NucNews September 18, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety U.S. Nuclear Safety Lacking, Watchdog Says WASHINGTON, DC, September 18, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-18-09.asp#anchor1 U.S. regulators are failing to adequately monitor safety at the nation's nuclear power plants, according to a report released Monday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report shows that severe problems have caused U.S. nuclear reactors to shut down 31 times for a year or longer. More than 70 percent of those outages were caused by programmatic breakdowns that led to cumulative, systemic degradation of reactor components, UCS said. In essence, the report finds, plant owners failed to find and fix problems that subsequently caused safety margins to deteriorate to levels so low that reactor operations could not continue. The study finds that the year-plus outages resulting from this poor management and ineffective regulatory oversight have cost ratepayers and stockholders nearly $82 billion in lost revenue. "Nuclear power is clearly not safe enough when so many reactors have to be shut down for a year or more," said David Lochbaum, author of the new report and director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tolerated unsafe conditions until they became too serious to ignore. Regulators must address the safety problems in the current generation of nuclear plants before allowing utilities to build new ones." The nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors currently produce 20 percent of U.S. electricity. Industry advocates have begun a campaign to increase nuclear power as a way to combat global warming and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of energy. The UCS report is the first study to analyze every U.S. nuclear power outage lasting a year or longer. According to the study, 36 of the 51 year-plus outages were caused by "excessive tolerance" by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of plant owners who did not identify problems early enough or address them effectively. Twenty-two percent were necessitated by the replacement and repair of large components, while eight percent were the result of events that caused extensive damage to the plants. "A one-in-three chance of incurring a year-plus outage was not supposed to be part of the bargain when these plants were built and licensed," said Lochbaum. "Some proponents of nuclear power have justified all these safety problems by arguing that no U.S. nuclear plant has experienced a meltdown since 1979. That's as fallacious as arguing that the levees protecting New Orleans were fully adequate prior to Hurricane Katrina by pointing to the absence of similar disasters between 1980 and 2004." The report includes six recommendations to protect public safety, including a call for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to follow federal regulations to identify and fix problems in a timely manner. -------- business U.S. nuclear reactor builders race for federal cash By Scott DiSavino | September 18, 2006 (Reuters) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/18/us_nuclear_reactor_builders_race_for_federal_cash/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News NEW YORK - The United States has offered billions of dollars in incentives to jump start investment in new nuclear power reactors, creating a race for the cash among potential builders. With a federal law allowing builders to save hundreds of millions of dollars in debt financing costs by borrowing money at low rates, several companies are preparing applications to build the next generation of reactors. "These plants could begin site work by the end of 2008, move to construction in 2010 and be ready for operation in 2014 to 2015," said Frank Bowman, president and chief executive of Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group. The first few reactors could cost $3 billion or more depending on the size of the plant. After that, prices should decline as builders learn from earlier projects and manufacturers recover initial design and engineering costs, making nuclear competitive with integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) "clean" coal plants. Companies preparing to compete for business include Dominion Resources, Tennessee Valley Authority, Entergy, Southern, Progress Energy, SCANA, Duke Energy, Exelon, Constellation Energy, FPL, NRG and TXU. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the government to provide federal loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of "innovative technologies" - nuclear and clean coal - that "avoid, reduce or sequester - greenhouse gases." The DOE, however, recently issued guidelines to implement the loan guarantee provision for projects costing under $2 billion, which is below the construction cost of a nuclear power or clean coal plant. Last week, the Nuclear Energy Institute asked Congress to give the DOE some guidance on its loan guarantee guidelines. TAX CREDITS In addition, the Energy Policy Act included a production tax credit of $18 per megawatt-hour, subject to certain dollar and capacity limitations, representing $5 billion to $6 billion in economic benefit. To qualify for the tax credit, companies must apply for a construction and operating license by the end of 2008, start construction by the end of 2013 and start commercial operation by the end of 2021. NEI said energy companies are developing licenses to build as many as 30 units, most of which should meet the 2008 application deadline. "If you have not started to develop (a construction and operating license) application at this time, it would be hard but not impossible to meet the 2008 deadline," said Adrian Heymer, senior director, new plant deployment at NEI. AVOIDING DELAYS The construction of new reactors should avoid the delays that plagued the industry after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 because the NRC now issues a combined construction and operating license before builders break ground. In the past, utilities had to secure two licenses - one to build the plant and one to operate it. Requests for operating licenses before Three Mile Island were contentious. After the accident, they became even more difficult. The public still can challenge new reactors during the licensing process before a company sinks a lot of money into the unit. Builders worried about delays can buy federal insurance to cover debt service charges for delays beyond the owner's control. -------- china Centuries-old partnership binds China, Iran together For more than a decade, Beijing helped give Tehran a head start in its nuclear program Kathleen E. McLaughlin, San Francisco Chronicle Foreign Service Monday, September 18, 2006 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/18/MNGJPL7MQ41.DTL Beijing -- With Iran's nuclear enrichment program at the center of high-stakes multinational negotiations, China is in the awkward position of passing judgment in the U.N. Security Council on the very technology it helped the Islamic republic accumulate. For more than a decade, starting in 1984, China aided Iran with its fledgling nuclear program. Although Beijing no longer is providing such assistance, Tehran's weapons program would be far less sophisticated had it not received significant Chinese help. That assistance included training Iranian scientists, helping to build facilities, and direct military aid and hardware sales, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based research group. China also supplied Iran's first nuclear reactor in 1991, in addition to hardware and support. "Between 1985 and 1997, China was Iran's most important nuclear partner," said John Garver, associate at Georgia Institute of Technology's China Research Center and author of "China and Iran: Ancient Partners in a Post-Imperial World." In 1997, after years of intense criticism from the United States and others, China pledged to end its nuclear assistance. Since then, there has been no direct evidence otherwise. But to some experts, China is working to help Iran -- with which it has significant oil deals -- in more subtle ways. "Tehran's intransigence in this standoff has been made possible in part by its strategic partnership with Beijing. Since the start of international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program some three years ago, China has worked actively to dilute the effectiveness of any global response. It has done so initially through its vociferous opposition to Iran's referral to the United Nations Security Council, and more recently by its resistance to the imposition of multilateral sanctions against Tehran," Ilan Berman, vice president for policy of the American Foreign Policy Council, said in testimony last week before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which advises Congress on matters concerning China. As the Bush administration has led the drive to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions by pushing for Security Council sanctions, China has strived to mollify its top trading partner, the United States. But at the same time, the Beijing government is pushing for more talks and fewer threats of sanctions against its longer-term ally and closer political confederate, Iran. If push comes to shove, analysts say, it's difficult to tell which side China would ultimately choose. Some contend that China will do its best to ensure it doesn't have to choose, while also continuing its cautious route of bolstering economic ties to buffer Iran against potential U.S.-led economic sanctions. "The Chinese will work very hard to make it look like they are not choosing (the) U.S. over Tehran, but they will also have to not appear obstructionist," said Adam Segal, senior fellow for China studies with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The situation, said Segal, is markedly similar in many ways to China's current position in the North Korean weapons imbroglio. As Beijing consistently calls for more negotiations and publicly condemns its longtime Asian ally, it shies away from the U.S.-led push for tough sanctions. At a European Union summit last weekend, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said his country is unlikely to support sanctions against Iran. "To mount pressure or impose sanctions will not necessarily bring about a peaceful solution," Wen said. "China helps to move things along, but does not make the difficult choices that could resolve the crisis," Segal said of the Iranian and North Korean nuclear standoffs. Indeed, China's mantra throughout the recent escalation with Iran has been a call for more talking. "We have consistently stood for the resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiation and dialogue," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in Beijing earlier this month. In its opposition to U.N. sanctions on Tehran, China has echoed the stance of Russia, Iran's more forthright ally. Both China and Russia are permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, both have important trade ties with Iran, and both chafe at being pressured to follow U.S. policy initiatives. In the past five years, China and Iran have significantly deepened and expanded their economic ties. That two-way trade totaled $6 billion in the first half of 2006, more than double the annual trade just five years ago. China, a burgeoning economic superpower whose 10.9 percent growth last year made it the world's fourth-largest economy, has an unceasing appetite for energy. In part thanks to major deals reached in the past three years, Iran now supplies 11 to 13 percent of China's oil, according to government and analyst estimates. China committed $3 billion this year to help increase yields from Iran's oil fields -- an important investment, noted Jephraim Gundzik, president of Condor Advisers, which specializes in emerging-markets research. "Beijing is essentially helping Tehran to lessen the impact of sanctions by increasing the country's domestic fuel production," said Gundzik. Yet the relationship is not only about oil, and it stretches back centuries. Both nations are proud, ancient non-Western civilizations that "deeply resent perceived contemporary Western presumptions of superiority," said Garver, the Georgia Tech scholar. The two see each other as kindred spirits in an era of rapid global Westernization. In 2001, Chinese President Hu Jintao, then the vice president, made an official state visit to Tehran marking 30 years of diplomatic relations. Hu lobbied for more trade between the two nations and harkened back to their ancient ties. That theme -- of two countries doing business over the centuries as part of the ancient Silk Road trade route -- has often been repeated in state-run media in China over the ensuing years. "Mega-Chinese investment in Iran is a strong demonstration of trust between Iran and China, but the relationship between the two is much deeper," said Gundzik. "In geopolitical terms, neither country wants the U.S. to become the dominant power in the Middle East. "Iran doesn't want to be controlled by Washington, and China does not want its energy supply controlled by the U.S. As a result, the two countries are working together to thwart the U.S." What keeps Iran and China tied, and tilts the balance at the United Nations as negotiators seek a solution, may be a simple distaste for U.S. world dominance. As Garver put it, "Neither likes the fact that the United States is a sole global superpower." -------- depleted uranium Arms manufacturer loads lead-free bullets Traditional variety 'pose a risk to people', warns BAE Systems By Lester Haines Published Monday 18th September 2006 UK Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/lead_free_bullets/ Find your perfect job - click here from thousands of tech vacancies Arms manufacturing monolith BAE Systems has decided to improve its whale-hugging credentials by developing a range of next-generation, environmentally-friendly weapons designed to be friendlier to Mother Earth. Included in the list of tree-hugging hardware is the "lead-free" bullet, offering clear advantages over the traditional variety which "can harm the environment and pose a risk to people". Free whitepaper - How to Choose the Best Help Desk Software for Your Small or Midsized Business Free whitepaper - ProCurve Networking by HP Free whitepaper - Leveraging ICT: The Real Opportunity for Achieving Performance in Delivering Government Services Enterprise Messaging Management from Symantec UK IT recruitment specialists - Jobsite According to The Sunday Times, BAE Systems is also looking to green up its "jets, fighting vehicles and artillery", including cutting carbon emmissions and the use of Volatile Organic Compounds. The company has already shown it intends to walk it like it talks it, and in 2003 stopped using depleted uranium in its products. BAE Systems' intiative is backed by the Ministry of Defence which has, rather spendidly, "proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke". BAE systems' corporate social responsibility supremo, Dr Debbie Allen, declared: "Weapons are going to be used and when they are, we try to make them as safe for the user as possible, to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment." The anti-arms lobby has reacted with predictable derision. Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade slammed the propsals as "ridiculous", adding: "BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical, but they make weapons to kill people and it's utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly." ---- Lead-free bullets..to save world By BRIAN FLYNN September 18, 2006 UK Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006430217,00.html AN arms giant faced ridicule last night after unveiling plans for GREEN weapons — including LEAD-FREE bullets. British firm BAE Systems wants to make “quieter” warheads to cut noise pollution and “eco-friendly” rockets. Scientists are also working on explosives that can be COMPOSTED if not needed and grenades that produce less harmful SMOKE. But critics were most stunned at the plan to design bullets without lead because it “can harm the environment and pose a risk to people”. The Ministry of Defence backs green weapons, saying armaments should incorporate “eco-design”. BAE Systems, Europe’s biggest munitions maker, stopped using depleted uranium in weapons in 2003 following a backlash against environmental havoc wreaked by bombs dropped in Afghanistan and Iraq. BAE director Dr Debbie Allen said: “Weapons are going to be used, and when they are we try to make them as safe to the user as possible to limit the collateral damage. “We also try to impact as little as possible on the environment.” She revealed the firm is also working on slashing carbon emissions from jets and armoured cars, and plans to make grenades with fewer cancer-causing chemicals. Campaign Against Arms Trade spokesman Symon Hill said: “This is laughable. They make weapons to kill people. It’s utterly ridiculous.” ---- Newest Stryker debuts Associated Press September 18, 2006 http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2112192.php FORT LEWIS, Wash. — Soldiers at Fort Lewis, Wash., have begun training on the Army’s 10th and final version of the Stryker armored vehicle. Five years in the making, the Mobile Gun System looks a lot like its predecessors but has a 105 mm cannon, and Army officials say it packs more power than other versions armed with a heavy machine gun, a grenade launcher or anti-tank missiles. “This will bring a lot more firepower, a lot more versatility to what the infantry can do,” said Sgt. 1st Class David Cooper, a tanker who leads a platoon of three of the new vehicles in the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment. The MGS, as the Army calls the new vehicle, is designed to back up infantry with a gun that can blast through walls, knock out fortified sniper nests, stop other armored vehicles and clear streets of enemy fighters. General Dynamics Land Systems began delivering the new vehicles a couple months ago, and now company teams are training crews. At about $3.7 million apiece, the MGS is the most expensive of the 10 variations of Stryker armored vehicles. For now, Fort Lewis — an Army post about 50 miles south of Seattle — will be home to 27 of them. Eventually, the Army plans to buy a set of 27 for each of its seven Stryker brigades. Local Stryker troops now fighting in Iraq won’t get the MGS till they come home next year. But the brigade that’s breaking in the new vehicles at Fort Lewis expects to return to Iraq next summer with the new vehicles, The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash., which is near the base, reported Sunday. Fort Lewis Stryker troops plan to take the vehicles to the Yakima Training Center in Eastern Washington late this month to conduct tests, validating skills based on the experiences of soldiers now fighting in Iraq, Cooper said. As with past Stryker models, testing will continue as the vehicle is delivered to soldiers preparing to take it into combat, said Peter Keating, a General Dynamics spokesman in Warren, Mich. The 49,000-pound MGS is operated by a three-man crew: a driver, a gunner and a vehicle commander, said Thomas Crooks, the company’s service leader at Fort Lewis. The gunner and commander track targets on computer screens inside their hatches in the turret. The vehicle can carry up to 18 rounds, and the gun is loaded by an automated hydraulic handler. Its computerized fire-control system is virtually identical to the one in the M1 Abrams, the Army’s main battle tank. The MGS will carry four types of ammunition: a depleted-uranium armor-piercing round, a high-explosive anti-tank round, a high-explosive plastic round for blowing through walls and barricades, and a canister round filled with 2,300 tungsten ball bearings for firing on enemy fighters. The MGS packs “exactly the same, if not a little more enhanced” firepower as the much heavier 70-ton Abrams tank, but is not as sturdy defensively, Cooper said. “It can dish out the punishment,” Cooper said, “but it can’t take it to the same degree that an Abrams can.” The MGS also does not need as much logistical support as the Abrams, gets better gas mileage and is built on the same basic chassis as other Stryker vehicles. Information from The (Tacoma, Wash.) News Tribune -------- europe Czech minister favours doubling capacity at Temelin nuclear plant PRAGUE (AFP) Sep 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060918111626.cct09spe.html The Czech Republic's newly installed industry minister said Monday he would like to double the existing capacity of the controversial Temelin nuclear power station by adding a further two reactors. The Soviet-designed power plant, about 60 kilometres (40 miles) from the Austrian border, was initially conceived for four reactors but later scaled back to the current two following the fall of the communist regime in 1989. "Construction of a third nuclear plant in the Czech Republic is not on the agenda. But what is on the agenda is the completion of Temelin," Civic Democrat industry minister Martin Riman said in an interview with the business daily Hospodarske Noviny on Monday. In spite of the addition of western security and safety systems, Temelin has been the focus of strong protests from the Austrian government and environmentalists before and after its official entry in service in 2000. They question its safety record and highlight its risk. A decision to expand Temelin is likely to ramp up tension between the two neighbours and EU countries. Riman downplayed the likelihood of such a reaction. "I have the impression that feelings towards nuclear power are changing across all of Europe. Consumption of electricity will increase. If Europe is not prepared she will cry bitterly," Riman told the paper. Temelin is operated by 67-percent state owned electricity operator CEZ. The company is currently weighing up its options for boosting its existing electricity production capacity with a decision expected by the end of the year, company managers told AFP in August. They said at the time they were still waiting for a clear signal about the evolution of the EU's emissions trading programme and future EU support for nuclear power. The right wing government of Civic Democrat leader Mirek Topolanek officially took office on September 4 but is still waiting to win a vote of confidence in the 200-seat lower house of parliament, where right and left wing factions each command 100 votes. -------- iran Iran's top nuclear official in Moscow next week MOSCOW (AFP) Sep 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060918115924.k03cxf9t.html The director of Iran's atomic energy agency will visit Moscow on September 25 for talks on the Russia-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr in southern Iran, Russian officials said. Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also Iran's vice president, will hold talks on "the construction of the Bushehr reactor," Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom said, according to Russian media. Novikov did not specify whom Aghazadeh would be meeting or whether officials would discuss the question of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, particularly uranium enrichment. Iran rejects US-led allegations that its nuclear programme is aimed at making a nuclear bomb, saying the drive is for civilian energy purposes only. -------- japan Anxiety chipping away at Japan's nuclear taboo By Tim Johnson McClatchy Newspapers Mon, Sep. 18, 2006 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15550443.htm TOKYO - A few weeks ago, a former prime minister said the once-unspeakable, suggesting that it may be time for Japan to study whether to acquire nuclear weapons. The remark caused barely a ripple. As the only nation devastated by nuclear weapons, Japan has long held to pacifism. There's been virtually no public debate about whether the country needed nuclear weapons, although they're well within its technological grasp. But a combination of factors - including the nuclear threat from North Korea, the rise of China, the ebbing of once-strong peace movements and Japan's rightward drift - have chipped away at old taboos. Underlying the shifting mood is public anxiety that the U.S. security blanket on Japan may unravel. Former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone evoked that uncertainty Sept. 5 when he said Japan should look into obtaining nuclear weapons. "There are countries with nuclear weapons in Japan's vicinity," the 88-year-old elder statesman said, adding, "We are currently dependent on U.S. nuclear weapons (as a deterrent), but it is not necessarily known whether the U.S. attitude will continue." Japan has the tools to build nuclear weapons quickly if it desired, including abundant nuclear material, a tested rocket and vast experience dealing with nuclear energy. "Japan has a virtual nuclear deterrent. Every country in the region knows it can produce a nuclear device, a rather sophisticated one, probably in six months," said Richard Tanter, a Japan scholar at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia. Some experts go farther, suggesting that Japan may have a design on the shelf. "I'd be surprised if they didn't," said Frank Barnaby, a British nuclear physicist and nonproliferation advocate who's studied Japan's nuclear energy industry. "They have stocks of plutonium. They have the know-how. All that is lacking is the political decision." Japan is third, after the United States and France, in nuclear power output. Its 54 reactors produce as much as 35 percent of the electricity consumed here, and its 43 tons in plutonium stockpiles are among the largest in the world. A nuclear bomb can be built with 17 or 18 pounds of plutonium. Japan's pacifist impulse is still strong, and observers see almost no public support for obtaining nuclear weapons. Yet major figures in Japan's political firmament all have talked about the issue, including the likely incoming prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who's backed Japan's right to launch pre-emptive strikes against enemy states and said Japan has the legal right to possess small nuclear weapons. Their attitude hardened after North Korea launched seven ballistic missiles on July 5, including a long-range Taepodong-2, into the Sea of Japan. The launches sent jitters across East Asia, and reports have followed that North Korea soon may test a nuclear device. Japan's view of nuclear weapons has evolved markedly since the 1980s. "In those days, if any political figure said, `I'm in favor of nuclear weapons,' you were considered a complete lunatic and a moral reprobate," Tanter said. Debate about the issue is couched in cautious language, reflective of public sensibilities in a nation that lost 210,000 people in two U.S. atomic bomb attacks at the end of World War II. Opposition to nuclear energy and armament has ebbed, however, as threats to Japan rise. "To tell you the truth, the anti-nuclear campaign in Japan is not so strong," said Hideyuki Ban, the co-director of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, an anti-nuclear group. Under its long-standing "three non-nuclear principles," Japan has renounced the right to own or produce nuclear weapons or allow them on its territory. But Ban said the principles never were codified into law, and legislators act as if they are irrelevant. "At least three times in legislative sessions, there's been discussion whether having nuclear weapons would violate the constitution. The Liberal Democratic Party always asserts that it would not be a violation," Ban said. Washington opposes Japan's acquisition of nuclear weapons, saying it would destabilize East Asia. Yet Vice President Dick Cheney and the U.S. ambassador to Tokyo, Thomas Schieffer, have suggested in recent years that North Korea's push to build a nuclear arsenal may pressure Japan and South Korea to go nuclear in response. Japanese scholars who study the nuclear calculus say moving to build such weapons would unsettle the United States and speed a military buildup in China. "In the foreseeable future, the nuclear option is not an option for the Japanese security strategy," said Nobumasa Akiyama of the Japan Institute for International Affairs. Japanese security policy, however, has been evolving. Under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who leaves office Sept. 26, Japan