NucNews - November 12, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- africa South Africa banks on new family of nuclear reactors Cutting-edge technology may soon be used to help to lift millions out of poverty By Angela Jameson November 12, 2005 UK Times http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9078-1868262,00.html A TELEVISION and an iron are the first domestic appliances that poor black South African families buy when they first receive electricity. Fridges are deemed a luxury in a country where many cannot afford the 65 rand (£5) that it costs to connect a shanty town house to the national grid. For those families that are able to connect to the grid, there is then the very real question of whether the lights might go out. Recent power cuts in and around Johannesburg have underlined the precarious nature of the country’s electricity supply. Demand for electricity in South Africa is increasing at a rate of 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent a year and the republic is close to exhausting its capacity to meet its energy needs from domestic sources. Even though 40 per cent of the population is still not connected to the grid, Eskom, the state-owned electricity generator and supplier, expects to run out of capacity by 2007. Unless South Africa finds new energy resources, power cuts could be come a regular occurrence. As Britain considers whether it should begin building a new generation of nuclear power stations, the South African Government has already made up its mind. It is banking on a new generation of nuclear reactors — which it claims will be much safer, cheaper and more flexible than previous models — to provide up to a quarter of its electricity in years to come. South African ministers have decided to put their weight and more than a billion rand of investment, so far, behind a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), in partnership with British Nuclear Fuels, Eskom and other foreign and domestic investors. This week a fresh round of public meetings on the environmental impact of the project started. So why should a coal-rich country want to start developing nuclear reactors? South Africa’s problem is that transporting power from its minehead power stations, east of Johannesburg, to the Western Cape, costs a fortune. For that reason, South Africa developed the continent’s first nuclear reactor at Koeberg, 30 kilometres (18.6 miles) north of Cape Town. Mounting pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as concerns over security of supply have given fresh momentum to new nuclear generation. A number of ministers have endorsed the PBMR and last month the Government announced significant funding for it. So far it has spent R680 million and has committed itself to a further R580 million during the next three years. "The PBMR project is now factored into our future energy planning and we are negotiating a major intention to purchase agreement between Eskom and the PBMR. This is probably a world first and forms the foundation for further development and industrialisation of this technology," Alec Erwin, the Minister of Public Enterprises, said in April. The authorities are confident that they will see off the latest appeal by Earthlife, South Africa’s version of Greenpeace, and that construction of a demonstration plant at Koeberg and a fuel plant at Pelindaba, near Pretoria, will begin in 2007. Completion of the plant is scheduled for 2010, with commercial output from 2013. Eskom intends to take 4,000 to 5,000 megawatts (MW) of power from PBMR — which eventually would mean 20 to 30 of the reactor modules. PBMR is considered leading-edge among the tight-knit global nuclear industry, and South Africa believes that there is a market for about 75 reactors outside its borders. That could create 56,000 jobs across South Africa and generate R23 billion. The process of getting the technology licensed in the United States has also begun, but the small size of the Pebble Bed reactor means that it is more suitable for developing countries, where grids may not be able to withstand a larger reactor. Thabo Mbeki’s Government has invested a lot of money and expectations in the technology, which it hopes will lift millions out of poverty. Treasury officials are already talking about an eventual listing. Elsewhere in rural South Africa, there are more mundane hopes — not having to switch off the lights to boil the kettle would be nice. -------- depleted uranium Iraq's hazardous waste a health risk: UN Last Updated Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:13:57 EST CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/11/12/iraq-environment051112.html The UN Environment Program report says Iraq has thousands of heavily contaminated sites that pose a danger to the environment and public health. A report by UNEP assesses five environmental "hot spots" that were bombed or looted during the coalition-led war. The report finds all of these locations are contaminated by various toxic compounds, chemicals or pesticides. Four are situated near Baghdad and one near the city of Mosul, potentially putting millions of people at risk. UNEP executive director Klaus Topfer says Iraq has a legacy of contaminated and derelict industrial and military sites. "There are older sites. There is history of contamination, linked with massive neglect of the environment." About $40 million is needed to identify and clean up contaminated sites in Iraq, including $22 million for the construction of a hazardous waste disposal facility, and to enact environmental legislation, according to UNEP. The report says it will take years to investigate the thousands of contaminated sites that exist in Iraq. Among them are 311 sites polluted by depleted uranium. UN staff members aren't allowed to work in Iraq for security reasons, so the project was carried out by Iraqis. More than 30 experts from Iraq were trained abroad in assessment techniques. The UN Environment Program plans to begin cleaning up two of the most contaminated sites in December. -------- india 'Probe into cos. not warranted' Special Correspondent 12/11/2005 The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/2005/11/12/stories/2005111207391500.htm http://story.indiagazette.com/p.x/ct/9/id/4420a8d2db162f90/cid/701ee96610c884a6/ NEW DELHI: The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) on