NucNews March 16, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Radioactive waste disposal - a modern philosopher's stone It may be possible to destroy much of the world's long-lived radioactive waste, if a new experiment in Japan proves successful Mar 16th 2006 From The Economist print edition http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624815 TRANSMUTATION of the elements was the goal of the medieval alchemists. They dreamed of the riches to be won by the man who could find the philosopher's stone—a substance that, among other wonderful properties, would convert base metals such as lead into gold. Actual transmutation, though, had to await those modern alchemists, the atomic physicists. Nuclear reactors transmute elements routinely. They break uranium atoms, which are heavy, into lighter so-called fission products, such as technetium. This releases energy, along with sub-atomic particles called neutrons. Some of these neutrons go on to hit further uranium nuclei so hard that they, too, shatter and release yet further neutrons. It is this chain reaction that sustains the process. Other neutrons, however, are captured by uranium nuclei. That makes those nuclei heavier still, converting them into neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium. All these by-products of nuclear fission are radioactive, and many will remain so for thousands—sometimes millions—of years. They are thus difficult to dispose of; the most practical idea being to bury them deep underground in stable rock formations and just wait. On top of that, the plutonium could, in principle, be extracted to make nuclear bombs. But the organisers of the Kumatori Accelerator-driven Reactor Test Facility (KART), at Kyoto University in Japan, which starts up this month, have dusted off an old scheme that might help overcome the problems of nuclear waste. This is to transmute the by-products still further, into something that can be disposed of safely. KARTs and horsepower The idea behind the Kumatori project, which is led by Kaichiro Mishima, was originally championed by Carlo Rubbia, who was once head of CERN, a big subatomic-physics laboratory near Geneva. The plan is to build a “sub-critical” nuclear reactor. Such a reactor would not be able to sustain a chain reaction. Instead, the nucleus-transmuting subatomic particles would be supplied from outside, using a particle accelerator. About 95% of the mass of a piece of used nuclear fuel is unconverted uranium, so the first step is to extract the 5% that is waste. This is done chemically. The radioactive elements to be transmuted are then turned into a target for protons fired out of a particle accelerator. Neutrons cannot be speeded up in an accelerator because they have no electric charge to grab hold of. But the main role of the protons is to knock neutrons free from nuclei in the target. These neutrons should, if all goes well, be absorbed by the technetium and other fission products, transmuting them into new elements. They will also break up the elements heavier than uranium into products similar to those from uranium fission. Although, initially, the new elements will be more radioactive than the spent nuclear waste was, that radioactivity will last only a few hundred years. This means that the dumps into which they are put need not be as secure (or as expensive) as those envisaged for long-term waste-storage. And, as a bonus, the whole process should generate more energy than it consumes. Indeed, Dr Rubbia's original name for the device was an energy amplifier. Researchers in the field hope that results from KART (which should start to appear after September, when the machine becomes fully operational) and a number of other transmutation experiments around the world will contribute to the design of one or more large-scale transmuters. These facilities, which are expected to cost around $1 billion each, are being planned by physicists in Japan and Europe to come on stream some time after 2015—assuming, of course, that those physicists can persuade politicians of the merits of their work. That is by no means a done deal. Researchers had hoped to start building a more ambitious version of KART in Italy last year. This project, however, was cancelled in 2004, and its demise had more to do with political disagreements than technical shortcomings. Nor are all scientists fans of transmutation. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), based in Washington, DC, believes that if uranium is separated from spent fuel and then stored as low-level waste, it could pose a greater risk to the public than if it were placed in a repository deep underground. It also points out that some of the long-lived components of spent fuel cannot practicably be transmuted. For example, it would take more than a century to destroy half of the radioactive selenium present in spent fuel, because that element is very inefficient at capturing neutrons. The IEER describes evaluations in favour of transmutation as “seriously deficient” and made “mainly by those who would like to see a continuation of nuclear power”. At the moment, though, nuclear power's supporters seem to have the upper hand, as many people think it is the only practical way to generate large amounts of electricity without producing climate-changing carbon dioxide. And when nuclear waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years, and repositories are estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars, transmutation is worth considering. It may not be lead-into-gold, but it could still be very worthwhile. -------- britain British Energy Cash Rises, May Cover Nuclear-Plant Cleanup Cost (Bloomberg) March 16, 2006 19:00 EST http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aVIJFPfeR1.U British Energy Group Plc, the U.K.'s largest power producer, can do more to help clean up decommissioned nuclear plants and spent fuel after electricity prices rose, a report by the National Audit Office said. The office, which scrutinizes public spending on behalf of parliament, found future potential contributions by British energy to cleanup costs had risen to 7.8 billion pounds ($14 billion) by Feb. 28 from 3.8 billion pounds in January of last year. The new figure is 2.5 billion pounds more than the estimated nuclear liabilities, compared with a deficit of 233 million pounds in January 2005, according to the report, published today. Glasgow, Scotland-based British Energy's nuclear reactors can produce a fifth of the U.K.'s electricity. Unlike conventional power plants, they don't need to pay for more expensive gas or oil or for carbon-dioxide emissions allowances. U.K. gas prices for same-day delivery are 73 percent above their average in the same period a year ago, pushing up electricity prices. Brent crude oil is up 19 percent from a year ago. British Energy was rescued by the U.K. government after a 40 percent plunge in power prices from 1998 to 2002 left it on the verge of bankruptcy. The power company re-listed its shares more than a year ago following a debt-for-equity swap. `Cash Sweep' Under the restructuring, British Energy agreed to pay 65 percent of its available cash flow every year to help pay for the cleanup. The Department of Trade & Industry can convert the payments, known as a ``cash sweep,'' into British Energy shares. It also agreed on a fixed, yearly fee for the same purpose. Taxpayers are liable for the balance. The department justified its decision to help British Energy, rather than let it fall into bankruptcy, to maintain safety and secure energy supplies, the report said. Shares of British Energy yesterday rose 3.25 pence, or 0.5 of a percent, to close at 649.25 pence in London. The day before they rose 3.9 percent. They've advanced 25 percent this year and more than doubled in the past 12 months. British Energy raised its estimate of cleanup liabilities from nuclear plants by 28 percent in February to 5.3 billion pounds. That estimate hasn't been validated by the regulator, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the office said. Uncertainty about future power prices place ``a significant risk in the hands of the taxpayer,'' the office said in an e-mail. The department needs better arrangements to manage that risk, the report said. The department also need to improve the way it lets advisory contracts, the office found. Credit Suisse, the world's third- largest private bank, was paid 11.1 million pounds to advise on British Energy's restructuring, instead of the 5 million capped under an earlier contract, the report said. Rebecca O'Neill, a Credit Suisse spokeswoman, declined to comment. The department ``does agree with the National Audit Office's recommendation that it develop its procurement procedures'' to cut risks, the department said in an e-mailed statement. To contact the reporters on this story: Mathew Carr in London at m.carr@bloomberg.net -------- business Intel Allegedly Falsified to Justify Weapons Purchases By Sherrie Gossett CNSNews.com Staff Writer March 16, 2006 http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200603/SPE20060316a.html (CNSNews.com) - A former federal employee who says intelligence data was deliberately falsified over several years in order to justify the purchase of certain U.S. military weapons systems, will be questioned by the lead investigator in the bribery and corruption case that sent California Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham to prison, Cybercast News Service has learned. Edward T. Cassin of the Defense Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS) plans to interview former intelligence analyst William L. Cruse, according to an email Cruse received from Cassin and forwarded to Cybercast News Service . The DCIS is the criminal investigative arm in the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Defense. The interview of Cruse appears to be part of a larger investigation into possible corruption at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC.) Two individuals already interviewed by investigators told Cybercast News Service that the probe appears to be expanding into other areas. Following the sentencing of Cunningham for his role in the bribery scandal, a second target of the Justice Department's investigation pleaded guilty on Feb. 24 to multiple felony counts. Prosecutors said Mitchell Wade had engaged in a "wholesale corruption of the defense procurement process." Wade admitted to bribing unnamed Defense Department officials in return for favorable performance reviews and service contracts for his company, MZM, Inc. The National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) was named in Wade's plea agreement as one of two Defense Department entities that ordered services from Wade's company under a blanket purchase agreement worth up to $225 million. Cruse worked from 1995 until 2001 as a Russia/Eurasia intelligence analyst in a wing of the NGIC called the Forces Directorate. The NGIC, located in Charlottesville, Va., provides detailed intelligence on foreign ground force capabilities to war fighters, senior planners and decision makers. At NGIC, Cruse said he discovered that data he provided for classified threat assessment databases was being deliberately altered, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to exaggerate certain threats. An officer allegedly told Cruse he had been assigned to alter the data. The databases being altered included the Country Force Assessment (COFA) database and the National Futures Database. When Cruse brought the matter to the attention of senior NGIC officials, Cruse said he was told the changes were necessary to justify increased funding for specific weapons systems the U.S. Army wanted. Cruse said superiors in the U.S. Army pressured him to go along in order to help continue funding and justify the billion-dollar Comanche helicopter project and Crusader mobile artillery weapons systems. "Don't you want the Army to have Comanche?" Cruse said his superiors asked him. "My job is to tell the truth," Cruse reportedly replied, to which he said he was told, "Your job is to do what you're told. Your job is to support the Army's position." The $39 billion-dollar Comanche helicopter program sought to produce advanced armed reconnaissance craft with radar-evading "stealth" capability. They were designed for operations against former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries. The problem was that Cruse's analyses revealed deteriorating radar and ground force capability, contradicting the argument advanced in favor of the Comanche. See Video . Cruse called the alteration of classified intelligence in order to justify procurement goals a "material misrepresentation" and a "felony." "When I refused to go along with this fraud, I was publicly reprimanded and accused of being disloyal to my team, the NGIC, and to the Army," said Cruse. Cruse's responsibilities also included editing the work of other intelligence analysts. He said he soon found that a pattern of plagiarism was threatening the quality of intelligence provided to policy makers. One example he said he found involved an analyst who in 1999 copied a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report from 15 years earlier and presented it as his own up to date intelligence analysis. The reference to "Soviet Union" in the present tense was a dead giveaway, said Cruse. He told Cybercast News Service that he eventually found "dozens" of cases where analysts either "cut and pasted" old work and presented it as part of a current assessment, or simply plagiarized entire reports, including the master's thesis of a Russian colonel, and presented it as updated intelligence. The reasoning for the plagiarized and 'recycled' intelligence, Cruse said, included analysts wanting to impress their bosses by producing "volume" and pressure from superiors to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion. Methodologies were also being manipulated in order to achieve the desired outcome, Cruse said. "Instead of research driving the outcome, here we had the desired ends justifying the means. "Many other analysts had noticed the same thing for years," he added. Cruse said he pointed out that the misleading data could cause "serious ramifications," including the harming of NGIC's credibility and the misapplication of military resources. "Ultimately it could cause the lives of U.S. service personnel," warned Cruse. "The use of this type of flawed information could cause superiors and national policy makers to incorrectly prioritize, and put resources against the wrong, or even non-existent, threats," he said. While superiors focused on Russia and the Korean Peninsula, they downplayed the threat of international terrorism until 9/11, Cruse said. He and other analysts had warned that counter-terrorism, border security, and counter-narcotics should be the main focus. "We were told we were stupid, we didn't know what we were talking about, that that's not the Army's job. "I said, 'In five years it will be." Cruse said he acted to stop the intelligence fraud by complying with federal requirements to report such activity. Between 1996 and June 2001 he lodged formal complaints alleging criminal fraud, waste and abuse of authority by colleagues and superiors at the U.S. Army's National Ground Intelligence Center. During the last three years of this period, Cruse said there were "numerous meetings between myself and other analysts and managers at NGIC where plagiarism, fraudulent databases, and other potential ethical and legal lapses were the topic." He spoke with management, wrote letters, and made phone calls. He requested the "intervention" of the NGIC commander and the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) inspector general, citing alleged conflicts of interest and the withholding of evidence. Both declined to get involved, according to Cruse. Cruse, former NGIC analyst Stephen R. Jenkins and other employees had also complained that illegal wiretapping and surveillance were being used to retaliate against employees. Cruse met with FBI Special Agent John Zero to discuss the alleged wiretapping and other allegations. See Document The wiretapping allegation was unsubstantiated, according to the Army inspector general, who noted NGIC Commander Col. Bowers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and others had thoroughly investigated the issue and found nothing. A recent Freedom of Information request filed by Jenkins, however, returned a heavily redacted Army document, which states that the FBI did find an illegal wiretap on the fourth floor of NGIC following the complaint, but declined to investigate further. Cruse provided Cybercast News Service with a copy of the five-page redacted memo. See Page 4 Cruse's whistle-blowing eventually led him on a convoluted path through an alphabet soup of federal agencies and representatives to no avail, he said. Once a top-rated intelligence analyst, Cruse's performance evaluation plummeted to the lowest possible ranking in 2000. Cruse said the alleged retaliation included petty complaints, trumped up charges and finally, a coerced mental health examination. See Video. Cruse was sent to Dr. Robert S. Brown, Sr., clinical professor of psychiatric medicine at the University of Virginia. Brown concluded that Cruse had a "personality