/113167284312700.xml&storylist=orwashington RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) — The U.S. Department of Energy will be required to make progress reports to Congress four times a year on its efforts to build a waste-treatment plant at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation, according to a new report. The so-called vitrification plant is being built to convert millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste — the remnants of decades of plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal — into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository. However, a report last year found that the Energy Department had underestimated the impact a large earthquake could have on the plant. That report and other construction problems have resulted in significant delays and skyrocketing construction costs, and the agency halted construction on large portions of the plant earlier this year. The department has repeatedly refused to release a new cost estimate for the plant, already tagged at more than $5.8 billion. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman notified a House committee by letter Tuesday that the estimated cost to build and test the plant is expected to increase more than 25 percent. The work also will take longer to complete, Bodman said. The letter fulfilled a requirement in the 2003 defense authorization act that the Energy Department notify Congress if a major project's cost estimate increases more than 25 percent. It was the most information the department has so far released on the plant's rising cost. The plant was expected to cost $4.3 billion when the contract was initially awarded in 2000. The cost had grown more than 30 percent before the latest problems were uncovered. Congress now is requiring the department to give a full report by Dec. 1 "on actions taken to rectify the management failures" at the vitrification plant. Quarterly reports will be due to the House and Senate appropriations committees beginning Jan. 1, 2006. A House-Senate committee approved the new reporting requirements as part of the 2006 Hanford budget, which has yet to go to the full House and Senate for a vote. The budget cuts funding for the waste treatment plant from $690 million to $526 million for fiscal 2006. The committee report blamed the latest cost increase on contractor estimating problems, technical problems and "insufficient project contingency." "It is unclear what steps DOE will take to better ensure effective management and oversight of the project in the longer term," the report said. "The high-level waste vitrification program at Hanford has had a long history of failure — more than $9 billion has been spent over the last 15 years," the committee report said in criticism leveled at the Energy Department. About 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste is stewing in 177 underground tanks at the Hanford site, which was created as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Some of the tanks are suspected of having leaked into the aquifer, threatening the Columbia River less than 10 miles away and making removal of the waste a top priority. -------- MILITARY -------- africa U.N. patrols curtailed between Ethiopia, Eritrea 10 Nov 2005 15:29:01 GMT Source: Reuters By Tsegaye Tadesse http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10738760.htm ADDIS ABABA, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Restrictions on U.N. troops patrolling the potentially volatile border between Ethiopia and Eritrea have increased with more reported movements of soldiers on both sides, a U.N. spokeswoman said on Thursday. Military manoeuvres involving troops, tanks and air defence missiles on both sides of the unmarked 1,000 km (620 mile) frontier in recent weeks have fuelled fears of a repeat of the two nations' 1998-2000 border war that killed 70,000 people. U.N. spokeswoman Gail Bindley-Taylor-Sainte told reporters U.N. night patrols along a temporary security zone (TSZ) between the two countries had been "curtailed" in the past week. The United Nations' peacekeeping mission, known as UNMEE, says an Eritrean ban on U.N. helicopter flights over its territory has reduced its ability to monitor the border by more than half. "The ban imposed by the Eritrean government on UNMEE helicopters is still in place and restrictions on the movements of UNMEE personnel and vehicles inside TSZ in Sector Center and Sector West have been increased considerably," Bindley-Taylor-Sainte said. She said the situation in the 25 km-wide buffer zone remained "tense and potentially volatile during the past week, with troops movements continuing to be reported on both Ethiopian and Eritrean sides". Ethiopia had moved soldiers to the area "for exercise", while Eritrea has moved its militia "to help with harvesting", she said. Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said on Wednesday his country was unlikely to stage a repeat of its war with Eritrea. "I can assure (the Eritrean people) that no provocation on the part of the leadership in Asmara, short of full-scale invasion, is going to be reciprocated by Ethiopia," he said. Eritrea has grown increasingly frustrated at the United Nations' failure to pressure Ethiopia to implement a ruling by an independent boundary commission. Under a 2000 peace deal, both sides agreed to accept the commission decision as "final and binding". But when the commission made its ruling, awarding the flashpoint town of Badme to Eritrea, Ethiopia rejected the decision. -------- chemical weapons Chemical weapons used in Iraq November 10, 2005 Rama Schneider Vermont Times Argus http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051110/RTD/51110005 Among the many lies told us by the Bush administration in the run up to invading Iraq was one regarding that nation providing a home for militant religious fundamentalist such as Abu Musab Zarqawi. While that was false at the time the Bush administration's pitiful performance has made it a self fulfilling prophecy, and today we see Zarqawi and his followers slaughtering Iraqi civilians on a daily basis. The most extensive lies, however, were those dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ... nuclear, chemical and biological. The Bush administration has also achieved self fulfillment on at least two of those three: nuclear in the form of depleted uranium tipped munitions liberally used by our military, and now verified use of chemical munitions. There can be no refuting the fact that white phosphorous shells were used as antipersonnel weapons last year by