Friday urged the Government and other agencies not to view the 130 Indian companies that conducted business with Iraq under the oil-for-food programme with suspicion by taking the contents of the Volcker Committee report as a proof of wrongdoing, as each and every transaction was transparent and as per the terms of the contract. Addressing a press conference here, chamber chief Anil K. Agarwal expressed surprise that while 2,253 companies from 66 countries that conducted business deals under the UN monitored oil-for-food programme had not at all reacted to the references made by the Committee, a "hue and cry" had been made only in India. Mr. Agarwal said lack of full facts and understanding of the programme could have contributed to avoidable misconceptions, leading to unfair public opinion. The Government should not, therefore, look with suspicion at the track record of these companies, which worked with Iraq under the oil-for-food programme, as this would malign their image and credibility. In the view of Assocham, these companies fully complied with the rules and regulations prescribed by the UN and the Indian laws while signing and executing the contracts, Mr. Agarwal said. Assocham, he said, had set up an Iraq Desk to help and coordinate with industry for providing any further information or clarification required by the authorities. The chamber chief said the contract for supplying food to the Iraqi administration was executed after a detailed and thorough examination by the Security Council Committee and LCs opened by the UN appointed bank, Paribas, in New York. Replying to queries, Mr. Agarwal gave details about the functioning of the UN programme and emphasised that each transaction underwent strict scrutiny and was carried out with full compliance with Indian laws. "There was, therefore, no wrongdoing by Indian companies,'' said Mr. Agarwal. Asserting that the transactions under the programme were accounted with the Reserve Bank of India and no exporter knowingly or unknowingly paid any kickbacks or any commissions to anyone, he questioned the references made against the Indian companies by the Volcker Committee. Mr. Agarwal expressed anguish saying that the matter had been blown out of proportion, which had brought a bad name to the Indian corporate sector. -------- iran A Legal US Nuclear Attack Against Iran The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution By Jorge Hirsch 11/12/05 "AntiWar" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10971.htm On September 24 of this year, the United States finally achieved a goal it had persistently pursued over several years. Iran was declared by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to be in "non compliance" with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The resolution passed by the IAEA is remarkably weak. It does not set a date for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, and it does not even mention the possibility of sanctions. It even notes that Iran has made "good progress" in correcting its "breaches," all of which date back to before October 2003. The LA Times characterized it as a "gentle slap." It is instead an enormous thud. We pointed out before that the probable reason for the U.S. to insist on the passage of such a weak resolution (on the face of opposition by Russia and China to stronger resolutions) was to reach a stalemate in the Security Council that would provide an excuse for U.S. military action, which would necessarily include the use of nuclear weapons against Iran [1], [2], [3]. There is, however, an even stronger reason for the U.S. to have pushed for this resolution so adamantly, a reason which is valid even if Iran is not referred to the Security Council at the forthcoming November 24 meeting or thereafter, and that supports the predicted scenario. The IAEA resolution of September 24 2005 allows the United States to carry out a nuclear attack against Iran "legally." Non-nuclear states have sought for many years that nuclear states issue clear "negative security assurances," meaning a committment from nuclear states not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. No matter how logical such a desire appears to you and me, nuclear states have been notoriously reluctant to make such pledges, especially the United States. The latest such assurances from the five nuclear states date back to 1995, and are the subject of UN Security Council Resolution 984, which was passed with unanimity. The legal status of these assurances is not totally clear, and non-nuclear states have continued to request "legally binding" assurances, implying that the existing assurances are not. In fact, in 2002 John Bolton, then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an interview with "Arms Control Today" explicitly disavowed any U.S. committment to the 1995 resolution. Nevertheless, a case can be made that these assurances are at the very least "politically binding" and may even be "legally binding." The reason is that they were made for the explicit purpose of having the non-nuclear states extend the NPT in 1995. The fact that the non-nuclear states indeed did extend the NPT based on these assurances confers them legally binding character even if it was not so intended originally, according to G. Bunn (1997). The text of the 1995 U.S. negative security assurance (S/1995/263) reads: "The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State." Good news, the U.S. cannot nuke Iran, a party to the NPT? Think again. The paragraph immediately before in the U.S. declaration reads: "It is important that all parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. In that regard, consistent with generally recognised principles of international law, parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be in compliance with these undertakings in order to be eligible for any benefits of adherence to the Treaty." Iran was "in compliance" until September 24th, 2005. Thereafter, the "benefit" of not being subject to nuking no longer applies. An analysis of this qualification of the U.S. negative security assurance declaration and its implications for non-nuclear states has been made by Jean du Preez in 2003 and is consistent with our conclusion. Bolton's statements were made at a time when the US had already been denouncing for several years that Iran was pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the NPT. The detailed analysis of Gordon Prather, however, shows that Iran's 'violations' did not then nor do now amount to "non-compliance." Nevertheless it will be politically very important for the US that the 1995 security assurance is no longer applicable to Iran, and Bolton (now US Ambassador to the UN) will surely emphasize it at the United Nations when the time comes to justify the US action. Iran's protective shield against US nukes, however feeble it was, is no longer. Any "negotiating proposal" of the EU and the US towards Iran will be carefully tailored so that Iran cannot possibly accept it. Irrespective of what happens at the November 24th IAEA meeting, the US plan to nuke Iran will continue moving forward, focused and unrelenting. Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego -------- iraq / inspections Experts: Saddam's Uranium Enough for One Nuke Saturday, Nov. 12, 2005 Newsmax http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml Though President Bush didn't mention it in his speech yesterday rebutting critics of his administration's use of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, experts say that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled enough partially enriched uranium to produce at least one full-fledged nuclear bomb. Commenting on Saddam's enriched uranium stash after the U.S. Energy Department removed it to Oak Ridge, Tenn., in June 2004, top physicist Ivan Oelrich told the Associated Press: "[Saddam's] 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb." Oelrich, a leading member of the Federation of American Scientists, is not alone in that assessment. Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, told the New York Times that Saddam's partially enriched uranium "could have been further enriched to make it useful in a weapon." After the U.S. removed Saddam's nuke fuel stockpile, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi confirmed that it posed a great danger to the region's security interests. "These materials, which are potential weapons of mass murder, are not welcome in our country and their production is unacceptable," Allawi told Agence France Press. Even Saddam's 500-ton un-enriched uranium stockpile, which he stored at the same nuclear weapons research facility where inspectors found his partially enriched stash, posed a potential threat. In a March 2003 op-ed piece for London's Evening Standard, Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, calculated that Saddam's yellowcake could have yielded a staggering nuclear arsenal. "You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium," Dombey wrote. "You need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. How many nuclear weapons can you build? "The answer is 142 [nuclear bombs]," he said. -------- japan Yokosuka hopes nuclear neighbor will ship out 11/12/2005 The Asahi Shimbun Ryoichi Kabaya http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200511120122.html The U.S. Navy has decided to decommission the conventional aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, which is virtually home-ported in Yokosuka, and replace it with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in 2008. The Japanese government accepted the decision. But, I am the mayor of Yokosuka and I know the anxieties of local citizens, so I find the plan unacceptable. How would people feel if a nuclear power plant stood just a bit farther than 1 kilometer from their home? That is the actual distance between the No. 12 berth where the aircraft carrier is usually anchored in the Yokosuka U.S. naval base and the nearest house. Nuclear reactors on a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier are said to be as powerful as a small nuclear power plant. If the new warship is home-ported in Yokosuka and uses the naval base as often as Kitty Hawk does, it would be in Yokosuka for more than 200 days a year. No matter how much the United States says it is safe, Yokosuka citizens will not be completely at ease. The city maintains a friendly relationship with the U.S. Navy. Both sides invite senior officials to each other's official functions. Citizen-level exchanges are also active. Because we want to maintain this friendly relationship, we have recognized the presence of the naval base and accepted the deployment of a conventional aircraft carrier. At the same time, we have repeatedly requested that the existing aircraft carrier be replaced by a conventional warship and not a nuclear-powered one. In spite of our requests, we were notified of the decision to deploy a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier without prior consultations. At one time, the United States appears to have studied the possibility of sending the conventional aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy from the U.S. mainland. Perhaps nuclear-powered vessels have greater capability and are cheaper to maintain than conventional ones. But it is very regrettable that the earnest wish of local residents that a conventional aircraft carrier be deployed went unheeded. A major factor behind the anxieties of Yokosuka citizens is a lack of information disclosure on the part of the U.S. military. Up to now, nuclear-powered U.S. military vessels, including submarines and aircraft carriers, have called at Yokosuka 735 times. Many of them stay in Yokosuka for several to nearly 20 days. To deal with emergencies, we made a manual to prepare for accidents involving nuclear-powered warships in 2000. Since 2002, we have been conducting annual disaster drills with the participation of citizens based on the assumption that an accident had occurred. Since 2003, the U.S. military has also taken part in the drills by telephone. However, it only agreed to participate on condition that the supposed accident was not caused by a nuclear-powered warship on grounds that none of its nuclear-powered warships have caused a major accident before and are, therefore, safe. This year, too, we conducted a drill on Oct. 25. However, because of the abovementioned request, although we made an inquiry to the U.S. military on the assumption that we detected a higher level of radioactivity than usual, it told us that the leak was not caused by a nuclear-powered submarine but by nearby