disorder, not otherwise specified with paranoid personality, antisocial personality and borderline personality traits." See Page 4 The psychiatrist's findings were strongly contested by Dr. Edwin N. Carter, a clinical psychologist, who on May 22, 2002, evaluated Cruse at his request, and reported he showed "no signs of any sort of personality disorder despite the fact that there are clear perfectionist tendencies." See Document Because Cruse was found to have a "personality disorder," his Top Secret/Sensitive Information (TS/SI) security clearance was suspended, clearing the way for his firing. "By surfacing the problems, I became the pariah," Cruse said. Cruse, a single father of two, now works in the plumbing department at a local Lowe's hardware store in Charlottesville, Va. Civilians would have a "hard time sleeping at night" if they knew the extent of such intelligence fraud, says Cruse. "I don't think the American people realize that just like with the Enron scandals, they thought they were investing their money in people looking out for them, only to find out they're being hoodwinked. "I would submit to you just about everything myself and several others have brought up from about 1996 to 2001 has come to pass. We were right. They were wrong," Cruse told Cybercast News Service . "They will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right," he concluded. -------- canada Waste plant owners will fight bylaw Torstar Network Mar 16, 2006 THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS (Ontario, Canada) http://www.mississauga.com/mi/news/story/3383005p-3913804c.html A company located within a short distance of Malton neighbourhoods has asked the Ontario Municipal Board to overturn a Brampton bylaw that temporarily blocks construction of an incinerator for low-level radioactive waste. Mississauga Metals and Alloys on Sun Pac Blvd. wants the incinerator to dispose of such products as paper, plastics, rubber, cotton, rags, mops, wood pallets, floor coverings and clothing that are used by employees at nuclear fuel plants. The proposed incinerator would have the capacity to burn up to 100 kilograms of such low-level waste per hour. But, Brampton council passed an interim control bylaw, which prevents the construction of any new waste incinerators in the city, for one year ending next October. "There is case law that you can't pass an interim control bylaw that applies to one property. Our view is that this is a veiled attempt to try and stop our project from going forward," said lawyer Chris Barnett, speaking for the company. That's the thrust of the appeal, along with a challenge that Brampton doesn't have the jurisdiction to stop the incinerator, as the proper regulatory body is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Barnett said. The company has an application before the commission, which still hasn't set the parameters for an environmental review that must occur before the agency will make a ruling. Every legal means will be used to prevent the incinerator from being built in Brampton, Mayor Susan Fennell has stated, adding that such facilities don't belong in highly populated areas. Ed Schmeler, a spokesman for the residents' Coalition for a Nuclear Free Peel that opposes the project, said his group will appear at the OMB hearing. A pre-hearing conference is scheduled for March 24. The group is concerned about potential health risks to residents from emissions, especially those living in condominiums a few hundred metres from the plant. "People hear the words 'radioactive waste' and get concerned, understandably, because they think of it as the stuff that comes out of reactors and has a half-life of 13,000 years. That is not at all what we're dealing with here," Barnett said. "The key words in low-level radioactive waste are low level. We're not dealing with anything that's even remotely dangerous," Barnett said. The firm plans to expand its processing facility for non-radioactive zirconium metal and to add storage capacity for non-radioactive metals. The expansion calls for a 32,000-sq.-ft. building to increase processing of non-radioactive zirconium from 20 tonnes to 60 tonnes per day and to increase storage capacity for non-radioactive waste from 40 tonnes to 100 tonnes. -------- depleted uranium Vets plus DU plus the Law Thursday 16 March Pulse of Twin Cities by Susu Jeffrey http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2365 In 1944 the U.S. Congress passed the G.I. Bill of Rights, providing help to World War II veterans for medical care, education and the purchase of homes, farms and businesses. By 1951, 8 million vets had gone back to school at a federal cost of $14 billion. Higher education was no longer restricted to the elite, and served as a safety valve during the transition from war to peace. G.I. Bill opportunities helped to move hundreds of thousands more people into the middle class. My dad, Harry Jeffrey (R-Ohio), was a co-author of that bill and spent his only congressional term writing, and then selling the G.I. Bill of Rights to the American people. Since then, the social experiment in support of ex-military personnel has slowly been gutted, especially since the Vietnam War. “That damn G.I. Bill,” a veteran told me recently. “[Now] after four years you don’t even get enough to go to junior college.” Veterans’ benefits are supposed to do just that—benefit veterans. But, in fact, the fallout from Iraq Wars One and Two will be never-ending since the poison from American depleted uranium (DU) weapons is dangerous to all life for 4.5 billion years. “Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war,” Bob Nichols wrote in a Project Censored article about the mushrooming DU scandal at the Veterans Administration. The effect of exploding uranium weapons into contaminated dust is that both the target and the targeters get nuked. In the last century’s world wars the disability rate for U.S. military personnel was about 5 percent. The rate doubled with the Vietnam War to 10 percent where the chemical Agent Orange was used extensively. Of the 580,000 soldiers involved in the first Iraq War, 11,000 have died and by 2000, an astonishing 325,000 were on permanent medical disability—more than half! Iraq War vets have less than a 50-50 chance of coming home whole. DU is more than a radiological and chemical toxin; nano-sized radioactive dust is produced with each exploding DU munition. The desert winds blow contaminated particles around for everyone to breathe and eat. DU, a heavy metal (like mercury), lodges in the body and attacks the victim’s DNA, resulting in a plethora of symptoms depending on the vulnerability of the person. Unfortunately the immediate victim is not the only target of DU poisoning. Sexual partners of DU-exposed vets have been internally contaminated, according to geoscientist Leuren Moret in “DU: A Death Sentence Here and Abroad.” In a study of 251 Mississippi soldiers who had normal children during pre-Iraq War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects—cyclops (single eye), infants missing arms, legs, organs. And if those children live and reproduce, will their genetic damage be inherited? When natural uranium is enriched for nuclear power fuel, more than 99 percent is removed. This by-product is shipped around the nation to holding and processing facilities and eventually converted into solid bars. Alliant TechSystems (ATK), headquartered in Edina, cuts the bars to size for the innards of a variety of bullets and shells. ATK’s uranium munitions are fired from weapons mounted on tanks, helicopters and airplanes. In 2004 ATK reported $3.1 billion in sales. Twin Cities peace activists have held vigils at the corporate headquarters of the bomb makers since 1968. When Honeywell spun off its weapons division creating Alliant TechSystems in 1991, the peace community moved from Minneapolis to Hopkins, and now to Edina, and from the activist group name “Honeywell Project” to the curent “AlliantACTION.” More than 2,600 arrests for peaceful trespass resulted in 100-plus trials in which juries and judges were educated about land mines, cluster bombs, Trident nuclear submarine systems and uranium-core shells. These weapons and delivery systems cannot distinguish between soldier and civilian, and are therefore indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The contract law firm for the City of Edina was humiliated recently by losing three jury cases to AlliantACTION amateurs acting as their own lawyers. Speaking in front of “a jury of their peers” in misdemeanor criminal court, these citizen experts repeatedly convinced juries of their right to uphold the greater law. This is not a reference to God’s law but to the U.S. Constitution which names treaties between sovereigns “the supreme law of the land.” So the lawyers got together and changed the law. ATK lawyers and Edina city lawyers wrote 20-some pages of e-mails discussing legal strategy for the mutual benefit of their corporate and municipal clients. The new law reduces the trespass charge from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor—from a charge where you can get a jury, to a judge-only trial. The legality of the new law is under appeal at this time. AlliantACTION peace activists continue to take it to the streets every Wednesday morning at 7 a.m.; they are also taking it to the state Legislature. A bill to test returning veterans stationed in hot areas in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo is in play at the Minnesota Capitol. A similar bill is already law in Louisiana and Connecticut and is being considered in New York State. Depleted uranium is dangerous for 4.5 billion years, that is to say—forever. (Human beings have been around for 2 million years.) To pretend this evil is legal, is suicide to justice. Justice becomes just us. We are watching America devolve. “The wrong people are on trial,” Sister Jane McDonald says. The reason there is no exit strategy from Iraq is because U.S. contractors are building 14 permanent bases in the middle of the oil reserves. When those bases are history, depleted uranium will still be rearranging the DNA of any local life forms. Please phone your state senator (651-296-0504) or representative (651-296-2146) and encourage them to support the armed forces health screening bill. || FFI: www.dU101.org; www.who.int/en & “depleted uranium”; www.leg.state.mn.us enter Senate bill 2562 or House 3026. -------- europe German nuke plants excluded from summit 3/16/2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060316-104552-8395r BERLIN, March 16 -- The German government will not deal with the row over the running times of the country's nuclear plants at next month's energy summit. Government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said Wednesday the running times of atomic energy plants will not make it on the summit's agenda. The summit will touch on energy security, the country's energy mix, electricity generation and European and international energy cooperation. Economy Minister Michael Glos had repeatedly called for a debate on the issue, which is splitting Germany's government. The Social Democrats want to stick to the plan to phase out nuclear energy by 2021. Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have asked for prolonging the running times of nuclear power plants to decrease energy dependency from Russia and other nations. Rising electricity and heating costs have given the conservatives' position additional popularity with ordinary Germans, who tended to favor renewable energy sources in past years. Wind and solar energy were pushed by the former Social Democrat/Green Party government. The German Cabinet also decided to get rid of the tax-exemption for bio-diesel by Aug. 1, according to Berlin daily Tagesspiegel. ---- US diplomat notes Armenia's interest in having "up-to-date" nuclear plant Interfax-AVN military news agency website, Moscow 16 Mar 06 http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg141328.html Yerevan, 16 March: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev have expressed their willingness to continue contributing to efforts to reach a peace agreement on Nagornyy Karabakh during their recent negotiations in France, US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said at a news conference in Yerevan on Thursday [16 March]. Fried disagreed that the talks between Kocharyan and Aliyev in Rambouillet on 10-11 February drove the negotiating process into a dead end. Attempts are currently being made to see in which direction the settlement process could now move, he said. During his visit to the region, Fried said he addressed ways of settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, energy security and prospects for the region's development. The US believes it would be useful to look into the future in light of the current problems in the South Caucasus to see how the region is to develop on the whole and how democracy and economic reforms will proceed there. The US does not rule out that nuclear energy could be used to diversify energy supplies in the region, he said. The diplomat said he is aware of Armenia's interest in building a new safe and up-to-date nuclear power plant and that he would inform his leadership in Washington of this. -------- india Bush Confronted on Nuclear Pact Thursday 16 March 2006 By Peter Wallsten, L.A. Times Staff Writer http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/breve.php3?id_breve=87&lang=en While speaking about Medicare, the president gets a surprise challenge from a negotiator of the nonproliferation treaty that India never signed. WASHINGTON - Two weeks after signing a controversial nuclear cooperation agreement with India, President Bush had a surprise encounter Wednesday with one of the original negotiators of the very anti-nuclear treaty that critics say is threatened by the deal. The exchange capped an afternoon of unusually confrontational questions posed to Bush by a public audience - a change for a White House that has frequently organized friendly crowds to show Bush in a positive light. The India challenge came from Lawrence Weiler, 85, a resident at the Washington-area retirement center that was the venue for the Wednesday event, intended to promote the president’s new Medicare prescription drug program. When Bush opened the floor to questions, and one man stood to thank the president for making U.S. civil nuclear technology available to India, Weiler could not contain himself. "Mr. President, there are some - and I guess I would include myself - who have different views about the Indian agreement, because they’re concerned about the effect that the agreement will have on the capacity of India to stimulate its own production of nuclear weapons," he said. Weiler told Bush that he was one of the few surviving negotiators of the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty, which was ratified by the world’s major nuclear powers and more than 180 other nations to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. India never signed the treaty, and critics charge that Bush’s plan to let U.S. firms begin sharing civil nuclear technology with India would help that country expand its weapons program and invigorate a nuclear arms race by inspiring other nations to ignore the treaty. Weiler, who worked for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, went on to ask Bush to consider adopting a "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons as an additional enticement to keep the treaty intact. "The basic bargain there was that other countries would give up their nuclear weapons if we, the nuclear powers, would engage in a program of nuclear disarmament," he told Bush. "The point is that we cannot expect that agreement, that basic agreement, to hold if the United States ... has the position that we might initiate a nuclear war if it is necessary." Bush nodded but made no promises. "I’ll take your words to heart, and think about it," he told Weiler. "Thank you. No commitment standing right here, of course." Bush had not been challenged directly on the deal since his trip to India this month, which aides hailed as a success due largely to the agreement between the U.S. president and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. As part of the deal, which requires the approval of Congress and of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, India agreed to open 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors to international inspectors for the first time. India retains the right to keep its other reactors secret for military purposes, and to build as many additional weapons-producing facilities as it wishes. Bush on Wednesday called the agreement a victory for limiting the spread of weapons. "Part of the Indian deal is to actually get them to formally join some of the institutions that you helped - your work created," Bush told Weiler. Earlier in his comments, Bush praised the agreement as a boon for the environment and a way to cut U.S. gas prices. "When India’s demand for fossil fuels goes up, it causes the price of our fossil fuels to go up," he said. "And so, therefore, to encourage them to use a renewable source of energy that doesn’t create greenhouse gas, this makes a lot of sense." The agreement is also backed by nuclear technology firms that stand to make billions of dollars by selling to India. As the White House prepares to lobby Congress to approve the deal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled one of its contentions in a Washington Post op-ed article this week when she predicted the agreement would mean "thousands of new jobs for American workers." But Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who has spearheaded a coalition to oppose the deal, questioned the contentions made by Bush and Rice. He said that India currently produced a tiny fraction of its power from oil and that its clear aim was to sharply escalate its weapons production. Markey pointed to reports this week that Russia was considering reviving an old proposal to sell nuclear technologies to India - a deal that the U.S. once helped block - and that other nations such as China and Iran would follow suit. "It’s a domino effect that will lead to the complete collapse of the nuclear proliferation regime that’s been protecting our planet for a generation," he said. -------- japan U.S. not worried by Westinghouse deal By Thomas Olson PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW Thursday, March 16, 2006 http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_433739.html The U.S. government is not scrutinizing the proposed sale of Westinghouse Electric Co. to Toshiba Corp. over the transfer of nuclear-power technology, U.S. Undersecretary for Export Administration David McCormick said Wednesday -- but it still might. The Japanese conglomerate agreed to buy the nuclear powerhouse from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for $5.4 billion in cash on Feb. 6. Monroeville-based Westinghouse expects the deal to close this year. McCormick is a former president of Ariba Inc., the successor to FreeMarkets Inc., the electronic reverse-auction house founded in Pittsburgh. He was named to head the U.S. Commerce Department agency last year. "The deal is not being formally reviewed," he said, following a speech before members of the Pittsburgh Technology Council at the Omni William Penn Hotel, Downtown. "It's unclear if this deal required (U.S. government) review or not." Scrutiny would be justified if "there's a perceived or actual threat to national security," he said. Much of his speech emphasized America's need to guard against the export of sensitive U.S. technology to foreign concerns. Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said his company's nuclear-power reactors are "not a new technology for Japan," which has been licensing Westinghouse and General Electric technologies for years. But some nuclear-power experts, including the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, Md., are concerned about Japan's growing ability to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. They fear conflicts could erupt between Japan and China over trade and territorial tensions. Congress has not opposed the Westinghouse sale. Yesterday, the only member to call for scrutiny, U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, dropped his concerns. In a letter to U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, whose district includes Monroeville, Hall called Japan "one of our finest allies." Meanwhile, Westinghouse may have a better shot at $8 billion in nuclear contracts being let by China. French newspaper Les Echos reported rival Areva SA may drop its bid. Westinghouse's Gilbert had no comment about the report. Thomas Olson can be reached at tolson@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7854. -------- mideast France, Libya Pen Deal on Civilian Nuclear Work REUTERSFRANCE / LIBYA: March 16, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35683/story.htm PARIS / TRIPOLI - Libya signed a cooperation agreement with France on peaceful uses of nuclear energy on Wednesday and said the accord would help it generate atomic power to desalinate sea water for the desert country. The memorandum of understanding was signed in Tripoli late on Wednesday by a team from the French atomic energy commission and the Libyan National Bureau for Research and Development. Libya said the cooperation would focus on developing radioactive products for industrial and medical uses. It also hopes to generate nuclear power for desalination plants to convert salt water into drinking water. "We are securing the future for our inhabitants," said Libyan Labour, Training and Employment Minister Maatoug Mohammed Maatoug. "We have a shortage of drinkable water." He said the cooperation would pave the way for French companies in Libya, help develop Libyan capabilities and boost joint research. Libya cast off more than a decade of international ostracism in 2003 when it accepted responsibility and began paying compensation for the bombing of airliners over Scotland and Niger in 1988 and 1989. It promised to dismantle its nuclear, chemical and biological programmes and signed additional protocols with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. The country's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi said at the time he still hoped to develop a nuclear programme for peaceful means. "This agreement comes after Libya decided to abandon weapons of mass destruction and became an example for other countries," said Alain Bugat, director of the French nuclear agency. "It will concentrate on civil uses." -------- terrorism New nuclear fuel raises terror risks Mar. 16, 2006 (UPI) http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20060316-123116-3050r.htm A high-tech fuel to power new U.S. nuclear reactors can also be turned into a nuclear bomb if it falls in terrorists' hands, says a report. The warning comes from nuclear scientists and is also contained in several little-known federal studies on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership technology, reports the Christian Science Monitor. Bush administration officials believe the GNEP's UREX-Plus fuel is a breakthrough that can significantly reduce nuclear waste from civilian reactors and also the risk of nuclear proliferation, says the report. But the critics' view that the fuel can easily be turned into bombs is also shared by the Energy Department's own study which is not widely known, says the newspaper. "The bottom line is that UREX-plus is not much more proliferation resistant -- by their own estimates," says a former non-proliferation policy official. Another expert said the fuel would produce a material that is not radioactive enough to deter theft. But government scientists say UREX-plus is much better than critics say it is. One of them said the Energy Department's 2004 study should be done again to account for the technological changes since then. ---- Terror risks of nuclear fuel By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor March 16, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0316/p01s02-uspo.htm The Bush administration's plan to deploy a high-tech fuel to power a new generation of nuclear reactors worldwide has a potentially explosive problem: It is too easy for terrorists to grab and turn it into a nuclear bomb. That's the criticism expressed by nuclear scientists and in several little-known federal studies about the technology underlying the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, unveiled last month. Administration officials tout GNEP for technological breakthroughs that dramatically reduce the nuclear waste from civilian reactors and, at the same time, greatly reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation. Using GNEP's new fuel technology, called UREX-Plus, the United States could safely end its three-decade moratorium on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel intended to keep plutonium from spreading, officials say. "The goal of GNEP is recovery of the energy in a way that doesn't promote weapons," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a US Senate committee last month. Knowledgeable critics have said from the outset that the new reactor fuel envisioned in GNEP is not so very hard to turn into bombs. But what has not been widely known is that their views are echoed by the US Department of Energy's own studies. According to a 2004 study conducted for an Energy Department blue-ribbon commission, for instance, the UREX-plus technology was only slightly more "proliferation resistant" - difficult to turn into bombs - than the PUREX process used by other nations. The US has often criticized PUREX for its vulnerability. "The bottom line is that UREX-plus is not much more proliferation resistant - by their own estimates," says Henry Sokolski, former deputy for nonproliferation policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. To be proliferation resistant, nuclear material should be so radioactive it would be deadly to handle, nearly impossible to divert without detection, and fiendishly difficult to refine into weapons fuel. UREX-plus falls well short by all three measures, according to federal reports. For example: Any such reactor fuel should be so radioactive that it would be "self-protecting." The National Academy of Sciences calls for a "spent fuel standard" for plutonium. That means it should be so radioactive - emitting 1,000 rads per hour at arms-length - that anyone trying to steal it would receive a lethal dose of radiation within 30 minutes. It also means it should be as difficult to transport as a 12-foot-long assembly of nuclear fuel rods weighing half a ton or more. But UREX-plus, as developed and as presented to Congress until recently, would emit less than 1 rad per hour, according to a November report from the Energy Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Even using the lower standard for plutonium developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that's 1/100th of the necessary level for self-protection. The UREX technologies "would still produce a material that is not radioactive enough to deter theft and could still be used to make nuclear weapons," says Edwin Lyman, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "UREX-plus is just PUREX with lipstick," adds physicist Frank von Hippel, former assistant director of national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology: Supporters say critiques are outdated Government scientists say UREX-plus is much better than critics say it is. "There's only one step where this material has low self-protection, not up to the max, and then it's heavily guarded," says Phillip Finck, deputy associate laboratory director at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill., and the administration's top scientific spokesman on UREX. "This process, UREX-plus, is much more proliferation resistant than things developed in the past." And the Energy Department's 2004 study that rated UREX-plus only slightly above PUREX "should be performed again in view of the real technological changes since then," he adds. Nevertheless, Dr. Finck in a presentation to congressional staff last Friday proposed a major change to UREX-plus that would add the radioactive element europium to the mix. That change is intended to boost the fuel's self-protection level, but it would also require additional refining capability at each "advanced fast-burner" reactor site, costing many billions more than the price tag US Energy Secretary Bodman offered in congressional hearings last month, several experts say. So far, the government has proposed spending $250 million on GNEP planning and development. If GNEP gets the green light, it would cost another $3 billion to $6 billion over five years to get engineering scale demonstration facilities going and perhaps $20 billion to $40 billion overall, Bodman says. But with the US needing dozens of reactors and reprocessing plants to meet demand, the cost could rise into hundreds of billions of dollars, according to early Energy Department estimates and the National Academy. Radioactivity isn't the only defense against terrorists and rogue states. Another key is whether the plutonium-based fuel can be measured accurately. Plutonium is a sticky substance that gets caught in nooks, and crannies, like drains. The more accurately it can be tracked, the less likely an employee at a civilian reactor could divert small amounts without getting caught, a strong point for UREX-Plus, Finck says. But the plutonium in UREX-plus would be in powder and liquid forms and mixed with other materials, known as minor actinides or MAs. And this mixture, which is intended to make it harder for terrorists to extract the plutonium, could make it very hard to measure, government scientists say. "Even small concentrations of MAs in plutonium mixes could complicate the accuracy of the plutonium measurement if not properly taken into account: consequently, safeguards of plutonium could be affected," Los Alamos scientists wrote in a 1996 study. A third test of a fuel's proliferation potential is whether it can be readily used as bomb fuel with little further refinement. With PUREX, the reprocessing technology now used by Britain, France, Russia, and Japan, it's clear that its plutonium oxide output could be swiftly and easily converted to metallic plutonium for a bomb, experts say. By contrast, UREX-plus fuel "is not attractive or useable as weapons material," said Clay Sell, deputy secretary of Energy at a press conference unveiling the GNEP program last month. But that's not what several energy Department scientists have concluded. They found that plutonium-based reactor fuels with various impurities can still be used in a crude or even an advanced nuclear weapon. Fuel could become bomb, study says A "subnational group using designs and technologies no more sophisticated than those used in first-generation nuclear weapons could build a nuclear weapon from reactor-grade plutonium," a 1997 DOE study found. The explosion would be on the scale of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II. But even a "fizzled" explosion would mean a one-kiloton explosion, enough to devastate the core of a major US city. True, that study did not evaluate the "minor actinides," elements included in UREX-plus, such as americium and neptunium. But more recent DOE analysis indicates such elements are not much, if any, real obstacle to the fuel's use in a weapon. Indeed, UREX-plus would contain americium and neptunium, nuclear elements with explosive properties any terrorist or a rogue state could well appreciate, government physicists say. "As nuclear weapon design and engineering become more common in the world, it becomes possible to make nuclear weapons out of an increasing number of technically challenging explosive fissionable materials," including the likes of americium, wrote a DOE scientist in a 1999 report. Such fears are largely unfounded, counters Finck at Argonne. "Theoretically, yes, you could use it [in a bomb.] But it would be an extremely difficult process. I can't comment further on that." Common security measures, he adds, such as close-in surveillance cameras, real-time computer tracking of material, guards, guns, and fences at UREX-plus reprocessing plants, in tandem with technical challenges would make the fuel very difficult to steal. -------- u.n. UN Council Debates Iran Nukes U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said every day that goes by "the Iranians continue to engage in enrichment activities. The IAEA has reported they've converted enough yellowcake to make about 85 tons of uranium hexafluoride, which the physicists will tell you can be converted roughly, once it's enriched to highly enriched uranium, to ten, roughly ten or so nuclear weapons." by William M. Reilly UPI U.N. Correspondent Mar 16, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UN_Council_Debates_Iran_Nukes.html United Nations - The days have dwindled during all the machinations over Iran's nuclear ambitions to the point where all 15-members of the U.N. Security Council are now considering punitive options, despite threats from Tehran. The 10 elected U.N. Security Council members Tuesday began studying "elements" of an Iran statement, or resolution, the permanent five members have been discussing since last week. Britain and France, drafters of the one page "non-paper" obtained by United Press International, gave it to the diplomats "in confidence." The other three veto-wielding permanent members of the council are China, Russia and the United States. Both Beijing and Moscow are against pressuring Tehran. If the supporters of the text cannot get China and Russia to go along with it to form a consensus in the council, then, according to strategists, they will put it in resolution form, which will force Beijing and Moscow to either veto or abstain to express any objections. The proposal endorses the U.N.'s Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, its Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, and his Feb. 27 report referring the Iran issue to the council, saying it could not be determined for certain Iran's nuclear program was strictly for peaceful use. One draft element noted the report "lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, resulting in absence of confidence." Another "notes with regret Iran's decision to resume enrichment-related activities and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA." One of the draft elements called on Tehran to take the