the US military in Fallujah. The magazine Field Artillery "is a bimonthly magazine published by the US Army Field Artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma". In The Fight for Fallujah (FA, Mar-Apr, '05) we read '[White Phosphorous] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.' There is no doubt of any type. What is white phosphorous? According to the US Center for Disease Control "White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death. White phosphorus has been found in at least 77 of the 1,416 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." In short it kills by exposure, and it kills by chemical (as opposed to heat or blast) means. When used as an antipersonnel weapon it is most definitely a lethal chemical weapon. Recently an Italian public television station broadcast short documentary on this subject, and they've made an english version freely available on the internet ... click here. (I suggest a fast connection ... it's about 40mb.) I warn you ... some of the video is graphic in a very disturbing way, and the victims include infants and other civilians ... and the evidence of chemical caused death is plain. Just how dehumanized are we willing to make ourselves? (Credit for locating the Field Artillery information goes to the Daily Kos blog and all the folks who helped them.) -------- spies Soviet Spy Chief Is Back -- on a Pedestal A bust of secret police head Felix Dzerzhinsky goes up, drawing flowers and insults. A full-body statue was toppled by angry crowds in 1991. By Kim Murphy Los Angeles Times Staff Writer November 10, 2005 http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes910.html MOSCOW — He was the founder of the secret police at a time when the word police meant terror. Hundreds of thousands of Russians disappeared into interrogation stations and prison camps of the feared Cheka and its successors, never to emerge alive. Not surprisingly, as the Soviet Union was collapsing in 1991, the bronze statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky that towered for years outside KGB headquarters was among the first Soviet relics to go, pulled down by the crowds and eventually hauled off to a statue garden. But in another sign of Russia's growing flirtation with its turbulent past, "Iron Felix" reappeared in central Moscow this week. Without fanfare or advance notice, the Cheka founder's stern bronze visage was quietly re-erected Tuesday morning at the headquarters of the Interior Ministry, the nation's primary police agency. It was not the huge, full-body statue that once stood in nearby Lubyanka Square, to be sure; it was a bust. But the receding hairline, flowing mustache and steely eyes were eerily familiar from the Soviet history books. So was the message of the upraised sword engraved in the granite below it. By Wednesday afternoon, a carpet of red carnations had been strewn at its base. For much of the last decade, Russia has seen the dark side of the Soviet past — the stifling political climate, the gulag camps, the lines at the food shops — fade into memory amid the failed promises of a market economy. The Cheka was disbanded in 1922, after about four years, but many old enough to remember its successors such as the KGB also talk fondly of a nation that was educated, fed, reasonably healthy and a superpower. Today, what with stark disparities in wealth, pervasive crime, rampant alcoholism, widespread corruption and persistent terrorism, and with the nation's influence in the world a shadow of what it once was, many Russians applauded President Vladimir V. Putin this year when he declared that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." For many, even the feared Dzerzhinsky recalls an era when a strong state formed a rampart for its citizens. His image's return has been greeted with dark insults along with the flowers, reflecting the same seeming contradiction that characterizes much of today's political debate here. Human rights groups and democracy advocates, who in 2002 gathered more than 100,000 signatures opposed to a proposal to resurrect the original, 16-ton statue that stood in Lubyanka Square, are appealing to the government to remove the bust. In their appeals, they point to the nature of the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counterrevolution and Sabotage, or Cheka, founded under Dzerzhinsky in 1917, which the following year launched the campaign of arrests and executions known as the Red Terror. "We will make our hearts cruel, hard and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood," the Bolshevik newspaper Krasnaya Gazeta said of the campaign at the time. "Law enforcement agencies consider a man … whose name is directly linked with the introduction of arbitrary rule and a system of indiscriminate arrests … who committed mass violations of the law, to be their symbol," Yan Rachinsky of the Memorial human rights organization told Noviye Izvestia newspaper. "And this in fact speaks volumes." Police officials said they were urged by law enforcement veterans to restore the bust, which had been removed shortly after the Soviet collapse. "For a majority of the population he remains a hero with a 'cool head, warm heart and clean hands,' " said Viktor Peshkov, a leading ideologist with the Communist Party, quoting Dzerzhinsky's own recipe for a KGB man. "He is an epitome of justice at its purest, if you wish…. The restoration of the old symbol will help to rebuild the image of our security forces, and will help them … try to live up to their old and true symbology." When advocating the return of the Dzerzhinsky statue three years ago, Moscow Mayor Yuri M. Luzhkov noted that the worst abuses of the secret police followed the Cheka founder's death in 1926. Dzerzhinsky, he said, should be remembered for his campaigns to combat vagrancy, restore railways and improve the economy. "If we put on the scales all the things this man had done, the good will prevail," he said then. Outside the tall iron gates of the Interior Ministry headquarters Wednesday, few were paying attention to the new bust. Yet hardly any passersby were unaware of it, either. "I'm full of indignation. We don't need him, do we?" said Ada Pavlova, a 68-year-old retired design engineer. "A lot of people were repressed. My grandfather was a well-to-do farmer. He was put in prison for 10 years in 1937. He died of starvation in 1942, when he was younger than I am. "I support Vladimir Putin, please write that down," Pavlova said. "There must be minimal order in the country. But we should say goodbye to that epoch." Meanwhile, Alexander