NucNews December 8, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- asia Indonesia’s nuke bid okayed Sapa-AFP December 8, 2006 http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=338095 JAKARTA - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said it supported Indonesia’s plans to build nuclear power plants to address its growing energy needs, despite opposition from environmentalists. "We are currently supporting Indonesia’s preparation for its planned nuclear power plant construction," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the global nuclear watchdog, said in a speech at Indonesia’s Ministry of Research and Technology. "With its decision to embark on a nuclear power programme, Indonesia is taking a step to expand its energy mix and energy availability." "At the IAEA, we stand ready to assist you in finding the solutions that are best suited to your needs and priorities." Indonesia’s nuclear power plans were shelved in 1997 in the face of mounting public opposition and the discovery and exploitation of the large Natuna gas field. But the plans were floated again last year amid growing power shortages. Indonesia had previously said it planned to build its first nuclear power plant, with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts, on densely populated Java island by 2015. The government, however, has yet to secure investors. The province of Gorontalo, on Sulawesi island, is considering developing a floating nuclear power plant using Russian expertise. Environmental group Greenpeace has opposed the plans for nuclear plants in such an earthquake-prone country as posing a danger to the public. Indonesia is Southeast Asia’s only member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), but its oil output has fallen in recent years to about one million barrels per day amid flagging investment. -------- canada Sanctioning Nukes? Canada's nuclear exports and the Korean conflict Fri, 2006-12-08 The Dominion, Canada by Stephen Salaff http://www.dominionpaper.ca/foreign_policy/2006/12/08/sanctionin.html Media coverage of North Korea's nuclear tests has left out the ongoing sales of nuclear technology to South Korea by Canadian firms. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) has supplied four reactors to Seoul's Korea Electric Power Development Corporation since 1973. CANDU reactors manufactured in Ontario's Chalk River and Pembroke, and then marketed internationally, are much more efficient producers of (potentially weapons-grade) plutonium than competing models. Irradiated CANDU fuel can be extracted from the reactor during everyday operation, a convenience not offered by competing models. In his 1988 semi-official history of AECL, University of Toronto History Professor Robert Bothwell relates that Canada's Trudeau Cabinet secretly approved AECL's commercial export of CANDU nuclear reactors in 1973. Negotiations then began for the sale of CANDU reactors to Seoul's Korea Electric Power Corporation, which led to South Korea's second commercial nuclear power installation. "In South Korea, as in Argentina, the military was never very far in the background; unlike Argentina, South Korea was [economically ascendant]," Bothwell writes. For North Korea, nuclear exports were part of a series of provocative maneuvers made by the US and South Korea. The Pyongyang government criticized CANDU exports to South Korea for lowering South Korea's nuclear weapons acquisition threshold. Pierre Trudeau paid an official visit to the Wolsung CANDU site in South Korea in September 1981 and spurred negotiations for additional CANDU reactors at Wolsung. Three additional AECL CANDU units entered commercial operation at Wolsung between 1997and 1999. These exports temporarily boosted the faltering Canadian nuclear industry. In the summer of 1999, Ontario Hydro announced the long-term shutdown of numerous CANDU reactors at two generating stations for safety and performance reasons. In 1985, Toronto Star columnist Diane Francis castigated briberies discovered in CANDU marketing to South Korea, Turkey and elsewhere. Direct AECL agents received a "finder's fee" of three to 10 per cent of reactor contract value. AECL deposited 10 per cent into a Luxemburg bank trust account for the agent's country contact. AECL also exported CANDU research reactors to India and Taiwan. India cooked the plutonium for its May 1974 Rajasthan nuclear weapons test in an AECL research reactor, whose sale was facilitated by Pierre Trudeau in a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. "With large taxpayer support, CANDU reactors have been exported to South Korea, Argentina, India, Pakistan, Romania and China," says Lynn Jones, a health professional and activist based in Pembroke, Ontario. Jones represents Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County, a group that campaigns against the health and nuclear proliferation risks of the nuclear industry in Pembroke and nearby Chalk River. North Korea was distressed by delivery of proliferation-prone and risky nuclear equipment and technology into the hands of its rivals in Seoul. Officials in Pyongyang were also incensed at alleged US violations of Article 2d of the 27 July 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement, which was no more than a temporary ceasefire. In a January 2003 statement reprinted by the Marxist-Leninist Daily, the North Korean government argued that, "Since the beginning of 1995, such [US] nuclear war exercises as Foal Eagle 95, Hoguk 906, Rimpac 98, 98 Hwarang and Ulji Focu Lens have been