confidence-building steps needed to establish "the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear program and resolve outstanding questions by fully complying with the requirements set out by the IAEA Board." Among the steps recommended were suspension of all enrichment and reprocessing activities, construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, ratification and full implementation of the "Additional Protocol" to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, implementation of transparency measures and "engag(ing) in active cooperation" as requested by ElBaradei. Diplomats said the draft should be formally considered by the council Friday. This is not soon enough for U.S. Ambassador John Bolton who, seeing any more talk as costly, telegraphed the "informal, informal meeting as we call it." Said Washington's envoy, "We do want to move as quickly as we can. We think it's important to try and maintain the unity of the Perm-5, which I think we've all reaffirmed to each other, the importance of keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And so that unity is important. But we also feel a sense of urgency." The reason, he then explained to reporters, was a story in Tuesday's New York Times. He read a quotation from Hassan Rowhani, the former Iranian negotiator, who said: "While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan, but we still had a long way to go to complete the project. "In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work on Isfahan. We are in fact much more prepared to go to the U.N. Security Council (as a result of that)," Bolton read. "I mean this is an admission," added the ambassador. "The New York Times reporter says a 'remarkable admission... suggested in his speech that Iran had used the negotiations with the Europeans to dupe them. He boasted that while negotiations were continuing, Iran managed to master a key stage in the nuclear fuel process -- the conversion of uranium yellowcake at its Isfahan plant. "So these negotiations that the Iranians like to have are not cost-free," Bolton said. "They were able to buy time -- by their own admission -- I couldn't make this stuff up... That's why our negotiation process will not be indefinite." Bolton said every day that goes by "the Iranians continue to engage in enrichment activities. The IAEA has reported they've converted enough yellowcake to make about 85 tons of uranium hexafluoride, which the physicists will tell you can be converted roughly, once it's enriched to highly enriched uranium, to ten, roughly ten or so nuclear weapons. "So everyday that goes by is a day that permits the Iranians to get closer to a nuclear weapons capability," he said. "Now, we want to proceed prudently and carefully, but it's one reason our concern was to bring this matter to the Security Council, which we've been trying to do for quite some time. And now that we're here, to try and move expeditiously." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- illinois MADIGAN, GLASGOW FILE SUIT FOR RADIOACTIVE LEAKS AT BRAIDWOOD NUCLEAR PLANT LEAKS OF TRITIUM-LACED WASTEWATER DATE TO 1996 March 16 , 2006 Illinois Attorney General http://www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2006_03/20060316.html For Immediate Release Contact: Melissa Merz 312-814-3118 877-844-5461 (TTY) mmerz@atg.state.il.us Chicago - Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow today filed a lawsuit against the owner and operators of the Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station in Will County for the facility’s releases of wastewater containing tritium into the groundwater beneath the facility and the groundwater outside the boundary of the plant. The first leak allegedly occurred a decade ago. The Village of Godley is located southwest of the nuclear plant, while the Village of Braidwood is approximately two miles north. The eight-count complaint, filed today in Will County Circuit Court, names as defendants Exelon Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation based in Chicago; Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), an Illinois corporation; and Exelon Generation Corporation, LLC, of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. Exelon Generation and ComEd produce and distribute nuclear power for their parent, Exelon Corporation. Com Ed was the owner and operator of the Braidwood station until 2000, when Exelon assumed those duties. Operations at the Braidwood nuclear plant generate tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can replace non-radioactive hydrogen atoms in ordinary water to form tritiated water. Small amounts of tritium are commonly found in most surface water; however, higher concentrations are found in water used by nuclear power plants. Health experts say human exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer. According to Madigan’s and Glasgow’s suit, Exelon released tritiated water at eight separate locations on the defendants’ property. Three distinct releases occurred in 1996, 1998 and 2000, and three other releases occurred at unknown times, from the facility’s blowdown line, an underground pipe that carries wastewater, including tritiated water, approximately four and one-half miles from the power plant directly to the Kankakee River. An additional release occurred at an unknown time in the area near and to the west of the station and an eighth release occurred March 13 near the tritiated water temporary storage area at the plant. Braidwood’s blowdown line is located on property owned by the defendants, but runs adjacent to private and public property, including a forest preserve and nature area. Madigan’s and Glasgow’s lawsuit alleges that the eight leaks contributed to water pollution and that six of the releases were the result of inadequate maintenance and operation of vacuum breakers along the blowdown line. Vacuum breakers allow air into the line to prevent the formation of a vacuum within the pipe. In alleging water pollution in their lawsuit, Madigan and Glasgow alleged that tritiated water entered the vacuum breaker housing and flowed into the groundwater and upward through a manhole onto the surrounding land. “When releases occur, it is absolutely critical that all parties, including state and local officials, employees and those who live in the surrounding area, are notified as soon as possible,” Madigan said. “The potential hazards associated with the nuclear industry demand such a response.” “The method of operations put in place at the Braidwood Nuclear Plant since 1996 by Commonwealth Edison and their parent company as of 2000, Exelon, clearly placed their profit margin first with a callous disregard for the health, safety and welfare of the local residents. Exelon was well aware that tritium increases the risk of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects and yet they made a conscious decision not to notify the public of their risk of exposure,” Glasgow said. “This lawsuit is critical to enjoin Exelon from releasing any additional tritium into the groundwater and to mandate an effective remediation of the serious damage that has already been done.” Glasglow continued, “As always, Attorney General Madigan has made available the resources of her office readily to work with my office in the filing of this most critical action on behalf of the residents of Will County. This action will go a long way in providing the residents of Godley and Braidwood with a level of confidence that our offices are going to prosecute these serious violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act to the fullest extent of the law.” “Since the IEPA learned in late 2005 about the tritium releases from Exelon, we have been aggressively investigating the nature and extent of the groundwater problems,” said Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Director (IEPA) Director Doug Scott. “We have also made every effort to respond to public concerns and we will continue to be involved as long as there is need.” The IEPA investigated the case and referred it to Madigan’s office in March 2006 after samples taken by the defendants in December 2005 indicated elevated levels of tritium contained in the groundwater at various locations outside the property boundary of the nuclear plant, including a private well allegedly contaminated by the 1998 release. The timeline for the alleged leaks of tritiated water is as follows: * 1996: an estimated 40,000-gallon release of tritiated water from vacuum breaker number 1 (VB1), the closest to the nuclear reactor and adjacent to a ditch which flows north, around the reactor and then south toward Godley. Water from the release flowed on the surface, entered the ditch and remains in the groundwater around VB1. * 1998: an estimated three million gallon-release from VB3 resulted in tritiated water ponding on the surface, which the defendants allegedly left to evaporate and soak into the groundwater where it remains. * 2000: an estimated three million gallon-release from VB2. According to the suit, the defendants recovered some of the released water, but an unknown amount remains in the groundwater near the area it was released. * Dates unknown: releases from vacuum breakers 4, 6 and 7, which impacted three additional areas. The release from vacuumbreaker 4(“VB 4”) resulted in tritium contamination, in excess of 20,000 pCi/L (picocuries per Liter), of groundwater within property owned by the Will County Forest Preserve District. * Date unknown: release of tritiated water in the area near and to the west of the station. * March 13, 2006: Tritium released from tritiated water temporary storage area. In addition, as a result of the leaks from VB3 in 1998 and VB2 in 2000, a plume of tritiated water is present near the vacuum breakers and has extended through the groundwater to the north through a surface pond and into groundwater north and west of the Braidwood property. The lawsuit alleges that all of the defendants also discharged non-radioactive contaminants such as sewage without a state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit into surface and groundwater off site. The complaint further alleges that tritiated water was released on March 13, 2006, from a containment area surrounding a number of tanks the defendants are using to store tritiated water, causing a threat to groundwater. Because of the problems with their equipment that caused the earlier leaks, the defendants currently are storing the tritiated water in these tanks instead of discharging the water into the Kankakee River. Finally, the complaint alleges that the defendants created and maintained a public nuisance through the releases and the other alleged non-compliance. As a remedy for the alleged water pollution, Madigan’s and Glasgow’s suit seeks an injunction ordering the defendants to: 1. Cease use of the blowdown line for the discharge of tritiated water until further order of the Court; 2. Prevent further migration of any contaminants released in the groundwater at and near the facility in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; 3. Implement measures to prevent the release of any contaminant from the facility in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; 4. Fully characterize the nature and extent of all soil and groundwater contamination caused by the releases, including identifying background contaminant levels and the future flow of contaminant plumes in groundwater in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; 5. Immediately provide a potable drinking water source to all people affected by the violations in an amount and quality sufficient to meet their daily needs, and in accordance with a plan acceptable to the court; and 6. Eliminate any threat to the use of groundwater by citizens in the area impacted by releases from the plant. The suit also seeks the maximum civil penalty of $50,000 for the water pollution violation and an additional $10,000 for each day the violations continue.Madigan and Glasgow also seek the maximum civil penalties for additional allegations that include exceeding groundwater standards. The lawsuit specifically names ComEd in two counts for allegedly violating its NPDES permit by not reporting until December 2005 the alleged leaks that took place in 1996, 1998 and 2000. Such incidents must be reported to state and federal authorities within 24 hours. The complaint also names ComEd for its alleged failure to contain and remove the tritiated water from the areas impacted by the 1996 and 1998 leaks. Each of these counts seeks a maximum civil penalty of $10,000 per violation and an additional $10,000 for each day the violations continue. Division Chief Matthew Dunn, Bureau Chief RoseMarie Cazeau, Assistant AttorneyGeneral Christopher Perzan and Environmental Counsel Ann Alexander are handling the case for Madigan’s Environmental Enforcement Division. -------- pennsylvania Authority urged to find alternate site for ash By Wynne Everett PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW NEWS SERVICE Thursday, March 16, 2006 http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_433822.html Activists opposed to moving uranium-contaminated ash to a landfill pleaded with members of the Kiski Valley sewerage authority Wednesday to join their campaign to stop the clean-up plan. Members of Citizens Action for a Safe Environment told the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority's board of directors last night that they want to cooperate with the authority in finding a better way to dispose of the ash. The ash was contaminated by wastewater from former nuclear-processing plants in Apollo and Parks Township. Group members warned, however, that they're willing to block trucks trying to ship the ash to a municipal landfill, if the authority proceeds with that plan. "We need your help," said Patty Ameno of Leechburg. "We don't want any confrontation down here, but we can't let those trucks roll." In November, the authority abandoned plans to move the ash to the Greenridge Landfill in East Huntingdon Township, after the landfill and others revoked bids for the job -- under intense pressure from nearby residents. Last week, the authority once again advertised for bids from landfills willing to accept the ash. The ash contains low levels of uranium, carried there from 1977-84 via wastewater from the former Babcock & Wilcox facility in Apollo. In the early 1990s, the authority planned to remove the ash as part of a routine upgrade of its facilities but was stopped when the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission found uranium contamination in the ash. The NRC concluded last year that the ash is safe to remove. The change in the federal commission's position is related to changes in the way the state and federal government measure radioactivity. In 1994, the NRC measured the concentration of uranium in the ash and deemed it higher than acceptable levels for ordinary landfill waste. Now, however, the NRC measures uranium based on the dosage a person would receive from contamination; based on that measurement, the agency concluded the ash is safe to move. The state Department of Environmental Protection approved a plan to remove the ash to a landfill and has set a deadline of October for the project to be completed. If the authority misses the deadline, it would have to forfeit a $900,000 bond. The activists have said they don't object to removing the contaminated ash, but they want it sent to a low-level, nuclear-waste facility instead. The authority, which plans to spend about $900,000 to move the ash to a municipal landfill, said the cost of shipping it to a nuclear-waste site would be too expensive. One nuclear-waste expert, who helped to clean up contaminated soil from other former Babcock & Wilcox sites, estimated it might cost as much as $17 million. At the authority's board meeting last night, Ameno said she plans to sue the DEP to stop the ash from going to a municipal landfill. She said a 1990 state law does not allow any nuclear-contaminated waste -- regardless of whether it has been classified as ordinary garbage -- to go to a municipal landfill. Authority lawyers said last night that they aren't sure Ameno's interpretation of the law is correct, but urged her to get to court soon if she's serious. "If you're going to do the injunction, do it quick so we know what is going on," authority Director Bob Kossak told Ameno. The authority plans to open bids for a new landfill disposal plan next month. Kossak told the group that he has spoken with Greenridge Landfill officials, and they don't expect to bid on the new plan. Wynne Everett can be reached at weverett@tribweb.com or (724) 226-4676. -------- south carolina Duke picks Cherokee County Energy company considers sites for possible nuke plants Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:59 am By Paul Alongi, STAFF WRITER, Greenville Online palongi@greenvillenews.com http://www.greenvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/NEWS01/60316006 Duke Power announced this morning that it has selected a site in Cherokee County for what could become the first nuclear power plant to begin construction in about 30 years. The Charlotte-based company also said it will begin laying the groundwork for permits that could lead to two other nuclear power plants, one of them in Oconee County. For the Cherokee County site, Duke plans to develop an application for a combined construction-and-operating license that would have to be approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In Oconee County and North Carolina's Davie County, Duke Power is considering whether to prepare an early site permit application. The early site permit application would enable the company to complete environmental and site suitability reviews. The license in Cherokee County will ask the NRC to approve two Westinghouse advanced passive reactors, each capable of producing 1,117 megawatts. Duke Power said it has entered into an agreement with Southern Company to evaluate potential plant construction at the jointly owned site. -------- vermont Atomic panel coming to resolve Yankee issues March 16, 2006 By Susan Smallheer, Rutland Herald Staff http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/NEWS/603160349/1003 BRATTLEBORO — The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will come to Vermont this summer and fall to resolve the lingering safety questions about Vermont Yankee's power boost, already under way. In an order released Wednesday, the quasi-judicial board finally set dates to hear the merits of issues raised in 2004 by the Douglas administration and the anti-nuclear New England Coalition. The ASLB, made up of three administrative judges, accepted some of the concerns or "contentions" raised separately by the state Public Service Department, and the Brattle-boro-based anti-nuclear watchdog group. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the hearings would be held in the Brattleboro area, in a location yet to be decided. He said the first hearing, to be held during the week of June 25, would be open to the public and would include "an opportunity for the general public to comment on uprate-related issues." Sheehan said even while the NRC staff had already approved the power increase, the ASLB issues were not moot. The ASLB could either uphold, disapprove or impose conditions on the NRC staff approval, he said. That panel's decision could also be appealed, he said, to the five-member NRC. He said the second set of hearings, to be held in September or October, would be for the state and the Yankee opponents to present their evidence. The state is concerned about the erosion of safety margins in a key emergency core-cooling system, while the NEC wants the plant to have to go through an emergency shutdown at the higher power level to test vital systems. Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee, said it doesn't believe the issues require a hearing, but it's still preparing its case. "We had argued that those issues did not warrant litigation, but the board disagreed," Entergy spokesman Robert Williams said. "We are pleased that the schedule has been set and the process is moving forward. We're preparing our case on the merits." The NRC approved the 20 percent power boost two weeks ago, but before the quasi-judicial Atomic Safety and Licensing Board had resolved the safety concerns. On March 4, the plant increased power by 5 percent, but immediately identified an acoustic vibration problem in a main steam line. The company said it is still studying the sound before increasing power further. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. -------- virginia More tests sought for Lake Anna's 'hot side' Lake Anna group calls for monitoring on the side of the reservoir nearest nuclear power station Date published: 3/16/2006 By RUSTY DENNEN Fredericksburg, VA, Free Lance-Star http://fredericksburg.com//News/FLS/2006/032006/03162006/175766?rss=local A Lake Anna watchdog group formed last year in response to plans for a new nuclear reactor there has broadened its focus. In a meeting last week with state officials and legislators, Friends of Lake Anna asked for expanded water-temperature monitoring on North Anna Power Station's cooling lagoon--also known as the lake's hot side. "This is an outgrowth of research we did" on Dominion Virginia Power's plans for a third reactor at the Louisa County plant, Harry Ruth, co-founder of the friends' group, said Tuesday. "We want the whole lake to be treated as a state body of water--at least for environmental and health issues," said Ruth, so that water temperatures on the hot side--officially known as the plant's waste heat treatment facility--will be regularly monitored. The hot side covers about a third of the lake and there are over 2,000 residential lots around it. It is considered a private waterway in the same regulatory class as a sewage-treatment lagoon. As such, it is not routinely tested by the Virginia Department of Health or the Department of Environmental Quality. Dominion does the only water monitoring on the hot side. Ruth said that, coincidentally, Dominion's five-year state water permit on Lake Anna is under renewal, so now is a good time for the water-temperature issue to be considered. Thousands of people live on or around the lagoon that receives water used to cool North Anna's two existing reactors. The 13,000-acre lake--the third-largest in Virginia--was created in the early 1970s for that purpose. Water from the plant flows into the lagoon, cooling as it goes, and eventually back into the main lake. In its research on the reactor plan, Friends of Lake Anna argued that there was the potential for water at the end of the discharge canal to exceed 109 degrees on hot summer days. Dominion has said the highest temperature ever recorded at the discharge canal was 103.6 degrees. The company made concessions to Friends of Lake Anna last fall by agreeing to change its original plan to cool Unit 3, if it is ever built. The new plan in- corporates a cooling tower design to eliminate the need for shunting millions more gallons a minute of heated water into the cooling lagoon. Still, hot water is a concern for swimmers and aquatic life. Friends of Lake Anna pointed out that hot tub manufacturers warn of possible human health effects for prolonged exposure over 104 degrees. "We'd like to see future water permits limited to no greater than 104 degrees," Ruth said. Friends of Lake Anna established last summer in response to Dominion's pending application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an early site permit for a possible new reactor. Since that time, the organization has weighed in on the application, with a focus on the hot side of the lake. "We're not anti-nuke and not NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) and we want to work with all parties," Ruth said. "Dominion has been a good steward of the lake the last 30-plus years." Among those attending last Thursday's meeting at the General Assembly Building in Richmond were state Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, Dels. Bill Janis, R-Goochland, and Chris Peace, R-Hanover, and representatives of the Health Department, DEQ, and Dominion. Houck said yesterday that it appears the state does have a role, but that needs to be defined. He wants these issues addressed. "What's the framework to ensure that the commonwealth does protect the community?" Houck said. Also, "How do we enhance and utilize the monitoring that is already occurring and how is that communicated in a timely fashion to the public?" To reach RUSTY DENNEN:540/374-5431 Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com -------- us nuc waste DOE Not Ruling Out Any Nuclear Storage Options Mar 16, 2006 KUTV http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_075205916.html WASHINGTON, D.C. Key lawmakers say they are not pursuing – for now – a suggestion by Private Fuel Storage that the federal government temporarily store nuclear waste at their proposed facility in Utah. PFS, a group of utilities that won a license to store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel above ground about 50 miles west of Salt Lake City, pitched the idea to several members of Congress in a letter making its way around Capitol Hill this week. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has received the letter, but he and his staffers are still evaluating it, Domenici's spokesman Matt Letourneau said Thursday. And a spokeswoman for New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the lead Democrat on the committee, said Bingaman has opposed the idea of interim storage so far. The two will be important lawmakers to win over if PFS hopes to make the Department of Energy a client. Another would be Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who chairs an appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. Although Hobson asked an Energy Department official earlier this week whether the department should consider the offer, he has no plans to pursue any more information from the government, his spokeswoman Sara Perkins said Thursday. In the letter, which is dated Dec. 13, 2005, PFS Chairman and CEO John Parkyn said that moving waste to PFS's facility on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation would save the government billions of dollars. He also said it would be safer and more practical than storing waste at several sites across the country. PFS won its license earlier this year just as several of its members announced they were no longer interested in the project. To begin construction, PFS must show it has enough money. It also still must get approval from other federal agencies. The Energy Department has said it is committed to storing waste in a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But recently, as the Yucca Mountain project has hit several obstacles delaying its opening, officials have said they will look at the possibility of storing waste temporarily somewhere else. Sue Martin, a spokeswoman for PFS, said the company hopes their facility will be considered. ``We want to be part of the interim solution for spent nuclear fuel in this country,'' she said. ``We have a license, we certainly have a head start. If we can be helpful to the government, that would be wonderful.'' Craig Stevens, an Energy Department spokesman said Thursday that the department still has an open mind about how to store nuclear waste, but for the moment, using a private nuclear waste facility is not one of the options. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Embargoes on global arms trade have been total failure, says UN By Kim Sengupta Published: 16 March 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article351535.ece All United Nations arms embargoes have been breached with impunity, with only a handful of the weapons traffickers responsible for the trade in death ever facing prosecution, according to a report. Despite the UN naming hundreds of companies - including those in Britain - for allegedly violating embargoes imposed on countries engaged in bloody conflicts and repression, the system for bringing them to book has abjectly failed. The report, by leading human rights groups, presented to the UN Security Council today, asks for urgent measures to control the proliferation, including agreement on an international arms trade treaty. The call for reform is backed in a letter by, among others, the Nobel laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Jody Williams and Oscar Arias; the former UN high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson; the actors Helen Mirren, Christopher Ecclestone and Tony Robinson; the author and activist Arundhati Roy; Lt-Gen Romeo Dellaire, who led UN forces during the Rwanda genocide, and the Albert Schweitzer Institute. "Today, millions of people around the world are living in fear of armed violence," the letter says. "They have good reason to be afraid. Most victims of armed violence are not uniformed soldiers, nor even fighters, but ordinary men, women and children. "In 2006, the world can make the first step towards bringing the arms trade under control, by starting negotiations on an international arms trade treaty. "What we are calling for is not revolutionary. It simply consolidates countries' existing and emerging obligations under international law into a universal standard for arms sales. But it has the power to save hundreds of thousands of lives." The dossier, by Oxfam International, Amnesty International and International Action Network on Small Arms describes how companies and individuals have been involved in illicit transactions in weapons. Four UK companies were named in UN embargo reports in the past 10 years. None are known to have faced prosecution by the British government. The proposed treaty has the backing of 45 countries, including the UK and other members of the EU as well as Britain's Defence Manufacturers Association. However, the US, Russia and China, responsible for a large percentage of world arms exports, are yet to give support. The report, UN Arms Embargo: An overview of the last 10 years, points out that, despite UN mandatory arms embargoes being legally binding, many member states have not made their violation a criminal offence. UN teams policing the embargoes are given "woefully inadequate resources and time" to pursue wealthy companies with influential vested interests. There are also numerous examples of corrupt officials covering up arms transfers with the use of faked documentation. Campaigners say the structure of embargoes and sanctions needs to be overhauled. Between 1990 and 2001, only eight of 57 conflicts, in some of the poorest countries on Earth, led to UN action and then only after widespread human rights abuse and bloodshed. The dossier uses the example of a Serbian company, Temex, which, according to the UN, delivered nearly 210 tons of arms and ammunition to Liberia in 2002. It included "five million rounds of ammunition; 5,160 guns, 2,500 hand grenades, 6,500 mines and 350 missile launchers. "These shipments include enough bullets to kill the entire population of Liberia ... and enough to keep an armed group of 10,000 fighters supplied for a whole year," it says. -------- britain Peers stand firm against ID cards By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent Published: 16 March 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article351557.ece A trial of strength between peers and MPs looms today after the House of Lords threw out for the third time Tony Blair's plans to introduce identity cards . The Government repeated its determination to drive the scheme on to the statute book last night and will ask MPs today to overturn the latest Lords defeat. With little sign of either House backing off, the impasse over the Identity Cards Bill threatens to develop into a constitutional crisis. The Lords voted by 218 to 183 yesterday, a majority of 35, to reject proposals to require all people registering for a biometric passport to include their details on the new register that will underpin the cards. Peers protested that the proposal amounted to an attempt to introduce a compulsory ID scheme by stealth. But Home Office ministers insisted it is an integral element of the scheme. The Tory spokeswoman Baroness Anelay of St Johns said: "We believe quite simply that there are other and better ways of securing our safety, reducing the fraudulent use of services and managing migration." The stand-off sets the scene for a lengthy spell of "ping-pong" with the Bill going back and forth between the two Houses. The prospect that eventually the Government may have to use the Parliament Act to get the Bill into law sparked angry exchanges over the right of peers to challenge MPs. Lord McNally, leader of the Liberal Democrat peers, protested: "It is very important in the relationship between the two Houses that this House retains the right to say 'no'.'' Andy Burnham, a Home Office Minister, said: "This has now been backed by the House of Commons three times. The time has come for the Lords to give way so we can get on with the job." ---- MI5, Camp Delta, and the story that shames Britain By George B. Mickum Published: 16 March 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article351561.ece Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna are among eight British residents who remain prisoners at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They are jailed because British officials rendered them into the hands of the CIA in Africa, a fact that may explain why the British government refuses to intercede on their behalf. Bisher and Jamil have been wrongfully imprisoned now for more than three years. This is the story of their betrayal by the British government and their appalling treatment at the hands of the CIA and the U.S. military. The author, a partner with Washington law firm Keller and Hackman, represents Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna. This exclusive report is compiled from conversations with his two clients, their declassified letters and declassified legal responses, and information provided by the US Military Several weeks after 11 September 2001, two MI5 agents arrived at Bisher al-Rawi's family home to recruit him to work for British Intelligence. The visit was part of an effort to recruit scores of individuals from London's Muslim community for reconnaissance work and to assist the war on terror. ABU QATADA In particular, MI5 sought contacts with some of the Muslim clerics preaching in London. Mr al-Rawi was a perfect candidate, educated, fluent in English, and a