construction equipment. We accepted this supposition because we want the U.S. military to be part of the drill. But it does not mean that we agree to its logic that since there has been no accident in the past, nuclear-powered warships will continue to be safe in the future. With regard to the planned deployment of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to replace Kitty Hawk, the U.S. military presented Japan with the following set of promises and stressed safety: It promised to stop nuclear reactors when the vessel is at anchor; not conduct repairs of nuclear reactors nor change fuel rods in Japan; and not leave nuclear waste in the base. But we have no means to verify whether these rules are actually observed. In case an accident occurs, we have no choice but to guess the cause from data supplied by monitoring posts set up around the naval base and other sources. Breaking friendly relations with local communities that host the U.S. military would not serve U.S. national interests in the long run. We urge it once again to consider the deployment of a conventional aircraft carrier. The first step for the U.S. military to win the trust of Yokosuka citizens and to dispel their anxiety is to show what kind of information it will disclose to them and how it plans to deal with unexpected situations when nuclear-powered warships that call at Yokosuka have an accident. The author is the mayor of Yokosuka.(IHT/Asahi: November 12,2005) -------- treaties End to nuclear weapons urged McNamara wants churches to act By Peter Smith psmith@courier-journal.com The Louisville, KY, Courier-Journal Saturday, November 12, 2005 http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051112/NEWS01/511120398 Calling the spread of nuclear arms the greatest threat to the world today, a former U.S. defense secretary called on religious groups to lead the push for global nuclear disarmament. Robert McNamara said the United States no longer needs its arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons. "It's immoral, it's illegal, it's militarily unnecessary, it's very, very dangerous in terms of accidental usage," McNamara told a forum on nuclear perils last night at the Catholic Cathedral of the Assumption in downtown Louisville. He said more religious groups need to do what the nation's Roman Catholic bishops did in 1983 -- issue informed, urgent calls for nuclear disarmament. McNamara pounded the table in disgust in recounting the story of an official in another denomination -- which he didn't identify -- who refused to promote a similar statement because some church members would disagree. "I can't think of anything more demanding of Christians than to rid the human race of this risk that, as the Catholics say, is the danger of extinction," he said. McNamara, now 89, was secretary of defense under Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. He and other speakers addressed a crowd of about 200 in an event that was part of the weeklong Festival of Faiths, which is sponsored by the Cathedral Heritage Foundation to promote interreligious understanding. The Young Presidents Organization's Bluegrass Chapter also was host of the talk. Panelists said that, for decades, a global nuclear nonproliferation treaty restricted the possession of nuclear weapons to a few nations, but now Iran and North Korea are pursuing weapons, and there are growing fears of terrorists getting nuclear weapons. Panelists contended that the United States doesn't need nuclear weapons because the nation has adequate conventional weapons, because the threat of a retaliatory strike is meaningless to suicide terrorists with no home country, and because maintaining the arsenal only encourages other nations to seek nuclear weapons. Thomas Graham, who was President Bill Clinton's special representative on nuclear arms control, said negotiating a worldwide elimination of nuclear arms would take years and require strict verification measures, but would be worth it. "Nothing good is ever impossible," he said. "The people simply must demand better policies." He contended the United States has damaged the trust it enjoyed around the world in recent years with its invasion of Iraq and by refusing to go along with various international agreements banning such things as nuclear weapons tests and land mines. Daniel Poneman, who worked in national security under Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush, urged the United States to cooperate with other nations in developing nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, which many scientists blame for global warming. Poneman said religious people should play -- and have played -- a central role in the nuclear debate. He said that during a tense standoff in 1993 over North Korea's nuclear program, the Clinton administration was being frustrated in its efforts to reach that nation's reclusive leader, Kim Il Sung. It turned out that evangelist Billy Graham had quietly developed contacts with Kim, and Graham helped set up the negotiations that followed. But Poneman said it's not just religious leaders who can help. "This is something each and every one of us can contribute to in our own way." McNamara agreed. He said it's been hard to get the attention of the public or the press on nuclear issues since the end of the Cold War but that religious communities have that potential. "It's so hard to reach the public," he said. "If faith-based communities get interested and educated like the Catholics did, I think you'll begin to see results." The Rev. Bob Edgar, president of the liberal National Council of Churches, was moderator of the forum. He said that despite sharp political divides among religious people on some issues, he believed conservative and liberal religious people could coalesce on promoting nuclear disarmament, just as they are increasingly cooperating on areas such as global warming, AIDS and poverty. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- delaware Safety woes haunt Salem facility NRC plans to revisit issues including negativity among workers By JEFF MONTGOMERY The Delaware News Journal 11/12/2005 http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051112/BUSINESS/511120331/1003&template=printpicart A new federal report on safety concerns at the Salem/Hope Creek nuclear complex has found significant progress but a continued need for improvement in some areas, including "negative perceptions" among security workers. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans a new public review of safety issues at the nation's second-largest nuclear complex during a meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Bridgeport Holiday Inn in Swedesboro, N.J. Federal officials said the session will include talks on company efforts to create an environment where workers are routinely willing to raise safety questions and concerns. PSEG Nuclear LLC and NRC officials also will discuss work to improve the company's ability to identify and solve problems at the plant. The nuclear safety agency last year ordered stepped up inspections and oversight at Salem/- Hope Creek after reports that work conditions discouraged employees from reporting trouble or safety concerns. Federal regulators also have raised questions about chronic maintenance problems. NRC inspectors noted overall improvements but lingering troubles, including "a wide range of worker perceptions" in some areas, including prevention of retaliation against employees. "PSEG has not fully evaluated and addressed the negative perceptions in certain work groups," the report said, including security workers. "What we understand all this to mean, in plain language, is that workers in these vital areas are still not confident that problems are being identified and corrected. They aren't confident that if they bring problems to light they will be supported rather than harassed," Alan Muller, who directs the environmental group Green Delaware, said in a prepared statement. "These three nukes have a long history as among the most troubled in the U.S." The Salem/Hope Creek complex has reported a series of shutdowns and problems in recent months, including an accident in October that prompted extensive inspections and an NRC probe. More recently, PSEG Nuclear reported a record-fast refueling operation and relatively trouble-free operating periods for Salem units 1 and 2. Contact Jeff Montgomery at 678-4277 or jmontgomery@delawareonline.com. -------- idaho House funds Idaho nuclear lab to produce electricity and hydrogen at the Idaho National Laboratory 12-November-2005 Associcated Press http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage3913.html BOISE, Idaho -- The U.S. House has passed a $30.5 billionn energy and water appropriations bill for the next fiscal year that includes $40 million to begin development of a new experimental nuclear reactor to produce electricity and hydrogen at the Idaho National Laboratory. The U.S. Senate was expected to clear the measure Thursday and when it is signed by President Bush, it will direct at least $80 million in "earmarked" federal money specifically requested by members of Congress to projects at the eastern Idaho nuclear research compound northwest of Idaho Falls. Spending on U.S. Department of Energy nuclear programs at the 890-square-mile site is $50 million more than what the White House sought in its DOE budget request to Congress earlier this year. It underscores the Idaho facility's role in creating the next generation of nuclear power reactors, said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho. "Most of the Department of Energy labs either received fairly level funding or a decrease, but the INL budget went up substantially," said Simpson, who with Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was part of the House and Senate conference committee that wrote the final bill that the House approved 399-17 Wednesday afternoon. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho, joined Simpson in voting for the spending package. By a 397-19 vote Wednesday, the House also approved a $61.8 billion 2006 spending bill for U.S. Department of Justice and other agencies. Language sought by Craig and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, was inserted into that spending bill requiring Justice to report to Congress on potential eligibility changes in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include Idaho residents who suffer from certain forms of cancer that may have been caused by nuclear bomb fallout during Cold War-era tests in southern Nevada. That bill, which will be voted on in the Senate in the next few days, also includes $2 million for NASA research at INL as part of the space agency's budget. "Overall this budget, in terms of INL, is the best since I have been in Congress," said Simpson, who was first elected in 1998. "It's a recognition of what INL is doing and the importance that the president and Congress is placing in that." The highest-profile part of the INL funding package is the $40 million for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Initiative to begin selecting a preferred design for a new nuclear reactor that scientists say would be safer and produce less radioactive waste than current reactors, plus yield commercial quantities of hydrogen along with electricity. The Next Generation Reactor has been one of the key prongs of the Bush administration's energy policy to prepare for a future 20 years away when most vehicles will run on hydrogen-powered fuel cells. But after successfully requesting nearly $40 million the past two fiscal years, the Bush administration dropped the project from the fiscal 2006 budget after voicing concerns over the estimated $2 billion construction cost by the time the reactor is scheduled to be up and running in 2017. Any reluctance by the administration faded after Craig hosted Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman for a tour of the Idaho site in June. "We have clearly established a forward mission," Craig said in a statement. "This bill strengthens our national nuclear portfolio and ensures the stability of the lab long-term." But leaders of an Idaho nuclear watchdog group saw less cause to celebrate the hefty appropriation for the desert complex, arguing that many of the INL research programs are aimed at aiding nuclear weapons production rather than nuclear energy. The bill appropriates $8.5 million to prepare INL as the Energy Department's site for consolidating production of plutonium-238 batteries for national security applications and space missions rather than the current system of producing the long-lasting fuel cells at various federal nuclear labs. The report accompanying the bill says that moving all plutonium-238 production to INL will free up space at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to build new nuclear bomb triggers. "The next worse thing to actually producing a nuclear weapon is enabling the production of nuclear weapons, and this is one more reason the people of Idaho should reject this project," said Jeremy Maxand of the Boise-based Snake River Alliance. -------- utah Bennett thwarts funding for federal lawyers to assure safety N.S. Nokkentved UTAH DAILY HERALD Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 12:00 AM http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=68658 Congress may have hampered a federal agency's ability to ensure the safe shipment of highly radioactive waste if it were to be sent to Utah. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, convinced a congressional committee to cut the funding for two federal Department of Transportation lawyers who would oversee legal challenges of safety requirements for shipping spent reactor fuel to Utah. "I am pleased that the House conferees receded to the Senate language in the final bill and agree that this is not a proper role for the federal government," said Bennett, a member of the conference committee. "I remain committed to fight against any effort to bring spent nuclear fuel to Utah, and firmly believe that this waste should be stored where it currently is until we work out the economics and technology to reprocess it." A House subcommittee earlier this year had approved funding for two lawyers for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. But the agency was not mounting a legal battle to force the waste on Utah, or paying the legal expenses for a private company, James Wiggens said in July. Wiggens is director of policy and government affairs at the agency, which oversees transportation safety for all kinds of hazardous material. "We don't care where it's going, how it's going or when it's going," he said. "Our focus here is just making sure it gets there safely." The two lawyers would deal with safety issues and legal challenges over whether hazardous material shipments are following safety regulations -- including any shipments to Skull Valley in Utah. It was the specific naming of Skull Valley that bothered Bennett, spokeswoman Mary Jane Collipriest said. Minnesota-based Private Fuel Storage LLC has proposed a private storage facility on the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley for highly radioactive spent fuel from commercial power reactors across the country. The 820-acre site would hold 44,000 tons of spent fuel in steel and concrete casks set on concrete pads. Bennett also added a provision to the bill that "denies funding for new positions to administer activities related to shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a private interim storage facility." The bill is expected to be completed this week, and after final votes in the House and Senate, it will be sent to the president for his signature. -------- MILITARY -------- chemical weapons The White Death Posted: 11/12/05 From: IFC http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=434505 This week, the broadcast of a shattering new documentary,provided fresh confirmation of a gruesome war crime covered by this column nine months ago: the use of chemical weapons by U.S. forces during the frenzied destruction of Fallujah in November 2004. Using filmed and photographic evidence, eyewitness accounts and the direct testimony of U.S. soldiers who took part in the attacks, the documentary -- "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" -- catalogs the American use of white phosphorus shells and a new, "improved" form of napalm that turned human beings into "caramelized" fossils, with their skin dissolved and turned to leather on their bones. The film was produced by RAI, the Italian state network run by a government that backed the war. Vivid images show civilians, including women and children, who had been burned alive in their homes, even in their beds. This illegal use of chemical weapons -- at the order of the Bushist brass -- and the killing of civilians are confirmed by former U.S. soldiers interviewed on camera. "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah," said one soldier, quoted in The Independent. "In military jargon, it's known as Willy Pete. Phosphorus burns bodies; in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone. ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 meters is done for." The broadcast is an important event: shameful, damning, convincing. But it shouldn't be news. Earlier this year, as reported here on March 18, a medical team sent to Fallujah by the Bush-backed Iraqi interim government issued its findings at a news conference in Baghdad. The briefing, by Health Ministry investigator Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, was attended by more than 20 major U.S. and international news outlets. Not a single one of these bastions of a free and vigorous press reported on the event. Only a few small venues -- such as the International Labor Communications Association -- brought word of the extraordinary revelations to English-speaking audiences. Yet this highly credible, pro-American official of a pro-occupation government confirmed, through medical examinations and the eyewitness testimony of survivors -- including many civilians who had opposed the heavy-handed insurgent presence in the town -- that "burning chemicals" had been used in the attack, in direct violation of international and U.S. law. "All forms of nature were wiped out" by the substances unleashed in the assault, including animals that had been killed by gas or chemical fire, said ash-Shaykhli. But apparently this kind of thing is not considered news anymore by the corporate gatekeepers of media "truth." As we noted here in March, ash-Shaykhli's findings were buttressed by direct testimony from U.S. Marines filing "after-action reports" on web sites for military enthusiasts back home. There, fresh from the battle, soldiers talked openly of the routine use of Willy Pete, propane bombs and "jellied gasoline" (napalm) in tactical assaults in Fallujah. As it says in the scriptures: By their war porn ye shall know them. This week, as in March, the Pentagon said it only used white phosphorus shells