has stretched the constitutional limits on the activities of the nation's Self-Defense Forces. Japan deployed air and sea forces in support of the Afghanistan war, sent about 1,000 noncombat troops to Iraq and the Persian Gulf region until this past July, claimed a right to regional pre-emptive attack and pledged to help the United States deploy a missile-defense system. Less than two weeks ago, Japan launched its third spy satellite. Abe, the likely next prime minister, pledges to alter pacifist Article Nine of the constitution and create a normal military and to upgrade the Defense Agency. South Korea, once colonized by Japan, finds Japan's increased military profile distressing and bristles at the more open discussion of nuclear weapons. "Given the determination of Abe's faction, Japan's nuclear armament is only a matter of time," South Korea's largest daily newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, said earlier this month in an editorial, adding that a nuclear-armed Japan would "upset the power balance worldwide." ---- Do earthquakes put Japan at risk for a major nuclear power plant accident? September 18, 2006 Mainichi Daily News http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20060918p2a00m0na008000c.html The nuclear safety authorities are set to require electric power suppliers to assess the probability of major nuclear power plant accidents in case of powerful earthquakes, officials have said. The Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency will instruct electric power companies on Wednesday to conduct a so-called probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) on the risks of such accidents at each of their nuclear power plants. The power suppliers will be required to announce specific figures showing the probability of reactor cores at each of their nuclear power plants being broken by powerful quakes. "Regulations on nuclear power plant safety must be prepared to respond to earthquakes that are beyond the scope of our assumptions. PSA is an effective way to achieve that," Yoshinori Moriyama, an official of the agency, said. The move represents a departure from agency's previous stance -- claiming that nuclear power plants are absolutely safe, without showing any specific figure. Power suppliers are likely to be forced to structurally reinforce nuclear power plants that are deemed to be vulnerable to powerful earthquakes. Government guidelines for safety at nuclear power plants require power suppliers to design their nuclear power plants to withstand earthquakes of a certain intensity level. However, the probability of serious accidents occurring at nuclear power plants hit by temblors beyond that intensity level has not been calculated. The International Atomic Energy Agency recommends that the chance of the reactor cores being broken by natural disasters be reduced to 0.001 percent for newly installed reactors and 0.01 percent for existing reactors. The semi-governmental Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization estimated in 2004 that over the following 40 years there is an approximately 2 percent chance of a major accident occurring at Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant owned by Chubu Electric Power Co. in case of a major earthquake. (Mainichi) -------- korea S. Korea offers to share atomic energy technology Xinhua September 18, 2006 http://english.people.com.cn/200609/18/eng20060918_303924.html South Korean government has expressed its will to share atomic energy technology and knowhow on running nuclear power facilities with other countries, the South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported Monday. According to the Yonhap, South Korean Science and Technology Minister Kim Woo-shik made the remarks during a keynote address at the 50th general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. About 20 commercial reactors are now running in South Korea and producing 40 percent of the country's electricity. South Korea, which had received nuclear energy technology from the United States, Canada and France, can now design its own nuclear generators. South Korea will do its part to prevent nuclear arms proliferation and contribute to ongoing efforts to stem global warming through better use of nuclear power, Yonhap quoted Kim as saying. -------- latinamerica Mexico needs new $3 bln nuclear plant: minister Mon Sep 18, 2006 (Reuters) By Gunther Hamm http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=13522437&src=rss/scienceNews&rpc=81 MEXICO CITY - Mexico needs to expand its nuclear energy program and should start by building a new $3 billion power plant, its outgoing energy minister said on Monday. Fernando Canales said he would meet with conservative President-elect Felipe Calderon in coming days to propose that his new government build a nuclear plant with a capacity of 1,500 megawatts in the next four or five years. Canales told reporters the plant would have two reactors, cost about $3 billion to build and would be a good first step to boosting nuclear energy output in Mexico. "The objective is to increase in absolute terms the use of nuclear energy and not limit ourselves to two additional reactors," said Canales. He declined to give a location for the new plant but said that public reaction to increased nuclear energy generation has so far been positive. Mexico currently has one nuclear plant, which opened in 1990 and produces 1,365 megawatts. The plant, at Laguna Verde in Veracruz state, has been the focus of protests by environmental activists who say it is a public health hazard. Laguna Verde accounts for about 5 percent of Mexico's power consumption. Canales said the International Atomic Energy Agency recommends that nuclear plants provide about 20 percent of countries' power usage, but he did not say if Mexico would or should raise production that much. In December, the CFE state energy provider awarded a contract to General Electric Co.'s energy unit, GE Energy, to help boost Laguna Verde's output by as much as 20 percent. Calderon, who is from the ruling National Action Party of outgoing President Vicente Fox, will take office on December 1. Canales is not expected to stay on as energy minister. Nuclear energy is receiving renewed attention in the United States and Europe, which have closed carbon-emitting coal plants and are trying to reduce their reliance on oil. Finland is currently building Europe's first nuclear plant in over a decade. While nuclear plants are expensive to build, generation costs are much lower than at plants using fossil fuels. Nuclear plants produce lower emissions of greenhouse gases, but dealing with radioactive waste is a global headache. -------- pacific Customs probes 'nuke waste' cargo in Surigao September 18, 2006 ABS-CBN News http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=49481 The Bureau of Customs on Tuesday sent agents to the port of Surigao in Mindanao to investigate a vessel that allegedly contained nuclear waste. "We have sent personnel there and we have invited the [Department of Environment and Natural Resources] to validate the information that allegedly [the tugboat contains] nuclear waste," Commissioner Napoleon Morales told DZMM. Morales said the cargo's consignee had claimed that the shipment contained used oil. Customs officials in Surigao had allowed the tugboat to dock at the port bordering Surigao del Sur and Surigao del Norte provinces after its officers reported that the vessel was having mechanical problems. Morales said agents will investigate whether there was an attempt to dispose the alleged nuclear waste anywhere in the country. Reports said the cargo came from Palau. Morales said Republic Act 6969 (Toxic Substances, Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act) as well as the Tariff and Customs Code prohibits the "disposal of toxic substances and hazardous and nuclear wastes in the country." Morales said the bureau will coordinate with DENR, the Navy, the Coast Guard and environmental watchdog Greenpeace in guarding the country’s seas against nuclear waste disposal. -------- russia Russia to open International Nuclear Fuel Center in 2007 - Kiriyenko Sept 18, 2006 (Interfax) http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11589952 VIENNA - Russia is planning to open an international center offering nuclear fuel cycle services in 2007, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) Sergei Kiriyenko told journalists in Vienna on Monday. "We will be ready to create the conditions necessary for such a site by the end of this year," he said. "Russia offers every country desiring the peaceful development of atomic energy to become a founder and stock-holder of the center," he said. "Any nation will be able to receive guaranteed supplies of reduced enrichment uranium and also receive the right to participate in administering this center and to receive a share of its profits," he said. ---- Russia Hails US Nuclear Initiative To Stop Proliferation by Staff Writers Vienna (RIA Novosti) Sep 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Hails_US_Nuclear_Initiative_To_Stop_Proliferation_999.html Russia's nuclear chief said Monday that Moscow welcomed a proposal made by the United States on global partnership as another step toward securing non-proliferation in the nuclear sector. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, also said Russia paid close attention to and praised work conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, on identifying undisclosed nuclear materials and covert activities. "We support the U.S. initiatives on global nuclear energy partnership and proposals from a group of largest suppliers of enriched uranium on guaranteed supplies," Kiriyenko said after the 50th IAEA General Conference in Vienna, Austria. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which is part of President George Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, seeks to develop carbon-free nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand by using a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security while promoting non-proliferation. It focuses on recycling and providing assistance to nations pursuing nuclear energy for civilian needs alone. Kiriyenko also said he agreed with U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who said U.S. President Bush's initiative on nuclear partnership was a supplement to Russian proposals. "It is very important that President Bush's initiative supplement President [Vladimir] Putin's initiatives in the sphere of global nuclear energy cooperation," he said. Putin suggested at the beginning of the year that international uranium enrichment centers be set up in Russia in a move that was widely interpreted as an attempt to reach a compromise in the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Bodman had told the conference earlier that American-Russian cooperation in the nuclear sector was developing in every important respect. Last Friday, the countries signed a liability agreement under which the U.S. and Russia would dispose of 68 metric tons (about 150,000 pounds) of weapons-grade plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial reactors. Bodman also said the countries were successfully implementing the HEU-LEU conversion program, as well as a program on returning highly enriched uranium to Russia from a number of countries. The move is part of a Russian-U.S. intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in returning nuclear fuel from Russian-made research reactors, signed in May 2004, and a joint statement on nuclear security signed by presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin during a meeting in Bratislava in February 2005. Since 2004, Russia has repatriated new highly enriched uranium from Soviet-built plants in eight countries: Serbia and Montenegro, Romania, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Libya, Latvia, Poland and Uzbekistan. IAEA Control Kiriyenko also praised the UN's atomic watchdog, which is headed by Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, for its efforts to maintain the nonproliferation regime. "Russia attaches great importance to the IAEA's work on improving its control activities, including the development of the IAEA abilities to discover undisclosed nuclear materials and activities," he said. IAEA inspectors have been at the forefront of efforts to clarify the nuclear-status of countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea in recent years. Russia is continuing to help build a controversial nuclear power plant in Iran, which has consistently said it needs atomic energy for civilian needs rather than a covert arms program, and has called on Tehran to cooperate with the Vienna-based organization. Kiriyenko, who served a brief term as prime minister under President Boris Yeltsin in 1998, was also upbeat about a mooted system of nuclear-fuel services as more and more countries opted to pursue nuclear energy, but he added that the system should be under strict control of the IAEA. He said the expansion of nuclear energy technologies was accompanied by the threat that nuclear energy could be used for military purposes. This problem, he said, could be solved by a Russian initiative to form a global nuclear energy infrastructure that would provide equal access on market terms for all countries to nuclear energy under regulation and standards of non-proliferation. "The key element of such infrastructure is a system of international centers on nuclear fuel cycle services under the control of the IAEA," Kiriyenko said. Earlier this month he said that Russia could control up to 25% of the world's nuclear-fuel services market. "Russia believes that 25% of the world's market in nuclear fuel-cycle services, including uranium enrichment, is an optimal share," Kiriyenko said. "Technically and technologically, we are well positioned for this." ---- Russia-US Nuclear Cooperation Progresses Says US Energy Secretary Vienna (RIA Novosti) Sep 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Hails_US_Nuclear_Initiative_To_Stop_Proliferation_999.html The U.S. Secretary of Energy said Monday that American-Russian cooperation in the nuclear sector was developing in every important respect. Last Friday, the