held against the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] almost every day, every year, on the ground, on the sea and in all parts of South Korea. In February 1997, the US brought depleted uranium shells from its base in Okinawa, Japan, into South Korea and deployed them." In other cases, Canada's nuclear exports have attracted more attention from the media. In March 2006, the Globe and Mail reported that, "Watchdog cleared tritium shipment to Iran." Referring to the highly controversial Pembroke nuclear manufacturer SRB Technologies Canada, the Globe reported: "The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approved a shipment to Iran last year by a Canadian company of about 70,000 glow-in-the-dark lights containing tritium, a radioactive gas that can also be used as a component in hydrogen bombs." Martin Mittelstaedt, the author of the Globe report, told the CBC on December 5 that Foreign Affairs in Ottawa was "extremely nervous" at SRB Technology's shipments of dual-use tritium to Iran. Commercial CANDU reactors breed tritium, which Lynn Jones says is an agent of irreversible genetic damage, cancer, immune suppression and other pathologies. According to Jones, the Globe report was based on correspondence between SRB Technologies and the Safety Commission obtained by her NGO through an Access to Information request with the Commission. Jones told The Dominion that her Access to Information records reveal Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approval of SRB's application on September 26, 2002, to export tritium-containing devices to "eight organizations in Korea." Radiation-protection professional Rosalie Bertell, Biostatistician and retired President of the Toronto-based International Institute of Concern for Public Health, is one of many who oppose the proliferation of nuclear technology--in the North as in the South. "After 50 years of US threats to use nuclear bombs in North Korea, and most recently calling them part of the 'axis of evil,' North Korea has joined the Asian nuclear club and holds South Korea and thousands of US military hostage to the same threat," said Bertell. "We must disarm the five nuclear nations which started this competition in order to achieve global peace." -------- depleted uranium Hutchison's battle for Gulf War vets continues Dallas News TEXAS WATCH 05:10 PM CST on Friday, December 8, 2006 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/columnists/tgillman/stories/121006dnnattexwatch.c06e294.html WASHINGTON – Among Kay Bailey Hutchison's proudest – and most controversial – achievements has been the funding of Gulf War syndrome research. The Texas Republican, chief appropriator for veterans spending in the GOP-controlled Senate, inserted a budget provision a year ago providing $75 million over five years to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Chief epidemiologist Robert Haley has spent a decade there trying to figure out what, if anything, triggered neurological complaints from three in 10 Gulf War veterans. "These people are ill," she said. "And it's not psychological. They are debilitated. There are people in wheelchairs that used to run marathons, and it was after serving in the Gulf War. I think we have to take care of these people, and I think we have to keep doing research." More than $300 million has already been spent looking for an explanation, let alone treatments or inoculations for troops who might face similar risks in other battle zones. Last Sunday, The Washington Post ran a front-page article that questioned the legitimacy of the research and Ms. Hutchison's efforts. It noted that veterans groups and some experts support the research but emphasized the skepticism from some scientists. Semantics play a big part in the controversy. In September, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine concluded that there is no single "syndrome." By definition, the term refers to a discrete set of symptoms, and complaints from Gulf War veterans involve a mix-and-match range of maladies, from chronic pain to fatigue, memory loss and rashes. The cause remains a mystery – a lack of a particular enzyme, perhaps, or reactions to nerve gas vaccines, or nerve gas, or various chemical weapons, pesticides or depleted uranium munitions. Maybe a combination of factors. "The symptoms are different in different people, therefore there has always been this controversy," Ms. Hutchison said. Veterans groups have long called it insulting that critics so often dismiss the complaints as psychosomatic. Last week, the American Legion came to Ms. Hutchison's defense. "We owe ill Gulf War veterans our exhaustive efforts in finding treatments for their ailments," said the Legion's national commander, Paul Morin. "Science can only move forward if it's progressive and continuous." -------- india US Congress completes final legislation for Indian nuclear deal WASHINGTON (AFP) Dec 08, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061208002826.pjnaf134.html The US Congress completed on Thursday final legislation for a landmark civilian nuclear deal with India, removing contentious provisions objected by the US and Indian governments. The legislation reconciled separate bills passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives aimed at implementing a nuclear agreement reached between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush last year. It is expected to be passed by the House and Senate on Friday before Bush signs it into law. Lawmakers said key provisions objected by the administrations of