friend of a Muslim cleric named Abu Qatada. The agents presented identification, introducing themselves to Mr al-Rawi as "Alex" and "Matt". However, they are the same names the agents used throughout the Muslim community in London. The agents asked Mr al-Rawi wide-ranging questions, which he answered candidly. At the end of the meeting, they asked if would agree to speak to them again. Two more meetings took place at Mr al-Rawi's family home in London. At the agents' suggestion, Mr al-Rawi started meeting them at a coffee shop in Victoria station. Shortly after, the agents asked Mr al-Rawi to work for MI5 on a more formal basis. He agreed. Over the next nine months, meetings took place in hotel rooms in and around London. Throughout Mr al-Rawi's relationship with MI5, his agents pressured him to accept payment for his services. He refused all such overtures. The only thing Mr al-Rawi , 38, who is Iraqi born, ever accepted from MI5 was a mobile telephone. He took it to put an end to the agents' demand for him to be contactable. As his work with MI5 continued, Mr al-Rawi became increasingly alarmed about his relationship with MI5 and his potential exposure. Eventually, he sought assurances from Matt and Alex that his work as an intermediary between MI5 and Abu Qatada would not get him into trouble. Ultimately, he requested a meeting with MI5 and a private attorney, suggesting the human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce. MI5 refused. To assuage his concerns and convince him to continue working for MI5, the agents set up the first of two meetings with an MI5 lawyer whom they called " Simon". Alex and Matt were present at both meetings. Simon introduced himself to Mr al-Rawi as a lawyer with MI5. He conceded that Simon was not his real name. Simon assured Mr al-Rawi he was running no risk by working with MI5 and that MI5 and Simon himself would come to his aid if Mr al-Rawi found himself compromised. Simon told him that all he needed to do was record the date and time of his conversations with Simon, and MI5 would be able to identify and locate Simon. Mr al-Rawi's refusal to insist on a meeting with a private attorney would have devastating consequences. Abu Qatada was completely aware of Mr al-Rawi's relationship with MI5. Mr al-Rawi carried questions and answers between the parties, served as a translator, and participated in negotiations with Abu Qatada. "All I did in Britain was try to help with steps necessary to get a meeting between Abu Qatada and MI5. I was trying to bring them together. MI5 would give me messages to take to Abu Qatada, and Abu Qatada would give me messages to take back to them." It was during this time that Mr al-Rawi's good friend, Jamil el-Banna, a Jordanian British resident, became involved. While the British Government was publicly asserting that Abu Qatada's whereabouts were unknown, Abu Qatada was actively engaged in a dialogue with British officials that involved Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna. Mr al-Rawi asked Mr el-Banna to drive Abu Qatada's wife and son to meet Abu Qatada in London. Mr el-Banna followed Mr al-Rawi, who led the way on his motorcycle. When Abu Qatada was arrested, Mr el-Banna taxied his wife and child home at the request of the British officials on the scene. Mr el-Banna never was arrested: the police thanked him for his assistance. He was never even questioned because everyone was aware of his limited involvement. Based on this involvement, he has been tortured and jailed for three years. ARREST IN GAMBIA Mr al-Rawi then turned his energy to his brother Wahab's long-planned mobile peanut oil factory, a project in Gambia. Gambian authorities detained Mr al-Rawi, Mr el-Banna and their friends immediately after the group landed in Africa. Indeed, shortly after the arrest, Gambian authorities told the arrested group that the British had told them to make the arrests. There is no question that British officials rendered Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna into the hands of CIA officials in Africa in November of 2002. During one of Mr el-Banna's more than 100 interrogation sessions, his interrogator told him his adopted country had betrayed him A British citizen, Abdullah El Janoudi, who accompanied Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna to Gambia, confirms that a large American by the name of Lee told him British officials had the group arrested. He also confirms that during the interrogations that took place every two days, the CIA continued to press for incriminating evidence about Abu Qatada that linked him with al-Qa'ida. In Africa, the CIA had a complete file on Mr al-Rawi that included his hobbies, information that can only have come from British Intelligence. Mr al-Rawi states that "from the very beginning in the Gambia the CIA said, 'The British told us that one of you was helping MI5.' By the second day in the Gambia, they [the CIA] were asking me to work for the US in Britain. I said I would not." AFGHANISTAN Although Mr al-Rawi's brother Wahab and another friend were released after a month and returned to England, Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna were rendered at the end of 2002 in a CIA Gulfstream jet, one of a fleet of jets used by the CIA in its "extraordinary rendition" programme, in which the US transports victims to foreign countries for the express purpose of torture. Mr el-Banna's account of his arrest reads: Detainee: "When they came and arrested and handcuffed me, they were wearing all black. They even covered their heads ... They took me, covered me, put me in a vehicle and sent me somewhere. I don't know. It was at night. Then from there to the airport right away. Tribunal president: An airport in Gambia? Detainee: Yes. We were in a room like this with about eight men. All with covered-up faces. Tribunal president: Were you by yourself at that time? Detainee: Yes. They cut off my clothes. Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna were taken to the notorious "dark prison" in Kabul, Afghanistan. There, both men were imprisoned underground in isolation and darkness and tortured over two weeks. They were held in leg shackles 24 hours a day. They were starved, beaten, dragged along floors while shackled, and kicked. Round-the-clock screams from fellow prisoners made sleep impossible. Subsequently, they were transferred to the US Air Force base at Bagram, Afghanistan. Although they were chained hand and foot and hooded, while waiting to be transported, their captors beat them. Mr el-Banna, in particular, was beaten repeatedly. In Bagram, they were imprisoned and tortured for another two months. They were beaten, starved, and sleep deprived. What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that the only information the interrogators were interested in was information about Abu Qatada. Over the years, CIA and military interrogators have repeatedly attempted to suborn testimony from both men, linking Abu Qatada to al-Qa'ida. Mr el-Banna has repeatedly refused offers of freedom, money, and passports in exchange for false testimony. GUANTANAMO BAY Ultimately, both men were transported to Guantanamo, a trip so harrowing that a government informer, who was posing as a prisoner and had to be transported and treated the same as other prisoners, stated in a television interview that, at the time, he wished someone would shoot him. Forced to wear darkened goggles, face-masks and earphones, chained at the ankles, handcuffed behind their backs with thin plastic that caused incredible pain, and, in some cases, lasting damage, starving and sick prisoners who had been deprived of sleep were forced to maintain a sitting position, legs forward and chained without moving for nearly 24 hours. If they moved they were beaten, kicked, hit with blunt objects. The government informer lasted barely one month in the intolerable conditions in Guantanamo before demanding freedom. During the first month at Guantanamo in which both were kept in strict solitary confinement, the pair were interrogated six hours per day and kept in the interrogation room for 14 hours per day, sometimes in freezing temperatures to induce hypothermia, one of the many techniques approved for use by the Bush administration. In some cases they were short-shackled, hands behind heels, for the entire time. During his lengthy incarceration, Mr el-Banna has repeatedly asked his interrogators to administer a polygraph test, but the military has refused. However, the military's unwillingness to give him a lie detector deviates from standard prison policy. Former interrogators at Guantanamo confirm that a "passed" polygraph test is a prerequisite to be transferred to Camp IV, the lowest security prison camp on the base. Mr el-Banna is in Camp IV. Mr al-Rawi, who also is in Camp IV, had a polygraph administered, but the military has refused to turn over the results and there is no mention of it in records produced by the military. Indeed, the military has taken great pains to prevent any exculpatory information from creeping into the official records to ensure prisoners have no chance to exonerate themselves. In Guantanamo, Mr al-Rawi has met perhaps 10 different CIA agents. One agent who went by the name "Elizabeth" told him: "Don't think that leaving here will come without a price." Mr al-Rawi said: "She asked me whether I would work with them, and I said no. [She] suggested, 'How about working with MI5?'" MI5 MEETINGS Mr al-Rawi's relationship with MI5 did not end with his arrest. He has met MI5 agents at Guantanamo on numerous occasions. He first met an MI5 agent in the early autumn of 2003, fully shackled. After some perfunctory questions and answers that confirmed his work with MI5, the agent offered him an oblique, belated apology: "Sorry about all this." Several months later, Alex, the MI5 agent with whom Mr al-Rawi worked in London, interrogated him at Guantanamo. Among other things, Mr al-Rawi told Alex the Americans wanted him to work for US intelligence. In January 2004, Martin and Matt, the other two MI5 agents that Mr al-Rawi worked with in London, met Mr al-Rawi in an interrogation room. During that meeting, agents proposed that Mr al-Rawi return to working with MI5 upon his release. He agreed. The following day, the agents told him it would take them one to six months to get him home. Former Guantanamo interrogators report that all prisoner interviews with foreign intelligence officials are videotaped. The trial judge in charge of both men's cases granted them motion to preserve that specific evidence along with copious other evidence we have managed to identify. REVIEW TRIBUNAL I advised the men more than one month before I travelled to Guantanamo in September 2004, advising them not to appear before the CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunal) or participate in the process. My letters were not delivered until after each had participated in his tribunal. I advised them against participating, among other reasons because the tribunals were permitted to rely on information obtained under torture. Both men were not even permitted to review all the evidence against them, and thus had no chance to defend themselves. The following testimony from a CSRT proceeding demonstrates the Bush administration's commitment to providing prisoners with meaningful due process. In response to the charge "While living in Bosnia, the detainee associated with a known al-Qa'ida operative" the following colloquy, which could have been lifted from the pages of The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland, took place: Detainee: Give me his name. President: I do not know. Detainee: How can I respond to this? President: Did you know of anybody who was a member ofal- Qa'ida? Detainee: No, no. President: I'm sorry, what was your response? Detainee: No. If you tell me the name, I can respond and defend myself against this accusation. President: We are asking you the questions and we need you to respond to what is on the classified summary. Although both men never were anywhere near Afghanistan or Iraq, never were involved in any wrongful activity, never possessed a weapon of any kind, they were powerless to defend themselves against the charge that they had associated with Abu Qatada, "a known al-Qa'ida operative", even though Abu Qatada has never been charged with any crime or been shown to be a member of or involved in al-Qa'ida. But, the full extent of both men's betrayal by MI5 does not end here. At the tribunal, Mr al-Rawi testified under oath about his relationship with MI5 and his role as a liaison between MI5 and Abu Qatada. He informed the tribunal that MI5 had expressly approved of his role: "During a meeting with British Intelligence, I had asked if it was OK for me to continue to have a relationship with Abu Qatada. They assured me it was." Mr al-Rawi requested that the MI5 agents Alex, Matt, and Martin appear before the tribunal to confirm his work with MI5 and Abu Qatada. Very much out of character, the tribunal president recognised the obvious importance of such testimony and "determined that these three witnesses were relevant". He instructed the military prosecutor to make inquiries and to determine whether the British Government would make the witnesses available . The British Government not only refused to allow the witnesses to appear, it refused to confirm the accuracy of Mr al-Rawi's account, thereby ensuring both men's fate and consigning them to indefinite imprisonment. The following account is taken from Mr al-Rawi's CSRT: President: Detainee has requested three witnesses who would testify that he supported the British Intelligence Agency. We have contacted the British Government and at this time, they are not willing to provide the tribunal with that information. The witnesses are no longer considered reasonably available, so I am going to deny the request for those three witnesses. Later in the proceeding, the president issued the following clarification: " The British Government didn't say they didn't have a relationship with you, they just would not confirm or deny it. That means I only have your word." Mr el-Banna's CSRT hearing was so procedurally defective that it would make good farce were the result not so devastating. The only evidence considered by the tribunal was that he drove Abu Qatada's wife and son to visit him during the time British authorities were engaged in discussions with him. In fact, his CSRT hearing was postponed and reconvened three times on 25 September, 28 September, 2 October and 9 October 2004 to allow the military's prosecuting attorney to collect and present additional evidence to the tribunal. At the conclusion, Mr el-Banna's personal representative, a soldier and non-lawyer who could be compelled under the CSRT rules to testify against him courageously dissented from the tribunal's conclusion, including a formal statement in the CSRT record: "The personal representative states that the record is insufficient to prove that the detainee is an enemy combatant." Although Mr al-Rawi disclosed his involvement with MI5 during our first meeting in 2004, he has been loath to go public with this information. But there are few options left available to both men. Congress voted to ban torture by an overwhelming majority in December 2005, but President Bush signed the bill into law with a clarifying "signing statement" that allows him to ignore it whenever he chooses. Of more immediate concern is Congress's recent legislative reversal of the Supreme Court's decision to allow prisoners at Guantanamo to file petitions for habeas corpus . In response to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, the US government moved quickly to dismiss all of the habeas cases filed by prisoners at Guantanamo, including those filed by Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna. NO RETURN Neither man can return to the UK because their visas have expired. The British Government adamantly refuses to reissue them visas or allow them to return home on humanitarian grounds. If the cases are dismissed, the US military intends to transfer Mr al-Rawi to Iraq and Mr el-Banna to Jordan. There, each will be jailed with the host country's pro-American acquiescence. Recent reconnaissance indicates the US government is negotiating with foreign governments to jail prisoners from Guantanamo indefinitely. Why the British Government has treated these two men as it has, I cannot say. What seems most likely is that they were simply expendable pawns in Great Britain's and America's attempt to create a case against Abu Qatada My security clearance allows me to review all of the classified evidence in the cases, including all the evidence the tribunal relied upon to conclude that Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna were enemy combatants. There is no evidence in the record, classified or unclassified, which supports the military's determination that these are enemy combatants. None. The African business trip that ended in chains and imprisonment By Robert Verkaik Jamal el-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi were arrested at Banjul airport, Gambia, in November 2002 on suspicion of links to terrorism. The two friends were in a party of five businessmen who were trying to start up a peanut oil venture. Two other British nationals detained at the same time were flown home. The Government argues that Mr al-Rawi, an Iraqi citizen in his late thirties and Mr el-Banna, a Palestinian in his forties, who have both brought up families in Britain, are British residents with limited rights. After their arrest, the two men were interviewed by the Americans and flown in chains to Bagram in Afghanistan. In early 2003, they were taken to Guantanamo Bay. Last month Mr Justice Collins ruled that Mr el-Banna and Mr al-Rawi should have their case for judicial review heard in the High Court, and that claims of torture at the camp meant the Government might have an obligation to act. But the Government maintains: "It is only through ... their nationality that persons can ... enjoy the obligations placed on a state by international law." -------- iraq US launches air offensive in Iraq Thursday 16 March 2006, Reuters http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/700FEDFE-B0ED-49B4-9123-6508E4753864.htm US forces, joined by Iraqi troops, have launched the largest air assault since the US-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital. The US military said on Thursday that the offensive dubbed Operation Swarmer was aimed at clearing "a suspected insurgent operating area" northeast of Samarra and was expected to continue over several days. "More than 1500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the military statement said. Samarra, about 95km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, was the site of a bombing against a Shia shrine on 22 February that touched off sectarian bloodshed and killed more than 500 and wounded hundreds more. It is a key city in Salahuddin province, a major part of the so-called Sunni triangle where insurgents have been active since shortly after the US-led invasion three years ago. Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's interim foreign minister, said the attack was necessary to prevent insurgents from forming a new stronghold such as they had established in Falluja, west of Baghdad. "After Falluja and some of the operations carried out successfully in the Euphrates and Syrian border, many of the insurgents moved to areas nearer to Baghdad," Zebari said on CNN. "They have to be pulled out by the roots." A Shia shrine in Samarra was bombed on 22 February Residents north of Samarra said that there was a heavy US and Iraqi troop presence in the area and that large explosions could be heard in the distance. They said the operation appeared to be concentrated near four villages - Jillam, Mamlaha, Banat Hassan and Bukaddou - near the highway leading north from Samarra to the city of Adwar. It was not clear whether the operation had met resistance or whether the US aircraft had conducted any attacks. Waqas al-Juwanya, a spokesman for the provincial government's joint coordination centre in nearby Dowr, said "unknown gunmen exist in this area, killing and kidnapping policemen, soldiers and civilians". Near the end of the first day of the operation, the military said a number of weapons caches have been captured, containing artillery shells, explosives, bomb-making materials and military uniforms. Bodies found Police have meanwhile discovered 29 more bodies discarded in various parts of Baghdad late on Wednesday and Thursday. The victims were all men, some with their hands bound, who had been shot execution-style and dumped in both Shia and Sunni Muslim neighbourhoods, said Lieutenant Colonel Falah al-Mohammedawi. Iraqis mourn the death of three schoolgirls killed in Baqouba North of the capital, a roadside bomb exploded near a girl's primary school near Baqouba, killing three students aged 12-13 and wounding two others, police said. Another bomb missed a US patrol in Mosul, killing one civilian and wounding three others, police said. Four more people were killed in a drive-by shooting in the city. In Ramadi, residents picked through the rubble of a home they said was destroyed in a US raid. Residents have reported repeated clashes in the city in an insurgent-plagued area west of Baghdad. Recent AP Television News video showed a gunbattle in which a gasoline truck was set on fire and at a separate location the killing of an unidentified man with heavy gunfire audible in the background. The US military has not responded to repeated requests for information. ---- The Cost of War in Retrospect by Alan Reynolds Posted Mar 16, 2006 HUMAN EVENTS http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13292 Three years have passed since the United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003. But not all anniversaries should be celebrated. Like previous wars in Vietnam and Korea, the Iraq war is becoming much more difficult and costly than optimistic hawks predicted, while any benefits remain hypothetical and elusive. I wrote a few articles on "the economics of war" before this war began. Days before the invasion, I predicted that "the costs (of war) would be closer to $200 billion," rather than the $50 billion to $60 billion the administration claimed. I was talking about direct military costs for the United States alone, and only in Iraq (not Afghanistan, which I regard as a defensive move). Because I envisioned 25 percent more troops but only two years of intense fighting, my seemingly exaggerated $200 billion estimate has already turned out to be too low. Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz prepared an impressive new paper on the cost of the Iraq war for the National Bureau of Economic Research. They calculate the U.S. cost of military operations as $251 billion through November. For comparison, William Nordhaus of Yale estimated the direct cost of the Vietnam War at $494 billion and the Korean War at $336 billion. But those wars are over, while this one is escalating. The cost of the Iraq war rose 18 percent last year. If U.S. troops do not come home until 2010, Bilmes and Stiglitz believe the costs could exceed $1 trillion. When it comes to "staying the course" beyond 2008, however, we have to ask that same question I asked in 2003: "Would U.S. voters put up with that?" I speculated that a prolonged and messy Iraq war could have the same effect on Bush's popularity that Vietnam had on Lyndon Johnson's poll ratings. Hawks accused me of bashing the president, but they are the ones who bashed the president. After adding Afghanistan and such related expenses as reconstruction and foreign aid, the Bilmes-Stiglitz estimate reaches $357 billion so far, and growing by more than $7 billion every month. The biggest cost of war, of course, is measured in lives, not dollars. The Associated Press counted at least 2,282 U.S. military deaths in Iraq by March 1, nearly all of whom were killed after the invasion ended. Bilmes and Stiglitz estimate at least 257 military deaths among other coalition countries. There have also been about 17,000 Americans wounded and an estimated 30,000 Iraqis killed, many of them civilians. Balance requires weighing such costs against benefits. A study last fall by Scott Wallsten and Katrina Kosec of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center made an admittedly imprecise estimate that savings from people not being killed by Saddam's regime, and from not trying to enforce the corrupt U.N. sanctions, totaled about $116 billion, while their estimate of global costs of the Iraq war (including damage to Iraq) was $428 billion. They did not include intangible "benefits of a stable democratically elected government in Iraq, should one emerge." Those who want to count better roads and schools in Iraq among the war's benefits would be best advised to not test that argument in this year's congressional elections. American voters would rather have their taxes spent on better roads and schools at home. I remain surprised that others remain surprised the Iraq war has been so difficult and costly. It doesn't surprise me. Here are a few excerpts from past columns: -- May 2002: "The role of the military is to protect U.S. citizens. There may be some perfectly sensible reason for the United States to wage war against Iraq, but we are entitled to a better explanation than what we have been hearing. Starting wars is easier than ending them, as we learned in Vietnam. Then and now, vague and hypothetical future dangers are not a high enough standard for risking the lives of American soldiers." -- November 2002: "My best guess is that war and its aftermath would be more costly and difficult than the optimists admit. ... Perhaps the biggest risk of a war with Iraq is that it would divert the nation's security resources from fighting al-Qaida to fighting Saddam, and from homeland security to foreign affairs. ... It is impossible to devote 100 percent of resources to two or three tasks at the same time." -- March 2003: "Iraq's southern Shiites, western Sunnis and northern Kurdish tribes have been held together by brute force, and they may prove no more cohesive a 'nation' than Yugoslavia. Some Iraqis who welcome liberation may violently resist occupation. Despite heroic talk about building a model democracy in Iraq, just keeping the place from coming unglued could be a chore." -- October 2003: "In 'The Mouse That Roared,' a 1959 Peter Sellers movie, the tiny country of Fenwick declares war on the United States in the hopes that it will quickly lose and then receive oodles of postwar aid. Replace Fenwick with Iraq, and you get a pretty good idea of what some people mean by 'rebuilding' Iraq -- namely, a potentially endless transfer of funds from U.S. taxpayers to Iraq. ... Rather than 'rebuilding the old Iraq,' the Iraqis themselves are going to have to build a new Iraq -- a process that requires more wisdom and less dependence on foreign aid. The Iraqis are the only ones who have the knowledge and incentive to get it right." The Washington establishment is finally starting to complain, though timidly, about the incredible overgrowth of federal spending and borrowing during the last five years. In too many of these discussions, however, the Iraq war is not the tiny mouse that roared, but the giant elephant that polite Republicans are supposed to ignore. Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute. -------- prisoners of war Senior Abu Ghraib officer says rules for dog use were lacking 16/03/2006 - 12:43:50 http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/03/16/story249596.html The former US military intelligence chief at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison says he regrets not setting “appropriate controls” there, where detainees were bitten by dogs and assaulted and sexually humiliated by guards. Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 and early 2004, testified yesterday at the Fort Meade, Maryland, court-martial of Sgt. Michael Smith, an Army dog handler charged with abusing detainees at the prison. “If I had to list my biggest failure, I think it was not setting appropriate controls,” said Pappas, the highest-ranking witness scheduled to testify. “In hindsight, clearly we probably needed to establish some definitive rules and put out some clear guidance to everybody concerned,” he said, testifying for the defence under a grant of immunity. Nevertheless, Pappas said under cross-examination that a photograph showing Smith’s unmuzzled dog straining at its leash inches away from the face of a terrified prisoner, was not consistent with any policy or guidance. During nearly two hours of testimony, the colonel provided few details about the genesis of harsh interrogation tactics that included “exploit Arab fear of dogs” – a technique recommended in a policy dated September 14, 2003. But he told the court at Fort Meade that the dogs were to be used “to assist in setting conditions for interrogations”. The policy required interrogators to get case-by-case approval from Pappas’ supervisor, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and required dogs to wear muzzles and to be controlled by their handlers. Pappas said he signed one such request on December 14, 2003, for interrogating one of three prisoners said to have been captured with Saddam Hussein a day earlier. Pappas said he approved the request, mistakenly thinking he had that authority under a revised policy he called “confusing”. In May, Pappas was reprimanded, fined $8,000 (€6,200) and relieved of his command of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade for failing to get Sanchez’s approval in that case. Other testimony in the trial, which began on Monday, has revealed conflicting notions among prison workers about how dogs were supposed to be used, what the approval process was and where interrogations were supposed to occur. Defence lawyers contend Smith was following his training and his instructions. But prosecutors have portrayed him and another Army dog handler, Sgt. Santos Cardona, as rogue soldiers who, together with some of the reservists who guarded the prison, tormented prisoners for their own amusement. Smith, 24, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is charged with 13 offences and could serve up to 24 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Cardona, 31, of Fullerton, California, is set to stand trial on May 22. -------- us US Strategic Review Reaffirms Preemption Calls Iran Top Danger by Staff Writers Washington (AFP) Mar 16, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Strategic_Review_Reaffirms_Preemption_Calls_Iran_Top_Danger.html A key new US national security strategy document reaffirms the White House stance on preemptive war against threatening foreign states and terrorists despite the country's mounting troubles in Iraq, the Washington Post reported late Wednesday. In a quadrennial review of national security strategy to be released Thursday, the White House also singled out Iran as possibly the greatest threat to the United States, the Post said on its website. "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," it says, according to the Post, noting Tehran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. But it also cited challenging situations in North Korea, Russia and China, according to the newspaper. It calls on Beijing to "act as a responsible stakeholder, adding that "Our strategy ... seeks to encourage China to make the right strategic choices for its people, while we hedge against other possibilities." The 49 page document reiterates the stance laid out in the 2002 document moving away from deterrence and containment to a more aggressive stance toward US enemies, the Post said. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," it says. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD (weapons of mass destruction) are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize," it says. The strategy, to be made public with a speech by White House national security advisor Stephen Hadley, "serves as a guidepost for agencies and officials drawing up policies in a range of military, diplomatic and other arenas," the Post said. "I don't think it's a change in strategy", Hadley told the Post, "It's an updating of where we are with the strategy, given the time that's passed and the events that have occurred." -------- ENERGY G8 split in nuclear-energy talks Lucie Godeau | Moscow, Russia 16 March 2006 -- Sapa-AFP http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=266921&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/ Group of Eight (G8) countries were divided on Thursday on ways to ensure long-term world-energy security, as the European Union admitted its members had diverging views on ambitious plans for developing nuclear power being pushed by Russia and the United States. "It is a very different approach from the members of the G8," Andris Pielbalgs, EU commissioner for energy, told reporters as G8 energy ministers huddled in talks on how to ensure secure energy supplies amid rising global demand that is stretching supply capacity. "I think it's very difficult to see a common view on nuclear energy in the G8," Pielbalgs said, adding: "A common position on nuclear energy is still difficult to reach because it's still controversial." Germany had attacked a plan under consideration by the G8 -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US -- for broad expansion of nuclear power as a way of enhancing energy security. Pielbalgs acknowledged that, among the EU states, Britain was in the process of reviewing its energy strategy, France was "very strongly supportive" of pursuing nuclear development, while "Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants". Nuclear power development was likely to figure prominently at the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July in a growing debate about the use of nuclear energy amid high oil prices and a volatile situation in the Middle East. "The instability of oil prices and their dependence on a series of non-economic factors is having a negative effect on the global situation," Russia's Energy and Industry Minister Viktor Khristenko said when opening the G8 discussion. On January 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced an initiative for the creation of an international network under UN supervision for production of nuclear fuel to be provided to any country with the means to pay for it on a "non-discriminatory" basis. The US, which has also been discussing plans to boost safe