countries signed a liability agreement under which the United States and Russia would dispose of 68 metric tons (about 150,000 pounds) of weapons-grade plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial reactors. Samuel Bodman said that Russia and the United States enhanced the security of hundreds of tons of material for weapons, and that they planned to complete the work in 2008. "This agreement demonstrates that both countries continue to be committed to this important nonproliferation program, which will dispose of enough weapons-grade plutonium for more than 16,000 nuclear weapons," Bodman said following the signing Friday. Bodman also said the countries were successfully implementing the HEU-LEU conversion program, as well as the program on the repatriation of highly enriched uranium to Russia from a number of countries. The repatriation is part of a Russian-U.S. intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in returning nuclear fuel from Russian-made research reactors, signed in May 2004, and a joint statement on nuclear security signed by presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin during a meeting in Bratislava in February 2005. Since 2004, Russia has repatriated new HEU from Soviet-built plants in eight countries -- Serbia and Montenegro, Romania, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Libya, Latvia, Poland and Uzbekistan. ---- Intl. nuclear fuel centers would offer unbiased access - Putin 18/ 09/ 2006 RIA Novosti http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060918/54001958.html MOSCOW, September 18 (RIA Novosti) - The creation of international nuclear fuel centers would ensure non-discriminatory access to nuclear energy, the Russian president said Monday. The Kremlin press office quoted Vladimir Putin as saying in a greeting message sent to participants of the 50th International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference in Vienna, that the further improvement of the global nuclear energy infrastructure, under the supervision of the IAEA, will boost nuclear security. President Putin announced the initiative to set up international centers offering nuclear fuel services in January. The president said Russia and other "nuclear club" countries could set up enrichment centers, providing access on a non-discriminatory basis to nations seeking nuclear fuel. In his message to the 140-nation IAEA conference, which is focusing on means of reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation, the president said Russia always supported the work of the IAEA. He said he was confident the organization will continue to make a major contribution towards developing the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and will actively support the development and implementation of environmentally safe, economically efficient nuclear technology to satisfy the growing global demand for energy. -------- u.n. Chavez defense of Iran nuclear work risks UN seat Mon Sep 18, 2006 (Reuters) By Saul Hudson http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldnews&storyID=2006-09-18T183958Z_01_N18209587_RTRUKOC_0_US-VENEZUELA-IRAN-STRATEGY.xml CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's defense of Iranian nuclear programs during a visit by the Islamic republic's president burnished his anti-U.S. image but risked losing support for a U.N. Security Council seat. With trips abroad, speeches championing poor nations and generous bilateral oil deals, Chavez has devoted his foreign policy for months to winning a vote next month for a rotating seat on the top U.N. forum over U.S. objections. His embrace of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a two-day visit that ends on Monday put him further at odds with the West and could alienate developing nations that welcome his anti-U.S. stances but worry about Iran's atomic ambitions. Chavez's support for a fellow OPEC country in the same week that he will go to the United Nations to lobby for a seat on a council is typical of the risk-taking style of a president whose confidence is buoyed by high oil prices. "In making an alliance with Iran, Chavez's calculation is that whatever governments think about Iran, he believes they dislike the United States more," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington. "It's a big gamble," he added. A seat on the 15-member council would not give Venezuela a key vote to block a U.S. campaign for international sanctions against Iran. But the United States has backed Guatemala, the rival for Latin America's open seat, hoping to deprive Chavez of a prestigious platform for what it says are his increasingly destabilizing, anti-democratic policies. Venezuela needs two-thirds of the vote when the 192-member General Assembly chooses Argentina's replacement in October. Peru has Latin America's other council seat for another year. SECRET VOTE The council's 10 nonpermanent members serve two-year terms on seats accorded by region. Guatemala acknowledged this month it lacked the votes to beat Venezuela. But some moderate African nations might now withdraw support for Chavez in the secret U.N. vote, said Larry Birns of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs think tank. Neighbors such as Chile and countries across Europe and Asia that were not solidly behind the Venezuelan candidacy, face a fresh argument against Chavez, Shifter said. Venezuelan officials say widespread support in Latin America and Africa, as well as backing from the Arab League and major powers such as Russia and China should assure victory. But Birns was skeptical. "Even though the U.N. vote is the most important item on his agenda, he may well have overplayed his hand at the expense of some votes that he had every reason to count on," Birns said. Despite widespread fears Tehran is pursuing an atomic bomb, Chavez said the program was peaceful and pledged to defend Iran's right to do civilian nuclear work for its stated aim of generating power. Traditionally, Iranian-Venezuelan ties have focused almost exclusively on their common interests as major oil exporters. But Chavez, a Cuba ally who has visited in recent weeks U.S. antagonists Belarus and Syria, has used the relationship with Iran to highlight the anti-American credentials that form the foundation for his expected re-election in December. "By siding with Iran, he is positioning himself as an anti-U.S. leader on the world stage," Shifter said. "For Chavez, that gives him great political benefit." ---- Non-Aligned summit marked by nuclear issues HAVANA (AFP) Sep 18, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060917230839.ca01negn.html The Non-Aligned Movement concluded Sunday a summit in Havana, issuing a final declaration backing Iran's right to nuclear energy and urging UN reform to give greater weight to poor countries. The event was also marked by North Korea's defense of its nuclear weapons program, historic talks between India and Pakistan, and the absence of convalescing Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Leaders of the developing world agreed on the need to counter overwhelming US influence, and several launched blistering attacks on the United States. Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi however insisted the NAM was not "anti-any country." "I do not see this summit as anti-US," he said, stressing there were differences of opinion within the 118-state movement. The two-day summit highlighted the rows between the United States and two countries that US President George W. Bush has accused of being part of an "axis of evil," Iran and North Korea. Bush first used the phrase in the January 2002 state of the union speech in reference to Iran, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. North Korea charged that Washington left it no option but to secure deterrent nuclear weapons, and pledged that as long as it was hit by US sanctions it would not return to six-party talks. "Korea has nuclear arms as a deterrent to firmly guarantee the peace and security of the Korean peninsula and the region," said Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, on Saturday. The summit's 100-page final declaration backed Iran's right to nuclear energy. Washington and European powers fear that Tehran wants to use its nuclear program to build an atomic bomb. Cuban Interim President Raul Castro, who chaired the summit, met Saturday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to express "Cuba's support for the right of Iran -- or any other country -- for peaceful use of nuclear energy." Ahmadinejad, who insisted Tehran's atomic program is strictly peaceful, claimed the United States was the real nuclear threat, traveled to Venezuela Sunday. In the declaration, heads of state and government from 56 countries and delegates from the other NAM member states urged UN reform to give greater weight to poor countries, and expressed their opposition to terrorism and what they see as US interventionism. The document condemned what it terms Israel's "unlawful" policies in the Palestinian territories and its recent military intervention in Lebanon. It also "roundly rejected" the "axis of evil" terminology, stating that it "stigmatizes other nations using the pretext of the war on terror." Before leaving Havana, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a harsh Washington critic, said that the United States was the "epicenter of evil" and an empire in decline. The text also rejects drawing up "a unilateral list that accuses states of alleged support to terrorism, which is incompatible with international laws and constitute a form of psychological and political terrorism." On the sidelines of the summit, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed at their breakthrough talks Saturday to resume negotiations on the disputed Kashmir region and to jointly battle terrorism. The summit's big absentee, Fidel Castro, 80, still met with foreign dignitaries in a hospital-like room, clad in pajamas and looking gaunt. Castro met with Iran's Ahmadinejad, India's Singh and Ecuadoran President Alfredo Palacio on Sunday. He earlier met with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; presidents Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela; Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and Argentine legislator Miguel Bonasso. Many of the summit participants headed from here to New York, where they will take part this week in the UN General Assembly. The next NAM summit will be held in 2009 in Egypt. ---- UN nuclear watchdog ponders international 'fuel bank' As the IAEA meets, advocates argue for a nuclear-fuel bank as a safeguard against terrorism. By Michael J. Jordan | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor September 18, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0918/p04s01-wogi.html VIENNA – As the International Atomic Energy Agency meets this week for its 50th congress, a key focus will be a vision even older than the UN nuclear watchdog itself: the creation of a world nuclear-fuel "bank." Such a bank would store enriched uranium vital for nuclear energy - fissile material that, if enriched further, could make an atomic bomb. The bank would then disburse it to member states that have agreed not to produce the material. IAEA officials say they hope a "road map" emerges from several proposals. Forty-plus states possess the advanced technology to produce nuclear fuel - but not all of them do so. The notion of multilateral control of fuel supply has been revived by states under pressure from both higher oil prices and post-9/11 concerns that highly enriched fuel could get into terrorists' hands and be weaponized. "This idea has been discussed for awhile, and I can understand when people say they're skeptical," says Vitaly Fedchenko, a nuclear-security researcher with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. "But it looks like the current state of play makes it a little closer to reality than ever before." But some analysts have expressed concern that a US proposal could trigger a nuclear-fuel "race," as it aims to limit the number of states that could produce fuel, possibly spurring some states to move to join the club before the door closes. And, they say, economic incentives may not be enough to overcome longstanding hurdles of complex logistics and perceived infringement on sovereignty. "The idea that you're going to get everyone to hold hands and internationalize the ownership and operations of what is essentially a process that brings you within days - or at most, weeks - of the bomb, strikes me as fanciful," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington. Steps of enrichment Uranium, when mined in its natural state, contains just 0.7 percent of uranium-235 and uranium-238 - key ingredients for nuclear fuel. Billions of dollars and decades of effort later, the original nuclear states - the US, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China - were able to enrich the uranium to the 3 to 5 percent needed for nuclear energy. From there, analysts say, it's more or less a matter of "leaving the switch on" to enrich the uranium up to the 90 percent-plus for a bomb. President Eisenhower first broached the idea of an international uranium bank in 1953. But as the cold war intensified, no country wanted outside control. In 1970, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) assured the "inalienable right ... to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy." Countries had to submit to IAEA safeguards and forgo developing nuclear weapons. This "right," though, has sometimes been interpreted as a carte-blanche sovereignty issue, as Iran is doing today. The fuel-bank idea made little headway over the next two decades, despite a flurry of initiatives. But in 1991, after the Gulf War, the IAEA discovered the secret nuclear-weapons program of NPT signatory Iraq. In 2004, Pakistan's nuclear-program chief, A.Q. Khan, admitted to illicitly transferring technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. In recent years, NPT signatory Iran has divulged some details of its once-secret nuclear program. Better security, barriers to transfers Multilateral control of the fuel supply is no silver bullet, experts say, but only one prong of what ought