Nikolayev, a 60-year-old retired police colonel, placed several flowers at the foot of the bust, then stood back and quietly saluted it. "Dzerzhinsky was my teacher," he said. "I built my life according to his ideology: justice, faith in the future, the upbringing of children, the building of the family of the state. The flowers are a tribute to those who brought him back." Times staff writer Sergei L. Loiko contributed to this report. -------- war crimes U.S. war crimes in Iraq 2005-11-10 11:12:12 http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/11/10/4213.shtml America’s justification for invading Iraq(that Saddam Hussein is a dictator who committed hideous crimes against humanity and violated international law with his alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and is thus poses a great threat to the world) seems ironic in light of the U.S. crimes and massacres since the occupation began in March 2003. It's true Saddam Hussein is viewed by many of his population as a tyrant, dictator and may be a criminal; but the U.S. record in Iraq is even more disgraceful and inhuman if not downright criminal. There are three sets of questions regarding possible U.S. war crimes in Iraq. First set of questions involves the legality of Iraq war in the first place according to international law. Shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq on March 20 2003, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the UN Charter is "very clear on the circumstances under which force can be used. If the U.S. and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter." He made it clear that attacking Iraq was "not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter part of view, it was illegal." Second set of questions concerns the possible illegality of Iraq war and the U.S. Army’s behaviour there. Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has called on holding accountable those guilty of violating international humanitarian rights laws-including deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, killing of injured persons "be they members of the Multinational Force or insurgents." Weaponry used by the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq, including cluster bombs and depleted uranium, is in itself illegal. Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions it is considered a crime launching "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Cluster bombs are described by the UN as "weapons of indiscriminate effects." A reporter for the British daily The Mirror wrote from a hospital in Hillah, "Among the 168 patients I counted, not one was being treated for bullet wounds. All of them, men, women, children, bore the wounds of bomb shrapnel. It peppered their bodies. Blackened their skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reported that 'All the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs'...The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside." Third set of questions deals with sexually abusing and torturing detainees held in U.S. custody, the clearest U.S. violation of the rules of war. Despite the appalling pictures that had been released by numerous media outlets depicting the horrific acts of the American guards at Abu Ghraib prison near the Iraqi capital, the issue remained unresolved and only few low-ranking soldiers were charged in the scandal. Bottom line- America has some questions to answer regarding its actions, crimes to be precise, in Iraq, questions that absolutely won’t be answered by launching another aggression elsewhere in the Middle East. Adapted from Introduction to “IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY: AMERICAN WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ AND BEYOND” -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence The Patriot Act: Business Balks It's joining critics who seek to curb the law's wide-ranging investigative powers. And Capitol Hill is listening NOVEMBER 10, 2005 By Richard S. Dunham BusinessWeek http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051110_9709_db016.htm Las Vegas Mayor Oscar B. Goodman loves to remind visitors of Sin City's oh-so-discreet tagline: "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." But since the New Year's celebrations ringing in 2004, he has had to modify the motto. Fearing a terrorist attack, the FBI descended on casinos, car rental agencies, storage warehouses, and other Las Vegas businesses with sheaves of "national security letters" demanding financial records covering about 1 million revelers. Startled business owners who questioned the action were told they had one choice: cough up their documents or wind up in court. Now, a somber Mayor Goodman acknowledges, what happens in Vegas may end up staying in an FBI computer. "It's Kafkaesque," he says. "The central component to our economy is privacy protection. People are here to have a good time and don't want to worry about the government knowing their business." STRANGE COALITION. The FBI carried out its document hunt under the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed hurriedly in the aftermath of September 11. The act allows investigators to demand that businesses turn over sensitive financial records, without specifying the investigation's target or why the files are needed. The outfit receiving a letter is permanently gagged, prohibited by law from ever disclosing that the feds came calling. Indeed, the statute is silent on whether company officials who receive an order can call a lawyer or appeal to a judge -- although the Justice Dept. says it always allows businesses to seek legal recourse, behind closed doors and without the person appealing present. "Businesses want to cooperate in the war on terrorism, but this type of unchecked government power goes a little over the line," says Bob Shepler, director of corporate finance at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). With most provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at yearend, the Administration has been urging Congress to make its temporary police powers permanent. But an odd coalition is trying to scale back the government's reach -- and it may be making headway. On Nov. 9, word came from Capitol Hill that the rising chorus of civil liberties complaints could produce a deal to temper some of the law's more intrusive features. THOUSANDS OF LETTERS. If that happens, corporate interests can notch up part of the victory to savvy lobbying. Concerned about the circumvention of due process guarantees -- and about hefty compliance costs -- a half-dozen prominent