Bush and Singh were "watered down," including one that initially virtually compelled India to back US efforts to contain New Delhi's traditional ally Iran's nuclear program. "This latest step in a long and sometimes arduous legislative process has resulted in a satisfying consensus," said Tom Lantos, the incoming head of the powerful House international affairs panel. The final legislation "strikes the right balance between giving the President the necessary flexibility to negotiate the best agreement possible with New Delhi, while at the same time preserving Congressional oversight," he said. Under the deal, India, a non-signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), will be given access to civilian nuclear technology in return for placing its atomic reactors under global safeguards. The pact was seen as controversial because the US Congress had to create a rare exception for India from some of the requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to non-NPT signatories. In addition, US weapons experts warned forging such an agreement with non-NPT member India could make it harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegade North Korea and set a dangerous precedent for other nations with nuclear ambitions. Singh and US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice personally lobbied US lawmakers to remove "problematic" provisions seen as going against the spirit of the nuclear agreement signed by Bush and the Indian prime minister in July last year. -------- japan Tohoku Elec finds improper nuclear data handling Dec 8, 2006 (Reuters) http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061208/3/2u2f0.html TOKYO, - Tohoku Electric Power Co. Inc. said on Friday it had found improper changes to data at one of its nuclear power plants, but operational safety was unaffected. A spokesman for Tohoku Electric, Japan's fourth-biggest utility by sales, said improper programming modified data on coolant water temperatures at the 524,000-kilowatt No.1 unit at its Onagawa plant in northern Japan between 1995 and 2001. There was no falsification of data provided to the local or central government because the modified data was not used for reporting purposes, he said. Tohoku's announcement came days after Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) , Japan's largest utility, said it had found data modification that occurred in 1985 and 1988. TEPCO faced stiff criticism after it came to light in 2002 that it had falsified nuclear safety inspection data for more than a decade. ---- Japanese power company shut down nuclear plant after leak 8th December 2006 UK Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=421374&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490 A Japanese electric power company said today it will shut down a nuclear power plant in northern Japan after it leaked a small amount of coolant water containing radioactive material. Satoshi Arakawa, spokesman of Tohoku Electric Power Co., said the No. 2 reactor at the Onagawa nuclear power plant will be shut down because of the leakage of coolant water from a pipe valve. No radiation was released outside the compound and no one was injured, Arakawa said. The cause of the leak was being investigated. The reactor, with a generating capacity of 825,000 kilowatts, will be gradually shut down from tonight through Saturday in a safety measure, after which plant officials will look into the cause, Arakawa said. The Onagawa nuclear plant in Oshika in Miyagi prefecture (state) is about 300 kilometers (190 miles) northeast of Tokyo. Japan, which now relies on nuclear plants for a third of its energy needs, aims to raise that to nearly 40 percent by 2010. ---- Kyuma hedges support for U.S. Defense chief now questions SDF's steps following 9/11 Kyodo News Friday, Dec. 8, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?appURL=nn20061208a3.html Defense chief Fumio Kyuma on Thursday played down Japan's support for the 2003 Iraq War and raised questions about the special law that allowed its navy to support the counterterrorism campaign in Afghanistan led by the United States. When then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed Japan's outright support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, he was not stating Japan's official position, but "making a comment to the press," the director general of the Defense Agency told a House of Councilors Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense. Kyuma said the special law for the Afghanistan operation was the "legally most risky" in terms of complying with the Constitution. The law allows a Maritime Self-Defense Force flotilla to perpetually refuel foreign warships in the Indian Ocean for the campaign. The Japanese fleet provides logistic support for "the war the United States has launched for its self-defense," even though the situation is not "an emergency in an area around Japan," he said. The Afghanistan campaign was the first one launched following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. Under the pacifist Constitution, which Tokyo interprets as limiting the use of force to the minimum necessary for self-defense and banning it from engaging in collective defense, Japan has carefully constructed a way to let the Self-Defense Forces to engage in restricted overseas activities. A 1999 law enabled the SDF to provide logistic support to the U.S. military in the event of an emergency in "areas surrounding Japan," but the country attached special time limits to the laws for sending the SDF to support