nuclear-energy development, has warmed to the Russian proposal, with US energy secretary Samuel Bodman saying here on Wednesday that Putin's initiative on nuclear energy was "consistent with our thinking". As G8 states voiced starkly differing views on the nuclear issue, Russia showed little inclination to give in to mounting European pressure for it to sign an energy charter treaty, laying out ground rules for energy producers and consumers. The treaty, which the US has also balked at, would, among other things, prevent Russia from curtailing energy supplies as it did during a gas-price dispute with Ukraine in January, and would encourage the opening of Russia's energy transport infrastructure to outside competition. While the US and Europe have called for "liberalisation" in Russia's vast and coveted energy sector -- increasingly controlled by state-run firms like the energy giant Gazprom -- Moscow has reacted coolly. As the world's second-largest exporter of oil behind Saudi Arabia, and owner of the world's largest natural gas reserves, Russia holds a lot of the cards in the debate on energy security. But it was also Moscow, chairing the G8 for the first time, that placed energy security at the top of the G8 agenda, and Russia will likely have to show some flexibility on Western demands for higher "visibility" in its energy sector if its G8 presidency is not to be seen as a flop. Piebalgs said earlier that Europe was not satisfied with the level of Russian gas production. "We want Russia to produce more gas and consume less," Piebalgs told Moscow Echo radio in an interview late on Wednesday. Greater energy saving in the country "would be advantageous for Russia, the EU and the international market," he said. Europe, which depends on Russia for some 25% of natural-gas imports, is concerned that Russia may not be producing enough gas for export, and is still edgy after Russian gas-supply disruptions in January and February. In Brussels on Tuesday, EU ministers called for a "new partnership" with Russia to secure EU energy imports after Moscow's spat with Ukraine over natural-gas prices briefly lowered the bloc's supplies. -------- alternative energy EU Eyes Raising Targets for Renewables, Biofuels REUTERS BELGIUM: March 16, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35672/story.htm BRUSSELS - The European Union is to consider setting higher targets for the use of renewable energies and biofuels by 2015 at a summit next week, a draft statement obtained by Reuters showed on Wednesday. The draft said the European Commission should study raising the share of renewables to 15 percent of energy generated in the 25-nation EU from a target of 12 percent by 2010 and increasing the proportion of biofuels used in transport to 8 percent by 2015 from a target of 5.75 percent by 2010. EU leaders are due to debate a common energy policy at a summit in Brussels on March 23-24. EU countries are already finding it hard to meet the targets they set themselves for 2010 and the Commission, the EU's executive arm, is looking for ways to help member states meet those goals, notably through a Biomass Action Plan. That uncertainty was reflected in the wording in the draft, which called for "producing a Commission analysis of how to achieve the existing targets (2010) of renewables and how to further promote renewable energies (road map) considering to raise their share to 15 percent by 2015." It also called for maximum support for research and development of a second generation of biofuels, which are derived from crops. Environmental campaigners are pushing for more ambitious and strict targets for renewable energy sources to cut down on the EU's dependence on fossil fuels, which pollute and are blamed for climate change. An EU diplomat said the proposed new targets appeared to have been included by the Austrian EU presidency without widespread discussion with member states and it was not certain they would be included in the eventual summit statement. "Whether they survive is is another matter," he said. ---- Biodiesel Fuels Asia Plantation Stocks Story by Ovais Subhani REUTERS SINGAPORE: March 16, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35678/story.htm SINGAPORE - Living in one of Asia's most polluted cities has piqued Putut Andanawarih's interest in a cleaner form of fuel known as biodiesel. The Jakarta-based fund manager finds such "green fuel" even more appealing because of the potential impact on his portfolio of palm oil plantation stocks. High crude oil prices and a European Union-led drive for cleaner and renewable energy have boosted the development of alternative fuels including ethanol, extracted from corn or sugarcane, and biodiesel, made from rapeseed, soya or palm oil. As little or no change is required in order for conventional diesel engines to use these biofuels, analysts hope more vehicles will mix these into their regular fossil fuel diet. Recent interest in biofuels has driven a rally in shares of Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil plantation companies, sending shares in Malaysia's IOI Corp. and Indonesia's Astra Agro Lestari to all-time highs. Analysts reckon these plantation stocks stand a good chance of being re-rated with higher earnings and share price forecasts, particularly as the impact of biodiesel on global supply and demand for edible oils becomes clearer. About 80 percent of the world's palm oil, which is used for cooking oils and margarine, is grown in Malaysia and Indonesia. "What we see in biodiesel is a future potential for increased demand for palm oil, driven by the energy sector," said Andanawarih, investment director at Australian fund manager First State Investments in Jakarta. Andanawarih has been adding to his positions in Indonesian plantation firms such as Astra Agro, London Sumatra and Bakrie Sumatra Plantation, and in Malaysia's IOI Corp. and Golden Hope. Subramanya Bettadapura, energy and power analyst at research consultant Frost & Sullivan, said biodiesel output in Europe was likely to increase 10 percent this year from around 3 million tonnes in 2005. Production in the United States could top 1 million tonnes, compared with 750,000 tonnes in 2005. BULLISH EXPECTATIONS US President George W. Bush also gave a boost to green fuels with his recent rallying call for improving technologies to cut Middle East oil imports by 75 percent by 2025. The common alternative fuel in the US is ethanol. Ivy Ng, analyst at CIMB in Kuala Lumpur, noted that most plantation stocks have outperformed the market and palm oil prices in the past year, suggesting some of the bullish expectations might have already been priced in. "Investors will have to be very selective," said Ng, whose top Malaysian picks are Golden Hope and Asiatic Development Ng said she expects the price of crude palm oil, currently around 1,400 ringgit per tonne, to hit 1,580 ringgit this year, and shares in Golden Hope and Asiatic could rise 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively, by the year-end. PPB Oil Palms and United Plantations provide a pure play on palm oil and exclude other businesses such as property and rubber, Ng said. In Indonesia, she likes Bakrie Sumatra, which is controlled by the family of cabinet minister Aburizal Bakrie. Some foreign investors are still wary of investing in Indonesian plantation stocks such as Bakrie Sumatra, Ng said, as many of the big business groups defaulted on their foreign debts during the 1997-98 financial crisis. However, Andanawarih said most of the Indonesian plantation firms have since restructured and now have much healthier books with manageable levels of debt. BOOMING CONSUMPTION So far, the use of palm oil as feed stock for biodiesel is minimal, Bettadapura said, as just 1 percent of biodiesel made worldwide last year came from palm oil. "But things are changing fast," he added. The European Union, which has set a non-binding target of 5.75 percent biofuel content by 2010, last year turned into a net importer of rapeseed oil and soyabean oil for the first time, according to Hamburg-based industry publication Oil World. "About 95 percent of the current demand growth is due to booming consumption of oils and fats for biofuels, primarily for the production of biodiesel," Oil World said. Malaysia, the world's biggest palm oil producer and exporter, has already started to build plants which will next year supply a hybrid fuel made up of 95 percent diesel and 5 percent palm oil. Malaysian plantation firm Kulim Bhd. has teamed up with Germany's CremerOleo GmbH & Co. to set up two biofuel plants, one in Malaysia and one in neighbouring Singapore. All good news for Andanawarih's plantation stocks, even though the Jakarta resident is unlikely to get much reprieve from the smog hanging over his city. While Indonesia, the world's second-largest palmoil producer, wants to become the world leader, it has no plans to encourage biodiesel at home. ---- Morrisons to Open UK's First Bioethanol E85 Pump REUTERS UK: March 16, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35676/story.htm LONDON - British supermarket group Wm Morrison said it planned to open the UK's first bioethanol E85 filling pump on Wednesday, tying in with the first deliveries of the Saab 9-5 BioPower flex-fuel car. Bioethanol E85 (a blend of 85 percent bioethanol and 15 percent petrol) will retail for two pence per litre less than petrol, and can contribute to a cut in the harmful effects to the environment caused by burning fossil fuels, Morrisons said. Morrisons, the UK's fourth largest supermarket chain, will locate the UK's first bioethanol E85 pump on the forecourt of its Albion Way, Norwich site, to be immediately followed by supplies at another four of its sites in eastern England. "Creating demand for this product will, in the medium to long term, present major opportunities for UK farmers to supply their excess cereals capacity to bioethanol manufacturers," Morrisons said in a statement. Morrisons said the availability of the fuel, branded as Harvest BioEthanol E85, had been timed to coincide with the first customer deliveries of the Saab 9-5 BioPower, which was officially launched in Britain in November 2005. Saab BioPower technology enables its cars to run on either the potent yet environmentally-friendly fuel BioEthanol E85, or on pure petrol, without any adjustment required by the driver. Saab is a unit of General Motors Corp. Ford Motor Co.'s Ford Focus FFV can also use BioEthanol E85, a Morrisons spokesman said. ---- Xcel Energy Led US Wind Power Buying in 2005 REUTERS US: March 16, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35669/story.htm NEW YORK - Xcel Energy Inc. led US utilities in the purchase of power generated by wind turbines last year, edging out Southern California Edison, an industry group said. By the end of last year Xcel was purchasing power from 1,048 megawatts of wind turbines, compared with power purchased from 1,021 MW of wind turbines by Southern California Edison, a subsidiary of Edison International. Wind power makes up 3 percent of Xcel's power sales, a spokesman said. A spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association said companies that invest in wind insure themselves, in effect, against potential tighter environmental regulations on power from fossil fuels, including potential greenhouse gas emission limits. They also create broader, more dependable power portfolios, she said. Wind power installations grew 35 percent in the United States last year, the fastest rate in the world. Sales of wind power turbines have become a billion dollar business, but wind power accounts for less than 1 percent of overall US power supply. Pacific Gas & Electric was the third largest wind buyer last year, followed by PPM Energy, a division of Scottish Power Plc, and TXU Corp. -------- ACTIVISTS California - Protests to mark Iraq war's 3rd year Despite larger events slated for S.F., Oakland, many of the activities will be held in the suburbs By Dogen Hannah KNIGHT RIDDER Thu, Mar. 16, 2006 http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/14114329.htm Iraq war opponents plan to turn out in protest around the Bay Area and elsewhere in the nation this weekend to mark the third anniversary of the March 19, 2003, U.S.-led invasion. Several national activist organizations have planned a major demonstration for San Francisco's Civic Center, yet many of the weekend's events are to be relatively modest and set in suburban locales. "This anniversary, rather than have a few big events, people are really doing stuff in their local communities," said Andrea Buffa of Global Exchange, an international human rights organization. That includes in the East Bay, where war critic Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, will host a two-hour town hall meeting in Oakland. Marches and rallies are also planned in Walnut Creek and Vallejo. Anti-war activists have been pressuring members of Congress to push for the swift withdrawal of the nearly 135,000 U.S. forces from Iraq. In part, this weekend's events are aimed at increasing that pressure. "We want to educate people and encourage them to become activists and interact in a democratic process," said Tony Martarella, who helped organize the Walnut Creek event. As of this week, at least 2,309 members of the U.S. military have died in the war, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. At least 17,124 others have been wounded in action. Estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the war vary. The Web site www.iraqbodycount.org puts the toll at more than 33,600. President Bush said in December that 30,000 Iraqis had died in the war. Dogen Hannah covers the military and the home front. Reach him at 925-945-4794 or dhannah@cctimes.com. WEEKEND EVENTS Here are several war-related events planned for Saturday: • WALNUT CREEK: March to begin at 11 a.m. at the BART station parking lot and end at Civic Park, at the intersection of Civic Drive and North Broadway, for a noon rally. Author Norman Solomon is to be the keynote speaker. Other speakers include Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez; Contra Costa County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, and former Rep. Pete McCloskey. Boots Riley of "The Coup," Country Joe McDonald, Julay Brandenburg and The Nightbirds, and the Oakland Children's Choir will provide entertainment. • OAKLAND: Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, will host a town hall meeting from 9 to 11 a.m. at the Grand Lake Theater, 3200 Grand Ave. Speakers include anti-war activist Medea Benjamin; Andy Shallal, an Iraqi who has been traveling around the country talking about the war; and Sophie Simon-Ortiz, a producer and reporter who has been producing a radio program in which the names of Iraqi and U.S. casualties are read. • SAN FRANCISCO: Rally at 11 a.m. at the Civic Center at the intersection of Grove and Larkin streets, followed by a 2-mile march through downtown and another rally at the Civic Center. • VALLEJO: March to begin at 10:30 a.m. at Redwood Street and Sonoma Boulevard and will end at Mare Island Way and Georgia Street on the city's waterfront for a noon rally. • CLAYTON: Peace observance at 7:30 p.m. The one-hour observance hosted by St. John's Episcopal Church, 5555 Clayton Road, will include a candle-lighting, songs, music and prayers led by attendees. ---- Musicians to stage anti-war concert Mar 16, 2006 (UPI) http://music.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1137483.php/Musicians_to_stage_anti-war_concert NEW YORK, NY, United States -- More than a dozen musicians plan to join forces for a New York anti-Iraqi War benefit concert called 'Bring `Em Home Now.' The goal of the Monday night event is to give 'voice to the majority of Americans who now support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq,' the New York Daily News reported Wednesday. Among the scheduled performers are Chuck D, Michael Stipe, Rufus Wainwright, Fischerspooner, Steve Earle, Bright Eyes and Peaches. Peace activist Cindy Sheehan is scheduled to address the crowd and Air America`s Janeane Garofalo will broadcast her 'Majority Report' show live from the event. ---- Nuclear Free Vermont - Legislation/Action Update Flyby News Archives 16 March 2006 http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1142545506,54142, VT Senate bill S.124 has recently been introduced to restore some semblance of democratic process to the nightmare of the proposed extension for the license of the aged and brittle Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, that received strange vibrations attempts were made to increase its output. Please contact (call or write) Vermont legislators and ask for their active support (more than just their vote) for this bill. It is only right that there be an informed, fair, democratic debate of allowing or not allowing the only nuclear plant in the state to operate 20 years beyond its current license and design life. Please also consider writing a letter to the Editor stressing the necessity of an informed, fair, democratic debate; and of legislative involvement on the proposal to extend the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee license. Just a few calls and letters can make an enormous difference. Ray Shadis Staff Technical Advisor New England Coalition http://necnp.org/