business groups have joined with the American Civil Liberties Union to push Congress to narrow the law's scope. What's surprising in today's with-me-or-against-me Washington is that the coalition includes such Bush allies as NAM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Realtors. "These are not groups that normally take on this Administration," says Susan Hackett, general counsel of the Association of Corporate Counsel, a coalition member that represents companies' in-house lawyers. "People in the business community clearly are worried." Administration officials insist they haven't overreached. "The Patriot Act allows us to get a very limited set of records," contends one Justice official. "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions, and courts are loath to do so." Department officials say that judges have granted them access to business records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act just 35 times in the first 3 1/2 years of the law, adding that those orders involved only data on driver's licenses, public accommodations, apartment leases, credit cards, and telephone use. DATA LEAKS? But Justice also enjoys broader clout under the Act's Section 505 -- an expansion of national security letters, issued without a court order. Since 2001 the feds have served as many as 30,000 letters a year, according to Administration sources and civil libertarians. Despite the volume of requests, one Justice official says: "There has not been a single verified abuse of any Patriot Act authority." Still, corporate lobbyists and business groups are increasingly concerned about the law's cost and potential for abuse. The business alliance spelled out its reform agenda in an Oct. 4 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). The groups argue that the Patriot Act's Sections 215 and 505 "allow the federal government to require voluminous and often sensitive records...without [public] judicial oversight or other meaningful checks on the government's power." They say that compliance with the demands puts confidential financial data, trade secrets, and other proprietary information at risk. Another concern: the fear that multinationals could land in legal trouble abroad -- particularly in Europe -- for violating stringent privacy laws there if they comply with U.S. government demands for financial records. "EXTREMELY BROAD." The businesses with the most at risk are real estate agents, car dealers, casinos, jewelers, boat dealers, travel agencies, insurance brokers, Internet service providers, and pawnbrokers -- all deemed to be financial institutions under a broad definition approved by Congress in 2003. "Our customers must be comfortable that sensitive financial information will remain confidential," says Tom Heinemann, a policy analyst at the Realtors' association. "Our industry wants to make sure that there are appropriate checks and balances in place to protect access to those kinds of records." What's more, the business groups contend that the Patriot Act, as written, gives the feds carte blanche to rifle through corporate records. One worry: Like police searching a car trunk after a traffic stop, the feds could discover evidence of unrelated crimes or securities law breaches when they rummage through business records. "The sweep of government power is extremely broad," says Lisa Graves, senior counsel at the ACLU. "When you've got a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." Business groups say they already are getting pounded. They argue in their Oct. 4 letter that the law "does not impose any limit on the breadth of records" demanded by federal agents, and they are seeking "a meaningful right to challenge the order when the order is unreasonable, oppressive, or seeks privileged [business] information." The coalition has urged Congress to give companies the right to seek court permission to lift the act's lifetime gag orders, an idea that may be taking hold. DEAF EARS. Few of these complaints are registering with the usually business-friendly Bush Administration. The Justice Dept. says that business has all the protections it needs. "There are sufficient safeguards that many choose to ignore," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee at an April hearing. Among those: a right to appeal to a secret court and a limited right to counsel to comply with or challenge an order. Gonzales now favors including those guarantees in the rewritten Patriot Act, which will be finalized by House and Senate negotiators scheduled to meet for the first time on Nov. 10. But Gonzales is likely to be disappointed by many of the other provisions negotiators are now hammering out. Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would allow a judge to modify an FBI order that was deemed unreasonably burdensome on a business. And on Nov. 9, the House directed its team to accept Senate-passed provisions setting a four-year sunset clause on many of the Patriot Act's key provisions, despite Administration opposition. In final negotiations, the Senate is pushing its House counterparts to incorporate most of the safeguards sought by commercial interests. One big victory for the corporate coalition came on Nov. 9 when House negotiators agreed to permit businesses or individuals to seek judicial review of national security letters. Senate leaders believe they have an agreement on another top business concern: limiting the power of law enforcement to keep company records on file forever. A tentative deal would require investigators to return or destroy lists they've obtained, such as those covering airline passengers or casino customers, if the terror tip turns out to be a dud. FRAYED TIES. Less certain is the fate of a Senate-passed requirement that the FBI link the specific records that it's seeking to a specific suspect. The Administration is fighting to maintain its current power. The changes sought by business "are overly complex and will lead to litigation difficulties [in pursuing terrorist suspects] because it will require the courts to engage in a more complicated legal review," one senior Administration official argues. As BusinessWeek went to press on Nov. 9, congressional leadership sources said that no final deal had been cut on the sensitive issue. In one area, business appears to be losing: Neither version addresses corporate concerns about exposing trade secrets or breaching customer privacy. Corporate reps in Washington acknowledge that they had qualms about the Patriot Act from the start but say they didn't want to speak out against the key legislative underpinning of the war on terrorism immediately after September 11. But with George W. Bush's approval rating now hovering below 40%, Hill Republicans may have decided that it's wiser to stand up for their corporate donors than to stick with their embattled President. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News Thursday, November 10, 2005 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C635160132%2C00.html The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes. As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says. Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' " In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments: • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job." • No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says. • WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says. • With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon." • Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says. • Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says. • Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says. • Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says. Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding." Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September. Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero. E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com -------- propaganda wars Review: The Oil Factor The Oil Factor tried to be two movies at once: is this movie about war crimes or geopolitics? By Ryan McGreal Nov. 10, 2005 http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=193 The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror On September 23, Trevor Shaw and I headed down to the old Sky Dragon Centre on King Street (upstairs from Infusions) for a screening of The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror, a documentary that investigates the real motives for America's imperial adventures abroad. Unfortunately, The Oil Factor tried to be two movies at once: it tried simultaneously to report the violence, abuses, and atrocities the United States has committed in Iraq and elsewhere, and also to explain America's real motive there: securing control of mideast oil. I found myself asking: is this movie about war crimes or geopolitics? As a result, the movie felt muddled, torn between conflicting goals. Yes, the two are tied together, since the way America prosecutes its "war on terror" reflects the underlying dishonesty in its supposed campaign to "spread democracy", but the medium of film just doesn't provide the scope to tackle such a large connection. Even so, the movie was over-long, dragging in places across long montages of grainy military footage that did little to advance either plot. After a slow start, The Oil Factor finally delved into America's geopolitical interests in the middle east, surveying foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Project for a New American Century chairman Gary Schmidt, who sounded grasping and insincere in his insistence that "the American public quickly joined the President in his judgment" on Iraq's threat, and a host of other analysts, including Jane's researcher David Mulholland, retired Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who resigned in disgust after she watched the neoconservative movement take over the reins of the US military, and Noam Chomsky among others. The movie makes a compelling case that the supply of oil, long considered a strategic resource by the US military, is under threat from a near-term global production peak, and that the US is positioning its military to maintain control over oil supplies when production begins to dwindle. If the movie had stuck to the geopolitical argument, the result would likely be a tighter, more fast-paced documentary. I can understand the director's desire to report America's war crimes as well; the sequence on America's heavy use of depleted uranium - internationally recognized as a prohibited weapon of mass destruction - is particularly horrifying. However, such an important matter deserves its own film. The Oil Factor is worth watching for its accessible case that American foreign policy is driven by old-fashioned resource imperialism, but a more focussed approach would have produced a tighter, more compelling film. For more information, visit the website: http://www.theoilfactor.com/. -------- us politics Look Who's Joined the Antiwar Chorus Military and intelligence officials call for withdrawal by Kevin B. Zeese November 10, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zeese.php?articleid=7976 While Cindy Sheehan has deservedly gotten a lot of attention for reawakening the antiwar movement with her allies from veteran and military family organizations, the most interesting thing about the opposition to the Iraq war is that it includes former military leaders, national security and intelligence officials, and foreign service officers. Thus the Iraq war is opposed by those who generally support U.S. foreign and military affairs. In fact, in March 2003, shortly before the war began, hundreds of retired military officers wrote President Bush requesting a meeting before a final decision was made to invade. They expressed grave concerns about a war with Iraq. Their letter foretold the future, saying: "[W]e strongly question the need for a war at this time. Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's report to the Security Council and the testimony of others in the administration, we are not convinced that coercive containment has failed, or that war has become necessary. "Our own intelligence agencies have consistently noted both the absence of an imminent threat from Iraq and reliable evidence of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Again, we question whether this is the right time and the right war. "Further, we believe the risks involved in going to war, under the unclear and shifting circumstances that confront us today, are far greater than those faced in 1991. Instead of a desert war to liberate Kuwait, combat would likely involve protracted siege warfare, chaotic street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, and Iraqi civil conflict. If that occurs, we fear our own nation and Iraq would both suffer casualties not witnessed since Vietnam. We fear the resulting carnage and humanitarian consequences would further devastate Iraqi society and inflame an already volatile Middle East, and increase terrorism against U.S. citizens." President Bush and his advisers ignored their request. Now that we are three years into the war, more and more military, national security, and intelligence leaders are speaking out. Some examples: Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and deputy to Henry Kissinger in the Nixon administration, argued in 2002, "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." Weeks before the 2004 presidential election, he described the Iraq war as a "failing venture," President George W. Bush as being "mesmerized" by Ariel Sharon, and his unilateralist policy as undermining relations with U.S. allies. Scowcroft was a strong advocate for the Gulf War to remove Saddam from Kuwait, but during that war he opposed invading Iraq and removing Saddam: "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land. Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don't like the term 'exit strategy' – but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?" Recently, The New Yorker reported Scowcroft saying, "This is exactly where we are now. We own it. And we can't let go." General William Odom (ret.), former head of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, recently wrote an article, "What's Wrong with Cutting and Running?," in which he persuasively argued that the war is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden, the Iranians, and extremists in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. According to Odom, all that we fear could go wrong if we "cut and run" is actually made more likely by our staying in Iraq. He argues the first step is to admit that entering Iraq was a mistake. In June, John Deutch, who headed the Central Intelligence Agency 1995-1996 and was deputy defense secretary 1994-1995, called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately. "Those who argue that we should 'stay the course' because an early withdrawal … would hurt America's global credibility must consider the possibility that we will fail in our objectives in Iraq and suffer an even worse loss of credibility down the road." He also wrote, "I do not believe that we are making progress on any of our key objectives in Iraq," adding that even when the Iraqi government appears to be functioning, "the underlying destabilizing effect of the insurgency is undiminished." "Our best strategy now is a prompt withdrawal plan consisting of clearly defined political, military, and economic elements. Politically, the United States should declare its intention to remove its troops and urge the Iraqi government and its neighbors to recognize the common regional interest in allowing Iraq to evolve peacefully and without external intervention." In a speech at Harvard, Deutch identified five steps to disengagement in Iraq: letting Iraqis make their own political decisions, adopting a clear exit strategy and timetable, beginning the military withdrawal, establishing regional diplomacy to discourage external intervention in Iraq, and continued training of Iraqi forces. Last month, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, described President George W. Bush's foreign policy as "suicidal statecraft" in a Los Angeles Times commentary. "America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming 'I will stay the course' is an exercise in catastrophic leadership." Brzezinski urged the Bush administration to seek a bipartisan solution, arguing that under such circumstances "it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out – perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shi'ites, Kurds, and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail." Melvin Laird, secretary of defense for President Richard Nixon, has also called for an exit strategy from Iraq because the Bush administration is repeating mistakes made by Nixon during the Vietnam War. He has a lengthy article in the November/December edition of Foreign Affairs comparing the "Vietnamization" program in which American troops were withdrawn from Vietnam with the current war in Iraq: "We need to put our resources and unwavering public support behind a program of 'Iraqization' so that we can get out of Iraq and leave the Iraqis in a position to protect themselves. … Our presence is what feeds the [Iraqi] insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and a retired Army colonel, in a speech to the New America Foundation accused Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld of leading a "cabal" that circumvented the formal policymaking and intelligence processes in order to take the country to war in Iraq. In a Los Angeles Times commentary, he wrote, "Today, we have a president whose approval rating is 38 percent and a vice president who speaks only to Rush Limbaugh and assembled military forces. We have a secretary of defense presiding over the death-by-a-thousand-cuts of our overstretched armed forces (no surprise to ignored dissenters such as former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki or former Army Secretary Thomas White). "It's a disaster. Given the choice, I'd choose a frustrating bureaucracy over an efficient cabal every time." Wilkerson, while not calling for immediate withdrawal, was also critical of Capitol Hill in his speech to the New America Foundation: "[T]he people's representatives over on the Hill in that other branch of government have truly abandoned their oversight responsibilities in this regard and have let things atrophy to the point that if we don't do something about it, it's going to get – it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is." Gen. Joseph P. Hoar is a retired four-star general, led the U.S. Central Command (1991-94), and commanded U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in May 2004, he said, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss. We cannot start soon enough to begin the turnaround." Before the Center for American Progress on Sept. 13, 2005, he criticized the Iraq war as "wrong from the beginning, and so as is often the case, it's very hard to make it right once you start down the wrong road. I'm not at all optimistic about the outcome. I think part of the reason is that our leadership – civilian leadership – has got it wrong." Gen. Hoar also warned of the potential for expansion of the conflict, arguing that "the Defense Department not only needs to think about disengaging in Iraq, but to develop the contingency plans if you wind up with a full-scale insurgency in, say, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or if these people redouble the efforts of Hezbollah and Hamas in Israel." Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (ret.) has called Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong time," and, "As a result, terrorists are free to act at will on a worldwide basis while the U.S. searches for a way out of the Iraqi morass and while most of the rest of the world watches from the sidelines." One lesson we should take from Iraq, he says, is that "military power does not automatically translate into political and economic stability." Vice Admiral Shanahan and Gen. Hoar were part of a group of 29 military leaders who criticized the conduct of the Iraq war when they wrote Sen. John McCain on Oct. 3, 2005 urging a clear policy forbidding torture of detainees: "The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations." Edward Peck, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan's terrorist task force who served in World War II and Korea and then for 32 years as a diplomat, has described the Iraq war as "unnecessary, poorly conceived, and badly planned." He is critical of the U.S. for "installing" a democracy because such a democracy is doomed to fail: "You cannot impose democracy. That's a dictatorship. Whatever you come up with is not a democracy because they have been coerced." The views of these elite of military, intelligence, and foreign service veterans is buttressed by soldiers and commanders on the ground in Iraq. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 5, "President Bush worries that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq too quickly will embolden the insurgents there. A growing number of military commanders and civilian policymakers are voicing the opposite concern: They fear the large U.S. troop presence is actually helping feed the insurgency and stunting Iraq's political growth." Other returning soldiers have detailed atrocities, and some have refused to return to Iraq – even when threatened with incarceration. The opposition to the Iraq war is broad and deep among those with expertise in military and intelligence matters. Indeed, their opposition reflects the views of most Americans, a growing majority of whom oppose the occupation. Will the political leadership of either party respect the views of the American public and end this debacle? -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Ethanol fuelling the future for public transport: experts Nov 10, 2005 STOCKHOLM (AFP) http://www.terradaily.com/2005/051110140923.6gpletco.html Cities choking in petrol and diesel fumes should follow Sweden's example and look to ethanol to fuel their buses, experts at a conference in Stockholm on environmentally-friendly vehicles and fuels said on Thursday. "Ethanol today clearly has the biggest potential for clean buses," said Jonas Stroemberg of Stockholm Transport, SL, which runs public transportation throughout the county of Stockholm. Speaking on the last day of the three-day "Clean Vehicles and Fuels" conference, which has focused on global warming and efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, Stroemberg raved about Sweden's experiences with ethanol-run buses. "It's not difficult at all (to switch to ethanol). You just have to start doing it", he insisted. Sweden today has the world's largest ethanol bus fleet. Last year, 253 buses ran on ethanol, an alcohol made of wheat, beetroot, corn or sugar cane, and next year the number is expected to jump to 400. Switching to clean fuel is becoming a growing priority in Europe, where the European Union recently issued a directive urging governments to promote biofuels and other renewable energy sources for transportation as replacements for petrol and diesel. The EU has set a 2005 consumption target of two percent, but Sweden, a front-runner in the field, has decided to take the bull by the horns and set a goal of three percent. In the county of Stockholm, where about 70 percent of the two million inhabitants use the massive public transportation system, purifying the exhaust from buses is a major goal. "We have tested almost every alternative energy and fuel source there is," Stroemberg said. SL is using bio gas, a clean energy source made up of organic waste, in a number of its buses, but has found that the gas so far is not available in large quantities and that shifting to the new fuel source entails very expensive infrastructure costs. Tests using hydrogen fuel cells, which offer no polluting emissions at all, also showed a lack of existing infrastructure and it proved difficult to find supplies of the spare parts needed. Georg Feltz, a representative of the city of Luxemburg, also told the conference that city experiments with buses using batteries had come to naught after suppliers stopped producing vital parts needed to run the vehicles. "The buses had to be taken out of service and garaged," he said. Ethanol is on the other hand widely available, entails minimal extra costs and, most importantly, is a liquid fuel so infrastructure at fueling stations can remain largely unchanged, Stroemberg said. "You have to secure your supply of fuels and these fuels should preferably be renewable ... We need to do this as cheaply as possible. We can't afford a lot of strange and experimental solutions," he told AFP after his talk. By next year, Stockholm expects 25 percent of its buses to run on renewable fuels. By 2011, the number should be 50 percent, and by 2030 the county hopes that 100 percent of its buses will run on renewable fuels. Fueling on ethanol could also help Sweden shake off its dependency on foreign oil. "When it comes to production and imports of biofuels, we are ahead" in Europe, he said. Only Brazil and some states in the US are ahead of us," Martin Larsson, a Swedish environment ministry secretary, told AFP on the sidelines of the meeting. The Scandinavian country produces 25 percent of its ethanol consumption at three plants, while the remaining 75 percent is imported mainly from Brazil. ---- Nepal, Bhutan have potentials to produce 110,000 mw hydropower November 10, 2005 The News Today (Bangladesh) http://www.newstoday-bd.com/frontpage.asp?newsdate=11/10/2005 SAARC members can solve energy shortage thru cooperation The four countries of South Asia - Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Bhutan could solve their long run energy problem through cooperation by taking some actions, reports BSS. Diversifying their traditional energy supplies, bring reform and privatising energy sectors, promoting foreign investment for expansion of hydro-power and increasing hydroelectricity trade among them through cooperation would help solve problem, say experts. The region could develop large-scale hydropower as an industry. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have encouraged liberalisation of South Asian power sector, including reduction of subsidies. They (banks) have announced their willingness to provide financial support for the construction of hydroelectric dams in the region. Many Himalayan rivers cross through the mountains of Nepal and Bhutan and move through the large plains of India and Bangladesh. These rivers are blessings as well as curses for the four countries. It is a blessing, if water resources are exploited and it becomes curse when the water resources are not developed. All the countries in South Asia are facing chronic shortages of electric power. The demand is much higher than supply. South Asia is an important energy market with over 1.4 billion people - which is more than one-fifth of the world''s population. In recent years, economic and population growth in South Asia resulted in rapid increase in energy consumption. These countries are now faced with rapidly growing energy demand. Experts say Nepal could reconsider reviving the old proposal to construct a dam in Koshi River near the deep mountain gorge at Barahkshetra. The proposed 269 metre-high Koshi Dam would be the world''s second highest dam generating 3,000-mw of hydro-electricity. This will solve triple problems: Shortage of water and hydroelectricity in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, annual flooding in plains of Bihar and Bangladesh, and reduce salinity in Bangladesh. Nepal is rich in water resources with a potential to produce about 83,000 mw. And out of this, the untapped hydroelectric potential is estimated at 43,000 mw. The Himalayan Kingdom has so far generated less than 600mw of hydropower, which is below two per cent of untapped potential resources. It meets electricity demand of only 40 per cent of the population while the remaining 60 per cent live without electricity. Bhutan''s hydropower potential is estimated to be 30,000 mw. It is the dominant source of commercial energy and generates 45 per cent of the government''s revenue. Through a partnership with two Indian power companies, Bhutan is generating 1,020 mw from Tala hydropower project. Establishment of a regional Grid Station connecting India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan could have improved reliability of power supply, reduce electricity costs, and attract foreign investment, experts opined. The four countries will be prosperous by creating a regional power grid by pooling their energy resources, they maintain. It would also create investment opportunities for Western companies. In 2002, South Asia generated 642 billion kilowatt hours (Bkwh) of electricity. Of this, about 81 per cent was from conventional thermal power plants (coal and diesel run), 16 per cent from hydroelectric plants, three per cent from nuclear and less than one per cent from renewable energy (solar and wind). Of them, India generated 85 per cent, followed by Pakistan -10 per cent, Bangladesh - three percent, Sri Lanka-one per cent and the remaining one per cent by Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), South Asia''s primary energy consumption has increased about 64 per cent between 1992 and 2002. The region imports 2.0 million barrel of oil each day, and much of it is used to produce electricity. India produces huge power from coal, natural gas, petroleum products and hydroelectricity. Most of the power is made using coal and natural gas and 12 per cent from hydroelectric plants and only three per cent from nuclear energy. The current power supply meets only 70 per cent of India''s total requirements and the country faces a serious power supply problem. The Indian government has a long-term plan to expand country''s hydropower capacity by adding 100,000-mw over the next 10 years. But it looks difficult to meet this target. Bangladesh produces power from thermal plants (natural gas and petroleum products) and very little from hydropower. Its power demand has increased by over 60 per cent from 1992 to 2002. The country has an ambitious plan to double its power generating capacity at a total cost of almost $ 4.5 billion. Hydroelectricity is expected to fuel the development process, primarily in Nepal and Bhutan. These two countries have large potentials of hydropower generation, which have remained untapped. Nepal is keen to harvest ''hydro- dollar'' for the country''s development through electricity exports to power- hungry neighbours India and Bangladesh. Hydroelectric power is cheaper and less polluting than thermo-nuclear power. As shown by studies, the production cost of hydropower is less than one-third that of coal or nuclear. Furthermore, the operational and maintenance costs are lower as compared to the costs of other forms of power generation. -------- OTHER -------- environment House Leadership Strips Arctic Drilling From Budget Bill November 10, 2005 WASHINGTON, DC, (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-10-04.asp House Republican leaders decided late last night to drop authorization for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from a $54 billion deficit reduction bill. The policy reversal was prompted by moderate Republican House members who told the leadership in a letter that the refuge is of greater benefit to the nation if it remains pristine than if it is opened to oil and gas exploration. “There will be no drilling in ANWR,” said New Hampshire Republican Congressman Charles Bass who authored the letter. “I conveyed the moderate Republicans’ concern with this provision to the leadership, that message was heard, and this damaging language has been stripped from the bill.” As reported out of the House Budget Committee, language included in the Deficit Reduction Act would have allowed part of this refuge to be leased out to oil and gasoline companies to drill for oil and natural gas. Bass’ letter was signed by 25 like-minded moderate Republican members of Congress after he began circulating it through the House last Friday. Bass then presented this letter to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert of Illinois, Majority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Committee on Rules Chairman David Dreier at last night’s weekly leadership meeting. His effort resulted in an agreement with the Republican leadership to remove the provision to permit oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) from the bill. “The critical value of this Refuge to the arctic and sub-arctic wildlife is undeniable,” wrote Bass in the letter. “Rather then reversing decades of protection for this publicly held land, focusing greater attention on renewa