in Fallujah for "illumination purposes." But the documentary's evidence belies them. Although there are indeed many white bombs bursting in air to bathe the city in unnatural light, the film clearly shows other phosphorus shells raining all the way to the ground, where they explode in fury throughout residential areas and spread their caramelizing clouds. As Fallujah biologist Mohamed Tareq says in the film: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multicolored substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact." The slaughter in Fallujah was a microcosm of the entire misbegotten enterprise launched by those two eminent Christian statesmen, U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair: a brutal act of collective punishment for defying the imperial will, a high-tech turkey shoot that mowed down the just and unjust alike, an idiotic strategic blunder that has exacerbated the violence and hatred it was meant to quell. The vicious overkill of the Fallujah attack -- where an estimated 1,200 civilians died while almost all of the targeted insurgents slipped away beforehand -- alienated large swaths of previously neutral Iraqis and spurred many to join the resistance. It further entangled the United States and Britain in a putrid swamp of war crime, state terrorism and atrocity, dragging them deeper into a moral equivalency with the murderous extremists whom the Christian leaders so loudly condemn. Let's give the last word to Jeff Engelhardt, one of the ex-servicemen featured in the documentary, who recently issued this plea to his fellow U.S. soldiers on Fight to Survive, a new dissident web site run by Iraqi War vets: "I hope someday you find solace for the orders you have had to execute, for the carnage you helped take part in, and for the pride you wear supporting this bloodbath. Until then, you can only hope for an epiphany, something that stands out as completely immoral, that convinces you of the inhumanity of this war. I don't know how much more proof you need. The criminal outrage of Abu Ghraib, the absolute massacre of Fallujah, the stray .50 caliber bullets or 40mm grenades or tank rounds fired in highly packed urban areas, 500-pound bombs dropped on innocent homes, the use of 25mm depleted uranium rounds, the inhumane use of white phosphorus, the hate and the blood and the misunderstandings ... this is the war and the system that you support." ---- us Retired general calls for better vets benefits 11/12/2005 WASHINGTON (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-12-veterans-benefits_x.htm The federal government should strengthen the health care system for veterans, retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar said Saturday in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address. Speaking on the Veterans Day weekend, the former U.S. military commander in the Middle East said "President Bush has consistently refused to provide enough" money for veterans' health care. "Earlier this year, his administration admitted that they were $1 billion short in funding for critical health care services," he said. "They also repeatedly tried to increase the cost of prescription drugs and health care services for veterans nationwide." The Veterans Affairs Department acknowledged in April that it had underestimated medical care costs. Congress reacted by approving an additional $1.5 billion in emergency funds for the current budget year. Hoar also said, "Thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will require mental health care, yet the Bush administration has not taken action to deal with this emerging problem." In contrast, Democrats are working to improve the current health care system and strengthen mental health care services, he said. "As a veteran and a former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, I have seen first hand the kind of sacrifices they are making for us. It's a debt we will never be able to repay," he said. "But we have a special duty to make sure our veterans receive the benefits they have earned and deserve when they return home." -------- ACTIVISTS Nuclear Safety Discussions La Crosse WI Nov 12, 2005 WXOW http://www.wxow.com/news/publish/articles/article_3217.shtml Concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste spilled onto UWL's campus Saturday. Dozens of activists and concerned citizens met to discuss nuclear safety in the US. Guest speakers from around the Midwest told the crowd about a proposal that would move nuclear waste onto an Indian Reservation in Utah. They're calling for every Americans to learn more about nuclear safety and to contact their congressmen with questions. Oscar Shirani, a nuclear whistleblower, asked the crowd to alert legislators to what they perceive as a dangerous problem. A number of cities around the country, along with the state of Utah, are also calling for regulatory action to try and halt shipments of waste into their areas. ---- Nine years on the protest line at Alliant Techsystems DEE DEPASS Star Tribune of Minneapolis Posted on Sat, Nov. 12, 2005 http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/13148386.htm EDINA, Minn. - It's a Wednesday at 7 a.m., and like clockwork, 45 activists spill out of their cars, gather on the asphalt triangle in the middle of the forked Edina road, hoist their signs and start to sing. The scene outside the headquarters of Alliant Techsystems has been occurring every Wednesday since 1996, making it one of the most enduring, and unusual, fixtures of the Twin Cities business community. Dubbed AlliantAction, the nuns, teachers, artists, silver-haired retirees and other pacifists come as if on a pilgrimage to accuse Alliant of making land mines and other arms that they claim harm civilians indiscriminately. For Alliant, the protests pose a curious PR challenge, because the $3 billion defense company says it doesn't even make most of the things the protesters are concerned about. Alliant officials say the firm hasn't made a land mine fuze or a cluster bomb for at least a decade. And the company is working on alternative munitions that will sharply curtail or eliminate the threat of injuries among noncombatants, they say. The protests, however, have taken on a life of their own. "We have never missed a week," said Tom Bottolene, who wears a gray ponytail, flannel and overalls. The activists