the antiterrorism campaign in Afghanistan and engage in noncombat missions in Iraq. Kyuma expressed caution about the idea of enacting a permanent law to let the SDF engage in similar operations abroad on a regular basis. We'll make your guns The Associated Press The United States should be more willing to share military technology with Japan and allow it to produce major weapons under license, according to the defense chief. Japan's defense industry produces just enough military supplies for the country's 240,000 service members, but faces a growing need to cut costs, said Fumio Kyuma, head of the Defense Agency. "Licensing makes more sense for Japan, because our main equipment is the same as the U.S.," Kyuma said in an interview Wednesday with Dow Jones Newswires and AP Television News. "We are hoping the United States would be more willing to disclose and provide the technology. Then Japan can produce ours based on that," he added. -------- korea No US Nukes in S. Korea: Roh By Ryu Jin jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr Staff Reporter 12-08-2006 Korea Times http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200612/kt2006120817213010220.htm President Roh Moo-hyun said Friday that there are no nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea at the moment, dismissing North Korea's repeated claims that the United States has been shipping nuclear arms to the Korean Peninsula. "There is no nuclear weapon in South Korea," he said in a joint press conference with New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark after their summit. ``Deployment of nuclear arms is not the presupposition for the provision of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.'' His comment came in response to a journalist's question about Pyongyang's recent argument that it could not give up its nuclear deterrent because of the ``threat of U.S. nuclear weapons'' in South Korea. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also dismissed the North Korean claim earlier on Friday, saying that Washington has no intention of attacking North Korea. On Thursday, Russia's Itar-Tass quoted a North Korean official as saying that the U.S. still keeps atomic weapons in the South and therefore Pyongyang would not give up its own nuclear arms without a security guarantee. After a year-long boycott of the six-party denuclearization talks, Pyongyang agreed in late October to return to the multilateral negotiation table soon on condition that the current U.S. financial sanctions on it are discussed and resolved in the framework. Roh displayed a passive attitude when asked about a possible inter-Korean summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. ``I cannot hold a summit alone and North Korea is not a place that I could visit freely anytime,'' he said.. However, he added that Kim's return visit to South Korea would be welcomed. Kim promised to pay a reciprocal visit to Seoul ``at an appropriate time'' at the historic summit in Pyongyang in 2000 with then-South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. ``We have repeatedly asked Kim to fulfill his promise of the year 2000 to make a return visit (to Seoul),'' Roh told reporters during the press conference. ``We would always welcome his visit.'' In the meantime, Roh agreed with Clark to boost bilateral cooperation, especially in information-technology (IT) and biotechnology (BT), according to South Korean officials traveling with the president. After an hour-long summit in Wellington, the two leaders signed a joint declaration on a partnership for the 21st century between the two nations. Officials from the two sides also signed several pacts, including an agreement on IT cooperation. Roh has been on a weeklong overseas trip, which includes successive state visits to three nations _ Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. He was also scheduled to attend the ASEAN+3 summit in the Philippines next week. But the multilateral forum was delayed until January due to a typhoon is heading for the host country, already hit by typhoon Durian which left more than 1,000 people dead or missing. -------- missile defense Dual Missile Test Fails Off Hawaii Dec 08 2006 By DAVID BRISCOE Associated Press Writer http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/08/D8LSF6R04.html HONOLULU - A drill planned to demonstrate the Navy's ability to knock down two incoming missiles at once from the same ship failed off Hawaii's coast on Thursday, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said. A computer configuration problem aboard the USS Lake Erie grounded one interceptor missile, and officials halted the second during the test of the sea-based U.S. missile defense system. It was the second failure in nine tests of the system by the agency and the U.S. Navy, said Missile Defense Agency spokesman Chris Taylor. The U.S. Pacific Fleet has been gradually installing missile surveillance and tracking technology on many of its destroyers and cruisers amid concerns about North Korea's long-range missile program. In Thursday's drill, a dummy enemy ballistic missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, simulating a missile attack on U.S. territory, and a shorter-range missile was fired from a Navy aircraft and aimed at the anti-missile ship, the Lake Erie, the agency said. Both target missiles dropped harmlessly into the ocean. Missile defense officials say the U.S. missile defense system already being installed on ships is still viable, and they are planning a repeat of the dual-launch