to be a multifront campaign. They argue as well for greater barriers and restrictions on transfers and technologies, enhanced security and political commitment, and production of "proliferation-resistant technology." A fuel bank wouldn't be "a cure-all, but an added layer of oversight," says Tariq Rauf, the IAEA head of verification and security-policy coordination. "None of these steps reduces the risk to zero, but we can build in more protective measures that decrease the chances of misuse." IAEA, Russian, US proposals The IAEA proposal in play this week emphasizes economic incentives: a "guaranteed" supply at below-market prices. A Russian proposal would create international centers, starting in Russia, in which nuclear fuel would be produced under IAEA safeguards - and sold "nondiscriminatorily" to any state, regardless of whether they are under a cloud of suspicion. The US proposal would forbid technology transfer to countries that don't already have an advanced system. To garner support, US envoys have reportedly been encouraging countries that had frozen their programs to get inside the tent of what could be a lucrative business. The media have cited Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, and Canada as making noises about getting back into the game. "Any arbitrary system that creates a new set of 'haves' and 'have-nots' is unsustainable, because nobody wants to be a have-not," says Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But if there are clear economic benefits to buying in, you'll get a majority of countries to go along." A central challenge will be to convince those who argue for sovereignty on such decisions to consider a new system. "It will require leadership, and preferably a multiheaded leadership, involving leading suppliers and important consumers," says Lawrence Scheinman, who wrote fuel-bank proposals for the Carter Administration and now teaches at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. "Where will that leadership come from? Would the international community feel comfortable with US leadership? The US has in the past led constructively - and still can." ---- Bodman addresses IAEA meeting UPI September 18, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/newscom/2385591788120389814005954106110156055844 U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman called on the international community to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation while promoting nuclear energy. At the 50th annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Bodman stressed the need for international cooperation to safely expand the use of nuclear energy as a clean and affordable energy source while strengthening nuclear non-proliferation. In prepared remarks, Bodman said: As an international community, we must work together to globally expand clean, reliable, and affordable nuclear energy in ways that reduce proliferation risks, increase global energy security, and limit pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The decisions we make today in terms of both reliable energy supply and nuclear non-proliferation will have an effect for generations to come. The IAEA was formed within the United Nations system in 1957. Today it has 140 members and is the world's forum for nuclear, scientific and technical cooperation. The agency also is the international inspectorate for safeguards required under the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Showing Conviction at Echo 9 Not One of the Soldiers Admitted Knowing That They Were Guarding Nuclear Missiles By BILL QUIGLEY September 18, 2006 Counterpunch http://counterpunch.org/quigley09182006.html The Echo 9 launching facility for the intercontinental nuclear missile Minuteman III is about 100 miles northwest of Bismarck, North Dakota. Endless fields of sunflowers and mown hay dazzle those who travel there. The fenced off site at first appears innocent. Until you get close you cannot see the sign that says deadly force is authorized against trespassers. A 40 ton nuclear missile lies coiled beneath the surface of a bland concrete bunker. Echo 9 is but 50 feet from a gravel road. This one Minuteman III missile has over 20 times the destructive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. After you realize what a launching facility looks like, you can see that the pastoral countryside is full of nuclear weapon silos. One nuclear weapon launching site lies just across the road from a big country farmhouse, another just down from a camp for teens. There are 150 other such nuclear launching facilities in North Dakota alone. Sunflowers, farmhouses, teen camps and nuclear weapons who would have thought the power to destroy the world many times over could fit in so well? The people of this state will not need to turn on CNN to know when the nuclear holocaust arrives. On the morning of June 20, 2006, three people dressed as clown arrived at Echo 9. The clowns broke the lock off the fence and put up peace banners and posters. One said: "Swords into plowshares - Spears into pruning hooks." Then they poured some of their own blood and hammered on the nuclear launching facility. Fr. Carl Kabat, 72, along with Greg Boertje-Obed, 52, and Michael Walli, 57, were the people dressed as clowns. Carl Kabat is a catholic priest. Greg is an ex-military officer, married and the father of an 11 year old daughter. Mike is a Vietnam vet who has worked with the homeless for decades. Greg and Carl are members of the Loaves and Fishes Community in Duluth. The three are called the Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares. They placed a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, international legal condemnations of nuclear weapons, bibles, rosaries, bread, wine, and a picture of Greg's daughter on the top of the missile silo. Then they waited until the air force security forces came and arrested them. They were charged with felony damage to government property and were kept in North Dakota jails until their trial in September. In their trial they planned to argue to the jury that because the Minuteman III is a weapon of mass destruction it is illegal under international law. They hoped to share with the jury testimony from the Mayor of Hiroshima about the effects of nuclear weapons. They asked to have Professor Francis Boyle testify about the illegality of nuclear weapons. And they planned to introduce the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice outlawing nuclear weapons. They hoped to put on evidence that warheads launched from the Minuteman III missile silo can reach any destination within 6000 miles in 35 minutes. The nuclear bomb launched from a Minuteman silo produces uncontrollable radiation, massive heat and a blast capable of vaporizing and leveling everything within miles. Outside the immediate area of the blast, wide-spread heat, firestorms and neutron and gamma rays are intended to kill, severely wound and poison every living thing and cause long-term damage to the environment. But the judge ruled the jury was not permitted to hear this evidence. The night before the trial, the peace community of North Dakota, along with friends and supporters from across the US shared a Festival of Hope potluck supper, songs, prayers and calls for peace at a local Unitarian church. The North Dakota peace community was very supportive. Even the federal prosecutor and an air force investigator joined the festival after being invited to attend by Carl, Greg and Mike. They too were welcomed by the community. On the day of the trial, the judge asked people about their backgrounds and their opinions about nuclear weapons. Those who expressed any skepticism about the use of nuclear weapons were struck from serving on the jury by the government. Likewise, a Baptist missionary with a dove on her collar and all the Catholics were excluded. Fr. Carl Kabat represented himself in the trial and gave his own opening statement. Dressed in a rumpled roman collar, black jeans and white tennis shoes, it was apparent he came right out of jail to the courtroom. Fr. Kabat told the jury that he had been a priest for 47 years and spent three years in the Philippines and several more in Brazil were he witnessed poverty and hunger on a scale unimaginable to the US. After that, he said, he was ruined to life in the United States. He could not allow 40,000 children a day to die from malnourishment while our country built and maintained thousands of nuclear weapons. Carl admitted that he had spent over sixteen years in prison for protesting against nuclear weapons. He told the jury that he understood that because he was 72 he might die in jail in punishment for this protest. "I don't know if I am doing the right thing or not, I am only doing the best I can. If anyone can think of anything better to do to stop this insanity then, by all means, do it! It is up to all of us to do something to stop this madness!" He said they dressed up as clowns as "fools for Christ," and because "court jesters were often the only ones who could tell the truth to the king and not be killed for it!" We realize most people do not care about nuclear weapons. "To them we are nutballs," he said. "We are doing the best we can to stand up against these evils. My feeling is do what you can do about injustice, then sing and dance!" Fr. Carl pointed out in some detail that nuclear weapons violated international laws. "Now I am not a lawyer," he kept saying, "but I know the International Court of Justice has ruled these are illegal." He asked the jury "Why do you think it is it illegal for North Korea or Iran to have nuclear weapons when we have thousands? I don't want anyone to have them. The weapon at Echo 9 can kill the entire population of New York City--just that one missile and we have thousands of them! This is insane! Polls say that 87% of the people in the US want us to get rid of nuclear weapons--let's do it! People may think we're nuts for dressing up as clowns and risking jail to get rid of these weapons, but it is these weapons that are actually insane!" Greg Boertje-Obed spoke briefly to the jury about growing up in the Midwest and the south. He was dressed in rumpled pants and a t-shirt decorated with the symbol of a local Native American tribe. He told them that he was married and the father of a young daughter. He admitted he basically did not know anything about nuclear weapons or civil rights. He joined ROTC to be able to attend college and was made an officer. His military group discussed nuclear war and one made a powerful case for first-strike. All the time he was a churchgoer. In graduate school he started awakening to the contrast between the religious values he found in church and the actions and priorities around him. Greg told the jurors of his journey into resistance as he realized that nuclear weapons were both illegal and immoral. Michael was described to the jury as one of 14 children who grew up in the Midwest. He joined the Army and spent two tours in Vietnam. After a religious conversion, he began a life of voluntary poverty and assisting the homeless and sick. The prosecutor called an FBI agent who told the jury all about the events of June 20, 2006. He described the defendants as polite at all times. The prosecution projected huge photos of the three dressed as clowns, pictures of the Echo 9 launching facility, and pictures of the items left behind on the wall of the courtroom. Fr. Carl asked the FBI agent if he had found a statement that the three left on site. The judge allowed Carl to read the statement into the record at this time. Carl put on his reading glasses and in a loud voice read to the courtroom: "Please pardon the fracture of the good order. When we were children we thought as children and spoke as children. But now we are adults and there comes a time when we must speak out and say that the good order is not so good, and never really was. We know that throughout history there have been innumerable war crimes. Two of the most terrible war crimes occurred on August 6th and 9th, 1945. On August 6th, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima , Japan , killing more than 100,000 people (including U.S. prisoners of war). Three days later the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, Japan, killing more than 50,000 people. Use of these weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations were abominable crimes against humanity. "The U.S. has never repented of these atrocities. On the contrary, the U.S. has deepened and expanded its commitment to nuclear weapons. The U.S. built a large nuclear-industrial complex which has caused the deaths of many workers and has resulted in killing many more people by nuclear testing. Our country built thousands of nuclear weapons and has dispersed weapons-grade uranium to 43 nations. Each Minuteman III missile carries a bomb that is 27 times more powerful than those dropped on the Japanese people. The building of these weapons signifies that our hearts have assented to mass murder. Currently the U.S. is seeking to research a new class of smaller nuclear weapons demonstrating its desire to find new uses for weapons of mass destruction." The prosecution then called a succession of young Air Force folks, who served as security for the Minuteman missiles in the silos in this area, to briefly describe the arrest and detention of Carl, Greg and Mike. Each one said the clowns were cooperative, non-violent and peaceful. At the conclusion of the first soldier's testimony, Fr. Kabat asked him, "Do you know what was in the ground at Echo-9?" The flustered airman said, "No, sir, I do not." "You don't know what is in the ground there?" Fr. Kabat asked again incredulously. "No sir," repeated the helicopter airman. The courtroom was stunned. For the next half hour, every one of the rest of the young Air Force people called as witnesses by the government either said they did not know what was in the ground, or refused to answer Fr. Carl, saying "that is not my area of expertise, sir." Not one single soldier acknowledged that they were guarding nuclear weapons! The final prosecution witness was a Lieutenant Colonel who said the damage to the site was over $15,000 because a spin dial lock on a hatch was damaged and