organized a multi-group Peace Convergence last month as a special gesture that ended with 42 being hauled off to jail for trespassing at Alliant. That protest fell on a Monday, one day before the 2,000th U.S. soldier died in Iraq. The following Wednesday, the protesters were back again. For nearly 10 years - 512 Wednesday mornings - the event has unfolded in predictable fashion. The protesters are as regular as dawn, and just as taken for granted by the Alliant workers. Half of Alliant's workers don't arrive at work in time to see the banners, hear the bull horn or catch a strain of protest song. Those who do smile, wave and drive on into the parking lot. "We wave. They wave," said Alliant spokesman Bryce Hallowell. Inattention will not deter the group, insists the silver-haired, bright-eyed Marv Davidov, 74. Davidov is the founding father of the protests, having organized the first early-morning "vigil" back in 1968, when what is now Alliant was still part of Honeywell. Davidov's anti-weapons protests at Honeywell's south Minneapolis headquarters ended there in 1991 but picked up again in 1996 when he and Bottolene joined forces and turned their sights on Alliant, which also makes missiles, NASA rocket boosters and more bullets than any other firm in the nation. If Davidov is considered the head of the protest group, his counterpart inside Alliant headquarters is CEO Dan Murphy, a retired vice admiral who spent 30 years in the Navy. Yes, he has seen the protesters. No, they don't bother him, Murphy said during a recent interview. "They have tried and constantly want to meet with me. And I just say there is no point. It certainly is not going to change their mind," said Murphy, wearily shaking his head. "No, I can never communicate with them. Because (they are) people who are so insulated from the realities of the world, so unappreciative of those who are making sacrifices for them so they can do their protest and do their cafe latte. ... "These people have been protesting whatever the protest of the day is since I was in college. ... If it weren't depleted uranium (a key concern of the protesters), it would be something else." Alliant officials can tick off a list of the protesters' errors: Depleted uranium? Only one Alliant product uses it, a 120mm tank shell that is intended for use only against other tanks. Cluster bombs? Alliant hasn't made them since about 1995. Land mines? Same thing. Not the point, said Bill Berneking, a retired computer engineer from Wayzata holding a "WMD's Found Here!" sign outside Alliant. "The fact that they have not manufactured them recently doesn't matter. The company did years ago," he said. Berneking's voice was one of the chorus preaching into the cold dawn recently, the only audience the quiet street and five bemused Alliant onlookers. Jane McDonald, a petite white-haired nun, was the first to arrive, scurrying from her car to the asphalt median, where she plunked down a dozen protest signs and waited for the others to arrive. She brought a staff topped with a blue glove molded into peace-sign fingers. Steve Clemens, who has traveled to Iraq, joined her, hoisting a rainbow peace flag on his shoulder so it flapped in the breeze. John Braun scooped up the "Stop Making Weapons" sign and waved to a passing car, while David Harris held up a "Pro Life? End War!" sign. Someone set up a tiny metal table with coffee just as school librarian Elizabeth Pepperwolf and her artist husband Bottolene scrambled in from Red Wing. Wearing her beloved jean jacket, flowing skirt, peace necklace and "Books not Bombs" button, Pepperwolf looked the very picture of a protester as she busily handed out the AlliantAction pledge and then slung a large protest sign over her neck and back. "Depleted Uranium Kills U.S. Soldiers Too!" it read. A painted blue flower served as the exclamation point. Nearby, two police cars kept their lights flashing as two officers made sure the activists stayed safely on the median triangle. "Hey, Phil," Davidov called out to Edina police Sgt. Phil Larsen as Larsen shooed one of the protesters from straying into the street. "Hey, Marv," Larsen nodded. "Yes, Marv and I go way back. ... In college I was hearing his name. He's been an anti-war activist since Vietnam." "Peace is the solution, not profiteering off of weapons and war," McDonald yelled into the bullhorn toward the five Alliant employees who watched in silence. "We are always under surveillance, as if we were the problem," she said. Soon it was 8 a.m., time to pack up the signs and adjourn for what has become the other fixture of the weekly protest - breakfast at a nearby Bakers Square, where the protesters are as familiar as they are at Alliant. Over coffee and juice, Mary Lou Ott and her husband, Dr. Gene Ott, medical director of the free St. Mary's Health Clinics, talked about some of the more extreme days of the ongoing protest. "We have a wonderful peace community. It's almost spiritual," said Mary Lou Ott, a mother of 10 and a determined protester who has been arrested more than 20 times. As a teen, Ott trained to become a nun but left the order for college and a life of activism and volunteer work that included St. Joseph's House, where she cared for children and women in Minneapolis. Two decades ago, she and other protesters rolled up their sleeves so Gene Ott could collect their blood. "We took blood from the people who were going to protest at Honeywell and we did it in conjunction with Good Friday," said the now elderly and arthritic Gene Ott. "Honeywell was the main producer of land mines and cluster bombs at the time. We had a whole baby bottle full of each person's blood and we ... splashed it against Honeywell's front doors. "It's part of the tradition," Ott said, calmly sipping his juice. If it weren't for the advent of AIDS since then, such acts would continue, said Ott, who delivered medical supplies to Iraq in 2001 and was alarmed by the unusual number of cleft palates, missing eyes and cancer rates among children there. "When I got home, I tried to read more about depleted uranium. The (Defense Department) said its studies don't show a connection. But we saw it. ... So we will continue to protest." Bottom line for the protesters: One weapon is too many. "See you next week," said Clemens as he headed out the restaurant door. "Yeah, see ya next week," Ott said.