test, probably sometime next year. Riki Ellison, president of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, based in Alexandria, Va., said, "Though this event is discouraging, the testing enables our defenses to be more efficient and more effective." Associated Press writer Audrey McAvoy contributed to this story. On the Net: Missile Defense Agency: http://www.mda.mil -------- russia Russia, Kazakhstan start uranium venture Web posted at: 12/8/2006 Source ::: REUTERS http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Rest+of+the+World&month=December2006&file=World_News2006120882733.xml ZARECHNOYE • A joint venture between Russia and Kazakhstan produced its first tonne of uranium in Kazakhstan yesterday in a move that helps Russia secure cheap supplies of the radioactive metal. Home to a fifth of global uranium reserves, Kazakhstan wants to be the world’s No1 uranium producer by 2010, surpassing Australia and Canada. The Central Asian state has signed a string of deals this year with foreign partners to boost uranium production, of which yesterday’s venture with Russia was the latest. The Zarechnoye mine, near Kazakhstan’s border with Uzbekistan, is at the centre of Russia’s plans to secure control over nuclear mines across the ex-Soviet world as demand for the radioactive metal continues to rise on the global market. “We’re working together to enrich uranium,” Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russian atomic energy authority Rosatom, told reporters. “The uranium mining enterprise should produce up to 6,000 tonnes a year.” The Zarechnoye mine itself will produce 1,000 tonnes a year by 2009, officials said. In the next four years Russia and Kazakhstan plan to exploit a further 5,000 tonnes a year in nearby deposits, Rosatom officials said. Russia has floated the idea of enriching nuclear fuel for countries like Iran that say they want nuclear power but where other states fear clandestine weapons programmes. The Zarechnoye joint venture — which will send uranium to Russia for enrichment — is not explicitly part of that proposal, but it will give Russia more enriched uranium to market. Kazakhstan needs outside help to fully exploit its abundant supplies of uranium. Russia, on the other hand, needs new nuclear fuel sources as its reserves get depleted. “We have to unite and work together,” Kazakh Prime Minister Danial Akhmetov said at the opening ceremony. The presidents of the two countries signed an agreement in January to jointly mine and enrich uranium and to jointly build a nuclear reactor, the Kazakh atomic energy agency Kazatomprom said in a statement. The Zarechnoye mine has estimated reserves of 19,000 tonnes of uranium. Kazatomprom holds 49.33 per cent in the venture, Russia’s state-run Tekhsnabexport holds 49.33 per cent and a Russian and a Kyrgyz company each hold 0.67 per cent. Demand for uranium is booming as China, India and Russia build new reactors, and the West seeks to diversify energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -------- security US to scan containers for nukes at foreign ports WASHINGTON (AFP) Dec 08, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061207230110.e7flokkp.html US authorities will scan US-bound containers at six foreign ports, including in Asia and Europe, to check for nuclear weapons that could be used in to attack the United States, officials said Thursday. US authorities will send nuclear detection devices to Port Qasim, Pakistan; Puerto Cortes, Honduras; Southampton, Britain; Port Salalah, Oman; the Port of Singapore; and the Gamman Terminal at Port Busan, South Korea. Starting in early 2007, containers at the six ports will be scanned for radiation before they are cleared for shipping to the United States, the Homeland Security and Energy departments said in a statement. Homeland Security and host country officials will simultaneously receive an alert in the event of a detection alarm, the statement said. "Our highest priority and greatest sense of urgency has to be aimed at preventing a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb attack against the homeland," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement. "This initiative advances a comprehensive strategy to secure the global supply chain and cut off any possibility of exploitation by terrorists," Chertoff said. --- U.S. to Expand Cargo Scans to Detect Nuclear Material By ERIC LIPTON December 8, 2006 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/us/08cargo.html?ei=5088&en=c04339aa7719a149&ex=1323234000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — All cargo sent by container ships to the United States from three ports — in Pakistan, Honduras and Southampton, England — will be scanned for hidden nuclear weapons or components starting next year under a federal antiterrorist program that some in Congress want to see mandated worldwide. The program, called the Secure Freight Initiative, will require United States-bound containers before departure to pass through both a radiation detection machine and an X-ray device, a combination intended to find bomb-making materials that have intentionally been shielded. It will cost a total of $60 million to set up the system in Pakistan, Honduras and Southampton, as well to begin scanning at least some United States-bound traffic from Korea, Singapore and Oman, officials said. The cost will be split by the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, they said. “There’s no weapon of mass destruction that is more formidable than a nuclear or a dirty