had to be exchanged for another. The Lt. Colonel, after initially refusing to do so, admitted that a Minuteman III missile was in the silo but that the Department of Defense would not allow him to say anything more. After the prosecution rested, the judge ushered the jury out of the room. Then the three were allowed to introduce into the record the evidence of the International Court of Justice decision about the illegality of nuclear weapons, the testimony of the mayor of Hiroshima, and two statements by Professor Boyle about international law and its condemnation of nuclear weapons. The judge was asked to dismiss the case because of this evidence. When the judge declined, Greg told the judge that he was making a mistake. The judge responded that in light of all the other federal cases he had reviewed he was not making a mistake. "But in the judgment of history, you are," Greg responded. The judge noted Greg's objection for the record and re-started the trial. With all the rest of their evidence excluded, the three defendants tried in their own words to tell the jury about how international law condemned nuclear weapons, what kind of damage the weapons caused, and how the very existence of nuclear weapons was robbing the poor of the world of much needed resources. Fr. Carl choked up several times talking to the jury when he described the extent of hunger and starvation he had witnessed. "Nuclear weapons," he said softly, "and hungry children, are the two greatest evils in our world." Michael told the jury how he joined the army at the suggestion of a family member and ended up spending years in Vietnam. While there he heard about the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., described on the base as "an agitator." He described his later work with the poor and how it was consistent with his peace work. He concluded by correcting the record. "These young military people testified that after we arrived at Echo--9 it became a crime scene. But in truth, Echo 9 was a crime scene long before we ever got there. Nuclear weapons are war crimes that are designed to kill innocent civilians. They are outlawed by international law and by God's law. This was a crime scene long before we got there, and is still a crime scene today." Greg showed the jury the picture of his daughter. "I brought this to Echo 9 as a symbol of why we again and again try to disarm nuclear weapons. We do this for the children." With the evidence finished, it was time for the jury to decide. The judge would give instructions to the jury about how to decide the case. The defense asked for two instructions about justice one from the preamble to the US Constitution another from Judge Learned Hand--both were denied by the judge. Defendants asked that the jury be read the First Amendment--denied. International law? Denied. Nuremberg Principles? Denied. The US statute defining war crimes? Denied. The US statute defining genocide? Denied. The judge then went forward and instructed the jury to disregard anything about nuclear weapons, international law, and the good motives of the defendants. The effect of these instructions was to treat the actions of the defendants the same as if they had poured blood and hammered on a Volkswagen pure property damage. Limited like this, the jury came back with felony guilty verdicts for all three defendants. As they filed out, Fr. Carl called out to them, "Thank you brothers and sisters!" One of the jurors told people afterwards that many on the jury learned a lot in the trial and were sympathetic to the defense, but "the judge's instructions left us no option but to find them guilty." As she walked away, the juror waved to supporters and yelled "Peace!" The local paper reported one lawyer concluding that, despite their convictions, "History will have different judgment on their actions." The three remain in jail. They are in good spirits and at peace in the justice of their convictions. Greg pointed out that juries in Europe were allowed to learn about international law when evaluating the actions of peace protestors. "Why do English, Scottish, and Irish juries get to know about international law, but not US juries? Why do our judges keep our juries deaf and blind to the law of the world?" Mike noted "The ungodly will always say Let our might be our norm of justice.'" Fr. Carl, who feels "fantastic--as usual," said, "One with God is a majority, and some day the will of the majority will triumph!" For their convictions, they face sentences of up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 each. They will remain in jail in North Dakota until their sentencing date of December 4, 2006. For more information about the men contact the Loaves and Fishes Community in Duluth at 218.728.0629 or Nukewatch at 715.472.4185. Copies of some pleadings in the case, pictures and updates from the men are posted on the Jonah House website Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. Bill and Dan Gregor assisted the defendants in this matter. You can reach Bill at Quigley@loyno.edu -------- u.s. nuc facilities Reactors Prone to Long Closings, Study Finds By MATTHEW L. WALD September 18, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/washington/18nuke.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 — An analysis of nuclear reactors by a safety group has found that they are prone to costly, lengthy shutdowns for safety problems regardless of their age or the experience of their managers. The finding could have implications for companies considering building new reactors. The analysis, by David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, counted 51 times that a reactor had been closed for a year or more. Thirty-six of those shutdowns were to restore an adequate level of safety by fixing flaws in equipment, procedures or training; 11 were to replace major components required for operations and safety; and 4 were for damage recovery. In all, of the 130 power reactors ever licensed, 41, were closed for at least a year. Ten were closed twice. Mr. Lochbaum said the most common reason for a shutdown was for an “attitude adjustment” for workers and managers, so they would be more attuned to safety. He said he was surprised by some of his findings, which are scheduled to be released Monday. “I expected that the first plant off an assembly line would have been challenged, or troubled, but that there was a learning curve, and the fourth or fifth or sixth plant for a company would have avoided these problems,” he said. “But it wasn’t the case.” But a vice president of the industry’s trade association, Marvin Fertell of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said that the industry had, in fact, learned from its errors, and that only experienced operators would build new plants. And at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Stuart A. Richards, deputy director of the division of inspection, said his agency had improved its inspections, to focus on “risk-significant areas,” and was now able to find problems more promptly. Extended shutdowns would be a bigger problem for future plants because, in the past, electricity customers of regulated utilities paid for them. But some of the reactor construction projects now being considered would be built as “merchant” plants, with no guaranteed income, only revenue from power sales. The heart of the problem, Mr. Lochbaum said, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not good at assessing the ability of a reactor staff to keep the plant in good physical condition and maintain training and other requirements. As a result, he said, plants operate until serious problems accumulate and force a shutdown. “This is the wrong way to do business, from a safety standpoint and an economic standpoint,” he said in a telephone interview. Mr. Fertell, of the industry trade group, agreed. The only reactor currently in an extended shutdown is the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry Unit 1, in Alabama. It last ran in 1985. The shutdown of more than a year that ended most recently was at Davis-Besse, near Toledo, Ohio, where workers found that an acid used in the plant, boron, had corroded a 70-pound chunk of steel in the reactor’s vessel head, leaving only a half-inch stainless steel liner. Early in the era of commercial nuclear power, analysts theorized that shutdowns were what was known in the industry as “teething problems” and that with experience, reactors would run more smoothly. But most of the shutdowns came after the reactors were 10 years old. The Davis-Besse plant was more than 23 years old when it was closed in 2002. It was closed for more than two years. Besides the hole in the reactor head, engineers later found that crucial pumps that used water for lubrication were prone to break down because of debris in the water. Discovery of decades-old design problems is common during lengthy shutdowns. While Mr. Lochbaum, a longtime adversary of the nuclear industry, is often critical of the companies that operate reactors, he said regulators were the problem in this area. The rules require reactors to have Corrective Action Programs to keep track of physical and procedural problems, and each lengthy shutdown is an indication that the program itself is flawed, he said. Regulators monitor the physical condition of reactors, he said, but are not good at observing the quality of the corrective programs. For example, the commission gave high marks to the program at Davis-Besse less than a year before inspectors found that operators had let acid eat through six inches of steel, bringing the plant close to a catastrophic rupture. Mr. Richards said he had not seen the report but acknowledged errors by the commission in handling the Davis-Besse case. But he said N.R.C. inspections had been improved using a new process, of which the Corrective Action Program itself was a major component. And, he said, the commission had previously penalized reactors for accumulations of minor violations, adding them up to count for a major problem; now it focuses only on major problems. Mr. Lochbaum said that after a reactor was shut down for one reason, other problems were often discovered. In an extended shutdown at the Crystal River plant, in Florida, workers found design defects even though the plant had been running for nearly 20 years. He said the problems included that, in an emergency, the pumps would not have worked as intended and piping would have exposed workers and the public to radiation. “Did the plant’s owner bring in busloads of smarter workers after the N.R.C. put the reactor on notice?” Mr. Lochbaum asked in the report. The problem, he said, was that perception by the inspectors that plant management was competent was blinding them to problems at the reactors. But Mr. Fertell, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said an extended reactor shutdown often became “a monster can of worms.” “You were basically under a magnifying glass,” he said, with inspectors finding issues faster than management could resolve them. -------- michigan AEP to replace vessel head during $100 million nuclear plant rehab project September 18, 2006 SNL Financial LC By Wayne Barber http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-4690567-9828 Replacing the reactor vessel head will headline more than $100 million of upgrades that American Electric Power Co. plans to make to unit 1 of its Donald C. Cook nuclear plant in Michigan during a scheduled refueling and maintenance outage. The outage at 1,036-MW Cook 1 began Sept. 16, the company said in a Sept. 18 press release. At the same time, the company also announced that Cook 1 had set a unit fuel cycle record for net generation by operating at 98.2% capacity factor and generating 12,049 GWh of electricity during the 18-month fuel cycle. In addition to refueling the reactor and regular maintenance and testing work, this outage includes replacing the reactor vessel head, the three low-pressure turbine rotors and other major component and system improvements, with total project costs of more than $100 million. The reactor vessel head replacement has been five years in planning and development. The replacement head incorporates corrosion-resistant material that will improve safety and reduce expensive inspection requirements. The three low-pressure turbine rotors will increase the output of the unit by up to 25 MW during summer operation and 40 MW during the winter, according to a statement by AEP Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Mano Nazar. More than 1,800 contracted workers will supplement the regular 1,400-person plant staff. Approximately 14,000 maintenance, inspection and equipment modification job activities and 225,000 work-hours are scheduled. "This significant capital investment by AEP demonstrates our commitment to the surrounding communities and our customers, AEP shareholders, and our employees through the long-term operation of Cook plant," said Nazar. AREVA fabricated the new vessel head while Siemens made the turbine rotors, AEP spokesman Bill Schalk said. A reactor head replacement is scheduled for Cook unit 2 during its next scheduled outage in the fall of 2007, Schalk said. The vessel head is approximately 17 feet in diameter and weighs 100 tons. It was forged in one piece in Japan and shipped to France for fabrication, which entailed complex welding operations and final machining to extremely precise tolerances. The 20-foot housings for the reactor control and shutdown equipment were also installed in France. Forging and fabrication of the new vessel head assembly took more than three years, AEP said. Installation of the vessel head will be incorporated into the refueling process. The old head will be temporarily housed at the site before being shipped later this year for burial at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Utah. The three low-pressure turbine rotors and inner casings were fabricated in Germany over the past two years. Each rotor is approximately 17 feet in diameter, 38 feet long and weighs more than 190 tons. Each rotor has two sets of 11 rows of blades that increase in size from two inches to five feet long. The project includes replacement of all the inner casings that house the rotors and most of the