bomb,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday in announcing the plan. Yet even as officials introduced the new effort, some antiterrorism experts were openly asking if it made sense. Some noted that the screening would take place only on container ships, not on ships that carry millions of tons of other cargo, including cars, fuel or goods placed on pallets. The equipment to be used — while better than no screening at all — is prone to triggering false alarms and is unable to see through many items that might be inside a container, including frozen food. And if the equipment is installed in only a small number of ports, terrorists could simply choose to send a bomb by container from somewhere else, they said. “The good news is we will only waste $60 million,” said James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. Mr. Chertoff and other department officials acknowledged that they did not know how well the system would work, or whether it would cause unacceptable bottlenecks. The radiation scan and X-ray image of each container will be transmitted electronically to the United States or to customs officials elsewhere, who will then be able to ask foreign officials at the ports to do more comprehensive searches. “When in doubt, we pull it out and then we open it up and look at it,” Mr. Chertoff said. But officials said that not all of the X-ray images would be checked — meaning that a shielded bomb could still get through. Already at about 50 ports worldwide, at the request of the United States, governments are doing limited checks of suspicious containers before they are loaded onto ships bound for the United States. Also, as containers arrive in the United States, about 80 percent of them are screened for radioactive substances once they are off-loaded. But this will be the first time, at the request of the United States government, that all cargo headed to the United State is sent through both an X-ray machine and a radiation detection monitor. Democrats in Congress want to mandate that all cargo be screened for radioactive material overseas before departing. Ultimately, Congress ordered that the program be tested at a small number of ports. Homeland Security Department officials said they wanted to expand the program beyond the six ports, eventually covering about 30 percent of United States-bound cargo, compared with the approximately 7 percent that will now be screened. But Mr. Chertoff said he did not think it was realistic to mandate it globally. “If somebody says you have to make it 100 percent, and the foreign county does not agree, that is not a mandate that can be carried out,” he said. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, one of the leaders of the effort to impose the multipart screening, said that Democrats would probably give the Homeland Security Department some time to see how this test worked. “The jury is out if this is a real turnaround,” he said. -------- terrorism Bill to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism Introduced in Congress WASHINGTON, DC, December 8, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2006/2006-12-08-09.asp#anchor2 Congress adjourned today until the newly chosen 110th Congress opens in January, but two Democrats squeezed in a bill to help prevent nuclear terrorism. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of California Thursday introduced legislation in both chambers of Congress to help prevent nuclear terrorism. The Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006 would create a senior advisor to the President to focus solely on preventing nuclear terrorism. The bill would also require the President to develop a comprehensive plan to work with the international community to secure the nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build a nuclear weapon. "There's no larger threat to global security than loose nuclear materials in the hands of a terrorist or rogue nation," said Congresswoman Tauscher. "The question is, what are we doing about it? For too long, the answer has been not nearly enough." In addition, Senator Clinton wrote today to the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, and the new Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, urging that they hold hearings in the next Congress "to discuss how best to address the serious cracks in the international nonproliferation regime, with the aim of creating a new nonproliferation blueprint for the security of the United States and the world." "Unfortunately, our nation’s influence as a leader in nonproliferation has been eroded by this administration’s actions," Clinton wrote. "The abandonment of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the administration's interest in developing new nuclear weapons, have hurt our standing within the global nonproliferation community," she wrote, "We must restore our nation’s status as a leader in preventing proliferation worldwide." "The possibility that terrorists may acquire and use a nuclear weapon against the United States is an urgent threat to the security of our nation and the international community,” wrote Senator Clinton. "We must do everything in our power, working in concert with other nations, to make that these dangerous materials are as secure as possible in order to prevent such an attack. This legislation is an important step toward achieving that goal.” -------- u.s. nuc weapons Where the nukes are: 20 miles from downtown Seattle By Tom Brown Seattletimes.com Friday, December 8, 2006 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003463152_webnuke06.html Nearly one-quarter of America's 9,962 nuclear weapons are now assigned to the Bangor submarine base on Hood Canal, 20 air miles northwest of downtown Seattle. This makes Bangor the largest nuclear weapons storehouse in the United States, and possibly the world. The share of the nation's nuclear armaments at Bangor is higher than it has ever been for two reasons: • The warheads assigned to the ballistic missile submarines stationed at Bangor and at Kings Bay, Ga., now constitute more than half of the U.S. strategic weapons force. • Other storage sites have been closed or consolidated as the country has cut the size of its arsenal from a Cold War peak of some 24,000 weapons. The status and disposition of the nation's nuclear arsenal is detailed in the current issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Bulletin authors Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen say the U.S. arsenal is now the smallest it has been since 1958. U.S. nuclear arms are maintained at 18 facilities in 12 states and six foreign countries, according to the report. The Bulletin was founded in 1945 by scientists who participated in the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb and is considered an authoritative source of nuclear weapons information for the United States and other countries. Norris and Kristensen write: Pinpointing the whereabouts of all U.S. nuclear weapons, and especially the numbers stored at specific locations, is fraught with many uncertainties due to the highly classified nature of nuclear weapons information. Declassified documents, leaks, official statements, news reports, and conversations with current and former officials provide many clues, as do high-resolution satellite images of many of these facilities. Such images are available to anyone with a computer and internet access, thanks to Google Earth and commercial satellite imaging companies such as DigitalGlobe. This development introduces important new tools for research and advances citizen verification. The statistics contained in this article represent our best estimates, based on many years of closely following nuclear issues. Thus, the estimate of what is stored at Bangor can't be verified but probably is quite close. Unsurprisingly, the 2,364 weapons reportedly assigned to Bangor are warheads for the Trident and cruise missiles carried by the submarines based there: • 1,100 W76 warheadsfor Trident II D5 missiles. The W76, the mainstay of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, has a yield, or explosive force, of about 100 kilotons. That's more than six times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Each of the nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines at Bangor can carry up to 24 Trident II missiles. Those missiles in turn can be armed with up to eight W76 warheads apiece, or as many as 192 warheads per sub. • 850 W76 warheads for Trident I C4 missiles. These warheads are inactive, as Bangor's subs have been upgraded to carry Trident II D5 missiles • 264 W88 warheads for Trident II D5 missiles. The W88 has a yield of about 475 kilotons and is considered the most sophisticated thermonuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile. Each of the 24 missiles on an Ohio-class nuclear submarine can carry eight W88 warheads. • 150 W80-0 warheads for sea-launched cruise missiles (four Trident subs have been converted to carry cruise missiles rather than ballistic missiles and two of those subs are stationed at Bangor). The mix of warheads carried by each of the Bangor submarines is classified and most likely varies depending on its patrol mission and international circumstances. About half of Bangor's active weapons are at sea at any given time, the Bulletin estimates. At Bangor, weapons not deployed aboard subs are stored in bunkers that are visible in commercial satellite photos readily available on the Web. The Federation of American Scientists blog Strategic Security has an interactive map and satellite images of the country's various weapons sites. The map requires Google Earth software, which is available free from Google. No nuclear weapons have been used since August 1945, when the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, though there have been a number of close calls since. There also have been scores of military accidents or incidents involving nuclear weapons over the last 60 years, including four at Bangor, the last of which occurred in late 2003. In the Bangor incident, a Trident missile was damaged, but none of its warheads were and no radiation was released. Commonly, not much information is released about these accidents, and their relative seriousness is often difficult to gauge. There is no evidence that an unintended nuclear explosion has ever occurred, though radiation has been released numerous times as a result of aircraft crashes or fires. The Center for Defense Information notes in this lengthy appraisal that the Navy reported 563 "nuclear weapons incidents" between 1965 and 1983, though fewer than half of those seem to have been actual accidents involving weapons. One Navy accident of regional note occurred Sept. 25, 1959, when a P-5M antisubmarine aircraft crashed into Puget Sound near Whidbey Island. The nuclear depth charge it carried was never recovered. Nuclear weapons in storage most likely pose little danger. However, they no doubt would be high on the target list of any nuclear-armed adversary. A new government report concludes that deterioration of nuclear weapons — long a concern because of