support equipment. In 2005, the NRC approved a 20-year extension of the plant's operating licenses, to 2034 for Cook 1 and 2037 for Cook unit 2. -------- utah A Victory for Utah September 18th, 2006 KSL Television & Radio, Salt Lake City UT http://www.ksl.com/?nid=238&sid=491482 Score a significant victory for the state of Utah. Two decisions announced recently by two Interior Department agencies is a veritable nail-in-the-coffin of an ill-fated plan to store the nation's nuclear waste in Utah's west desert. Utah won't become the nation's nuclear dumping ground! Credit for the victory goes to an array of interests that used a variety of tactics over a ten-year period to oppose the project: politicians, bureaucrats, special interest groups, religious leaders, and most recently, the thousands of common citizens who emailed their concerns to the Bureau of Land Management. Utah's victory, though, underscores two ongoing concerns that must be addressed. First, is the nation's lack of a workable policy for dealing with spent nuclear fuel generated at nuclear power plants around the nation! Uncle Sam needs to get his act together to make long-term decisions, including the possibility of recycling the waste. Second, is the impoverished plight of the small Skull Valley Band of Goshutes! They can't be faulted for seeking an opportunity to improve their economic predicament. Indeed, a renewed effort should be undertaken by the state to help them with economic development. Let Utah's victory in the nuclear waste battle become a catalyst for resolving these other challenges. -------- MILITARY -------- prisoners of war Report: Bush Wants to Retain Controversial Interrogation Techniques UK Attorney General Calls for Gitmo Closure EU Condemns CIA Prisons US Holds 14,000 in Foreign Prisons Monday, September 18th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/1351232 New details have been revealed on the Republican divide over the Bush administration’s plan for the treatment of prisoners in US custody. Newsweek magazine reports the administration wants to maintain at least seven existing CIA interrogation techniques for use against high-level detainees. The techniques include induced hypothermia; long periods of forced standing; sleep deprivation and so called “attention slapping.” The administration is facing resistance from three key Republican Senators on the Armed Services Committee, including John McCain of Arizona. The three helped pass a measure last week affirming Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits inhumane treatment. On Saturday, President Bush answered critics in his weekly radio address. * President Bush: "This CIA programme has saved American lives, and the lives of people in other countries. Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this programme in question, and we need this legislation to save it. There is debate about the specific proposals in this bill, and my Administration will work with Congress to find common ground. I have one test for this legislation: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital programme to continue." UK Attorney General Calls for Gitmo Closure The Bush administration’s stance on torture is again under criticism from Britain’s attorney general. Speaking in Chicago this weekend, Lord Goldsmith said the US should respect the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of detainees. Goldsmith also called for the closure of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, calling it “a symbol of injustice.” EU Condemns CIA Prisons Meanwhile in Europe, the European Union has condemned the CIA’s detention of suspects in overseas prisons. * Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot: "The existence of secret detention facilities where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum is not in conformity with international humanitarian law and international criminal law.” The statement marks the EU’s first official reaction to President Bush’s recent admission the CIA has been operating a secret network of overseas prisons. US Holds 14,000 in Foreign Prisons The European Union’s statement comes as the Associated Press reports the number of prisoners in foreign US jails has now passed fourteen thousand. All but one thousand are being held in Iraq. AP: Iraqi Photographer in Fifth Month of US Detention Meanwhile, a leading news agency has gone public with the imprisonment of one its journalists by US troops in Iraq. The Associated Press says Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer, has been jailed for more than five months. The military says he’s a security threat – but has not filed charges or brought him before a judge. Hussein says he’s being targeted because US military leaders have been angered by his photos from Ramadi and Fallujah. The military says Hussein was arrested alongside wanted insurgents. But the AP claims that’s no sign of guilt and that Hussein was on assignment. The AP says it’s gone public after months of failed talks with US officials. ---- Doctors demand an end to British 'collusion' over Guantanamo Bay By David Rose and Richard Beeston September 18, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2362669,00.html SENIOR doctors have condemned the Government’s failure to provide medical aid to British residents held at Guantanamo Bay. In a letter to The Times today, 120 signatories from the medical profession call for an independent investigation to determine the medical needs of the detainees, and criticises the “shameful” refusal of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to respond to a request by the British Medical Association to send a team of doctors to Cuba. Nine British citizens have been released from the camp since 2004, but there are believed to be at least eight British residents still there after up to four years. The letter also condemns the failure of the FCO’s pro bono medical and legal panels to discuss the plight of the detainees, on the ground that they are not British passport holders. “Our Government’s excuse is that it does not wish to set a precedent to act for British residents, rather than British citizens,” the letter says. “We find this morally repugnant.” It continues: “It is clear that an independent scrutiny is urgently required by physicians outside of the US military. The silence of the Foreign Office is shameful and reflects the collusion of this country in a war crime.” Responding to the letter, an FCO spokesman said yesterday that Britain had a policy of not offering consular services to non-British nationals. But he added that the FCO had met the relatives of some British residents being detained at Guantanamo and that Britain regarded the existence of the detention centre as “unacceptable” and that the facility should be closed. The panels were set up to assist the Government where there is a serious concern for the medical and legal status of British prisoners overseas. Yet human rights groups say that the Government is refusing to offer any formal legal or medical help for the men — with the exception of one, Bisher al- Rawi. He has been accorded a separate status and official calls have been made for his release, apparently because of his reported links to the intelligence services. Signatories to the letter include Charles Clarke, of the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, a member of the FCO’s pro bono medical panel, and David Halpin, a member of the penal panel. Dr Clarke said that members of both panels had made inquiries about assisting the detainees and had received a reply from Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, that said: “Where consular officials are aware of a serious legal problem, they seek to solve this at a local level before the use of either panel is considered.” -------- space Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority By Marc Kaufman The Washington Post Wednesday 18 October 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701484.html US says shift is not a step toward arms; experts say it could be. President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests." The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy. "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said in written comments that an update was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of U.S. economic, national and homeland security." The military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communication and navigation, as have providers of cellphones, personal navigation devices and even ATMs. The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record. Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject. "The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further." Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it." The administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation. But he said the document also makes clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race. The official also said the administration has briefed members of Congress as well as a number of governments, including Russia, on the new policy. The public, however, has not learned much about it: The policy was released at 5 p.m. on the Friday before Columbus Day, with no public announcement. The National Space Policy follows other administration statements that appeared to advocate greater military use of space. In 2004, the Air Force published a Counterspace Operations Doctrine that called for a more active military posture in space and said that protecting U.S. satellites and spacecraft may require "deception, disruption, denial, degradation and destruction." Four years earlier, a congressionally chartered panel led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recommended developing space weapons to protect military and civilian satellites. Because of the political sensitivities, several analysts said, the Pentagon probably will not move forward quickly with space weapons but rather will work on dual-use technology that can serve military and civilian interests. But because many space initiatives are classified, Krepon and others said, it is difficult to know what is being developed and deployed. Some of the potential space weapons most frequently discussed are lasers that can "blind" or shut down adversary satellites and small, maneuverable satellites that could ram another satellite. The new Bush policy calls on the defense secretary to provide "space capabilities" to support missile-warning systems as well as "multi-layered and integrated missile defenses," an apparent nod toward placing some components of the system in space. The new document grew out of Bush's 2002 order to the National Security Council, with support from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to assess the nation's military and civilian space policies. The review has already led to a major shift in emphasis at NASA, away from research and unmanned exploration to returning Americans to the moon and then sending them on to Mars. Some sections of the 1996 Clinton policy and the Bush revision are classified. There are many similarities in the unclassified portions, and the NSC and the Defense Department emphasized that continuity. But there is a significant divergence apparent in the first two goals of each document. Bush's top goals are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there." Clinton's top goals were to "enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration" and to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States." The Clinton policy also said that the United States would develop and operate "space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space" only when such steps would be "consistent with treaty obligations." The Bush policy accepts current international agreements but states: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space." A number of nations have pushed for talks to ban space weapons, and the United States has long been one of a handful of nations opposed to the idea. Although it had abstained in the past when proposals to ban space weapons came up in the United Nations, last October the United States voted for the first time against a call for negotiations - the only "no" against 160 "yes" votes. The U.S. position flows in part from the fact that so many key weapons systems are now dependent on information and communications from orbiting satellites, analysts said. The U.S. military has developed and deployed far more space-based technology than any other nation, giving it great strategic advantages. But with the superior technology has come a perceived vulnerability to attacks on essential satellites. The new policy was applauded by defense analyst Baker Spring of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He said that he supported the policy's rejection of international agreements or treaties, as well as its emphasis on protecting military assets and placing missile defense components in space. He also said that he liked the policy's promotion of commercial enterprises in space and its apparent recognition that private satellites will need military protection as well. "The issue of possible hostilities in space became more real last month when National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald M. Kerr told reporters that a U.S. satellite had recently been "painted," or illuminated, by a laser in China. Gen. James E. Cartwright, the top U.S. military officer in charge of operations in space, told the newsletter Inside the Pentagon last week that it remained unclear whether China had tried to disrupt the satellite." -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Why GOP trio is bucking the White House By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor September 18, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0918/p01s01-usfp.html WASHINGTON – For the Bush White House, this week's showdown with the Senate over US treatment of detainees sets up a rematch with a triumvirate of GOP senators who have been the president's strongest supporters in the war in Iraq - and his most effective critics. Sens. John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina led the first push-back in the Senate over the war when they opposed the White House over its torture policy last year. Now the trio is on a new collision course with the White House over how to bring suspected terrorists to trial - a must-pass bill, since the US Supreme Court overturned the president's plan for military tribunals in June. Senator McCain, a former prisoner of war in North Vietnam, knows torture firsthand and brings moral authority to the issue. Torture is wrong, he says. Anything that weakens international protections for detainees, "threatens US troops in this and future wars," he said on Friday. Senator Graham, a military lawyer with the Air Force Reserve for 22 years, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that President Bush's detainee bill, including its "clarification" of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, would "redefine America in a way that we can't win this war." Senator Warner, a former secretary of the Navy and now chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says he aims to pass legislation that will withstand further review by US courts. "It would be a very serious blow to the credibility of the United States ... if legislation that was prepared by the Congress and signed [by] the president failed to meet a second Supreme Court review," he said during the committee's markup Thursday. Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine, voted with 11 Democrats on the panel, prompting renewed bids for a compromise with the White House over the weekend. For Mr. Bush, the issue is national security. In a fiery press conference on Friday, he charged that the rival Senate bill, sponsored by McCain, Graham, and Warner, would derail a CIA program vital to the war on terror. "It's a debate that's really going to define whether we can protect ourselves," he said. So far, GOP senators opposed to Bush's plan are not blinking. "Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights that they could issue their own legislative 'reinterpretations,' " responded McCain, in a statement responding to Bush on Friday. "This puts our military personnel and others directly at risk in this and future wars." With weeks to the midterm elections, GOP strategists had hoped to go into such a debate united. Instead, at least two other senators, including Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (R) and John Sununu (R) of New Hampshire, say they will back the McCain-Warner-Graham approach. Together, McCain, Warner, and Graham led the first rebellion in the Senate over the conduct of the war in Iraq when they challenged the White House over its torture policy last year. The McCain amendment banning the use of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of terror suspects was adopted by the Senate on Oct. 5, 2005, with the support of 9 of 10 senators, and was signed into law on Jan. 6. In a bid to rally support for new legislation on Capitol Hill, the White House is using the text of the McCain amendment to "clarify" the terms of the Geneva Conventions, especially the requirement of Common Article 3 banning "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." "I'm asking Congress to pass a clear law with clear guidelines based on the Detainee Treatment Act that was strongly supported by Senator John McCain," said Bush Friday. But, ironically, the trio that produced the McCain amendment now sees it as a tool to weaken international protections for detainees by imposing a unilateral redefinition of the law. For now, the GOP revolt in the Armed Services Committee is giving cover to Senate Democrats, who don't want to head into another midterm election tagged with being weak in the war on terror. On Sunday, Sen. Mitch McConnell said it would be awkward for Democrats to "go home and explain a vote ... to shut down an intelligence program that we know has helped save lives...." "Questioning our policy in Iraq is not treason and it's not appeasement. It's our obligation under the Constitution," said Sen. Richard Durbin, the deputy Democratic leader, in a press briefing last week. Last week, only eight Democrats voted against a detainee bill that is closely modeled on the president's version, when the House Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the 2006 Military Commissions Act on Sept 13. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy U.S. Missing Renewable Energy Opportunities WASHINGTON, DC, September 18, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-18-02.asp Renewable energy technologies are fast becoming economically competitive with fossil fuels, but U.S. federal policy is hampering development of the nation's abundant renewable energy resources, according to a report released Monday by U.S. researchers. The federal government continues to pour subsidies into oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy, the report said, and has failed to aggressively shift energy policy to encourage rapid development of renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources provide only about 6 percent of total U.S. energy. Of the nation's total renewable energy production, 90 percent comes from hydroelectric and biomass. Geothermal comprises 6 percent of U.S. renewable energy, with wind making up 2 percent and solar, 1 percent. "With oil prices soaring, the security risks of petroleum dependence growing, and the environmental costs of today's fuels becoming more apparent, the country faces compelling reasons to put these technologies to use on a larger scale," said the report, which was authored by researchers from the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research group, and the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. The report notes that a quarter of U.S. land area has winds powerful enough to generate electricity as cheaply as natural gas and coal. In addition, the solar resources of just seven southwest states could provide 10 times the current electric generating capacity. U.S. renewable energy policies over the past two decades "have been an ever-changing patchwork," the report said, and "abrupt changes in direction at the state and federal levels have deterred investors and led dozens of companies into bankruptcy." shark This means the nation has not taken full advantage of global trends, which see dynamic growth in renewable energy production driving down costs and spurring rapid advances in technologies. Annual global investment in "new" renewable energy has risen almost six fold since 1995, with cumulative investment over this period nearly $180 billion. In the past six years, global wind energy generation has more than tripled and solar cell production has risen six-fold. In addition, production of fuel ethanol from crops has more than doubled since 2000 and biodiesel production has expanded nearly four-fold. But the United States has not kept up with the strong growth in renewables over the past decade and its market share has fallen steadily. Germany and Spain have taken the lead in wind power, the report said, and Japan and Germany are leading in solar technology. The U.S. share of global production of solar cells slipped from 44 percent in 1996 to 9 percent in 2005. Brazil is the world's largest producer of biofuels, and China has surged ahead in small hydro and solar water heating. "Time is growing short for the United States to get back in the game and compete for what could be some of the largest new markets of the next few decades," the report said. Although the federal government has recently boosted biofuel production and extended tax credits for other renewables, the investments still trail similar federal supports for fossil fuels. The 2005 energy bill included $4.5 billion in tax credits for renewable energy and energy efficiency, but earmarked $6.9 billion for fossil fuels and nuclear power. The report calls for the federal government to establish a long-term framework for investments and tax credits in renewable energy - current tax credits for wind, solar and geothermal energy development are renewed annually and can be hindered by the legislative process. It recommends new pricing strategies to make renewable energy more attractive to electricity buyers, further efforts to boost energy efficiency as well as reductions in subsidies for fossil fuels. The federal government should continue to use its massive purchasing power to build larger markets for renewable energy and should set a long-term targets for renewable energy use, along the lines of the goal to get 25 percent of its energy from renewables by 2025. solar "Today's energy system has been shaped by government subsidies and regulatory support," the report said. "The key to a bright American energy future and a new wave of economic activity and innovation is a robust partnership between government and the private sector - providing incentives to jumpstart the new energy industries while minimizing the cost to American taxpayers." The authors noted that states are increasingly taking the lead on renewable energy issues. All but four U.S. states now have incentives in place to promote renewable energy. More than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in the past few years, and four states strengthened their targets in 2005. California gets 31 percent of its electricity from renewable resources - 12 percent of this comes from non-hydro sources such as wind and geothermal energy. The United States led the world in wind energy installations in 2005 and Texas now has the country's largest collection of wind generators. -------- OTHER -------- environment Schwarzenegger Sends Green Guru to Spread the Word Story by Mary Milliken REUTERS US: September 18, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38137/story.htm SANTA MONICA, Calif. - If Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of the most influential leaders on the environment today, much credit goes to Terry Tamminen, the brains behind the California governor's brawn on all things green. Tamminen, a Democrat and long-time conservationist, teamed up with the Republican actor and bodybuilder three years ago for his election and later became his top environmental aide. Their efforts culminated last month in a bipartisan landmark global warming law that makes California the first US state to mandate a cut in greenhouse gas emissions, equal to 25 percent by 2020. Now the governor, who has accused fellow Republican US President George W. Bush of failing to show leadership on climate, is sending Tamminen out to convince other states to follow the nation's largest economy. "What California is doing can be replicated by other states," Tamminen told Reuters in an interview on Friday. "We can create over the next few years a de facto national policy on climate change and we don't have to wait for the federal government." He kicks off his mission in Washington on Monday, speaking at the 2006 Global CO2 Cap-and-Trade Forum, a meeting on carbon trading and emissions reduction strategies. Tamminen sees momentum among states stepping into the federal void as many scientists sound warnings of catastrophe with a warmer world due to heat-trapping gases. Arizona's governor signed an executive order this month to cut emissions, while Northeastern states are close to creating the country's first market for carbon dioxide by curbing emissions at power plants. The Bush administration prefers a voluntary approach for business to reduce emissions, its main reason for bowing out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol which mandates cuts for developed nations. But since California's groundbreaking law, Washington is flush with speculation that Bush could announce a policy shift on global warming. "I don't know if next year President Bush will have a change of heart ... but we just can't wait," said Tamminen. BACKED BY TONY BLAIR Tamminen, 54, resigned as cabinet secretary last month -- a departure environmental groups said is a big loss for the state and its 37 million people. But he has volunteered to head the environmental part of Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign in November. The governor has a 13-point lead in the polls over his Democratic challenger. Although he has no plans to return to government, Tamminen says he "will continue to be an advisor to him (Schwarzenegger). I just won't be paid by the state." Tamminen, who is also an authority on pool cleaning and a Shakespearean actor, came to Schwarzenegger by way of Bobby Kennedy Jr., a Democrat and cousin to Maria Shriver, Schwarzenegger's wife. Schwarzenegger had just announced his intention to run in the 2003 recall election and Kennedy suggested Tamminen was the perfect person to help him build his environmental platform. Their work won over British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who signed an agreement with Schwarzenegger this summer for joint research on climate in a clear snub to Washington. On his visit to California, Blair pulled the governor and Tamminen aside and told them their actions on global warming were crucial to get carbon-intensive economies like China and India on board for the next round of emissions reductions. Those countries are reluctant to make commitments if the biggest polluter, the United States, does not. "He (Blair) said: 'What you are doing is so important, but also it is important that you spread it to other states, because I can only point to California for so long,'" Tamminen said. -------- ACTIVISTS Foreign, Local Activists Restricted at IMF-World Bank Meetings Monday, September 18th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/1351232 In Singapore, protests against the IMF-World Bank meetings continue despite an ongoing government crackdown. Earlier today, a dozen protesters held a candlelight vigil in protest of the conditions attached to debt relief. Singapore has barred twenty-eight international activists from entering the country. Local activists are also facing pressure. On Sunday, police blocked a protest march by the Singapore Democratic Party to the IMF-World Bank site. * Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan: "We are very tired but we are very encouraged as well by the the fact that it is very important that we stand our ground and that we persist and not back down in the face of intimidation and bullying by the government."