potential effects on their reliability — may be much less significant than previously believed. Thus, it's likely we'll be living with a lot of them nearby for a long time to come. Related * Nuclear Security Administration http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/ * Alliance for Nuclear Accountability http://www.ananuclear.org/ ---- Study shows plutonium in warheads last longer than expected By H.Josef Hebert The Associated Press Friday, December 8, 2006 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003463152_webnuke06.html WASHINGTON - The plutonium in nuclear warheads seems to be much sturdier than previously thought, with a reliable life span of as much as 100 years. Scientists who studied all of the warheads in the government's nuclear arsenal reported that plutonium pits â€" the core of the weapon â€" can be counted on to work as expected for twice as long as once believed. The conclusions were released by the National Nuclear Security Administration, the semiautonomous agency within the Energy Department that oversees the nuclear weapons program. "These studies show that the degradation of plutonium in our nuclear weapons will not affect warhead reliability for decades," said Linton Brooks, head of the NNSA. But he added that the plutonium â€" in the form of softball-size "pits" that serve as a trigger for nuclear detonation â€" is not the only thing that might go wrong as a warhead ages. Therefore, plans to design sturdier, long-lasting warheads will proceed as planned. "Although plutonium aging contributes, other factors control the overall life expectancy of nuclear weapons systems," said Brooks. The agency also plans to continue to seek money from Congress for construction of a new factory to manufacture plutonium pits, although opponents of such a facility argue the new study suggests it is not needed. The new findings "show, on a practical basis, that we don't need expensive, provocative new nuclear weapons designs and industrial-scale bomb production. These proposals make the U.S. appear hypocritical when preaching to other nations that they cant have weapons of mass destruction," said Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, a group that monitors activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Susan Gordon, director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, said the study makes a new pit-making plant unnecessary. "The U.S. has a huge surplus of plutonium pits and now DOE's own independent expert scientists confirm that they last 100 years," she said. The alliance represents a network of citizen groups near federal nuclear weapons facilities. The research was conducted by nuclear engineers at the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore weapons laboratories and reviewed by an outside panel of nuclear physicists and weapons experts known as the JASON panel. The government has long assumed that plutonium would deteriorate to where it no longer could be relied upon in 45 years to 60 years. The new study put the expected minimum lifetime for plutonium pits at 85 years to 100 years, depending on the warhead. "What this (finding) does do is it informs us that pit age isn't the primary thing that concerns us," said Tom D'Agostino, NNSA deputy administrator for defense programs. But he said plutonium aging is only one variable that can affect overall system reliability and that the report does not change the need to manufacture more plutonium pits or design sturdier warheads. The country currently has no pit manufacturing plant, using pits taken out of dismantled warheads. D'Agostino said the agency still wants to have a new pit production facility by 2022 to assure future supplies. Other aging factors that could impact on weapon reliability, he said, include deterioration of high-explosives and other organic components in the weapons and corrosion of weapons parts. National Nuclear Security Administration: www.nnsa.doe.gov Alliance for Nuclear Accountability: http://www.ananuclear.org/ -- Where the bombs are - NRDC: Nuclear Notebook By Robert S. Norris and William M. Arkin September 1992 pp. 48-49 (vol. 48, no. 07) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=sep92norris The United States has nuclear weapons in 25 states and seven foreign countries. U.S. nuclear weapons--on-line and in storage--have declined from a recent peak of some 24,000 warheads in the 1980s to nearly 19,000 today, and the number will continue to decline throughout the 1990s. Major retirements and the removal of thousands of nuclear weapons from overseas bases is the largest shift in deployment patterns around the globe since the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the weapons were initially fielded. About 1,000 bombs, or about five percent of the stockpile, are now deployed in Europe, in contrast to the 30 percent deployed overseas a decade ago. In 1985 an accounting of the locations and numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons was presented in Nuclear Battlefields by William Arkin and Richard Fieldhouse. South Carolina was the number one state in nuclear weapons then, as it is today. There are 2,258 warheads stored in the Charleston area, some 300 more than in 1985. As the main depot for the navy's ballistic missile submarines, Charleston's lead is primarily due to some 1,450 Poseidon missile warheads removed from recently retired submarines. New Mexico and Texas now rank second and fourth in numbers of weapons stored, also because of retirements. New Mexico has risen as Kirtland Air Force Base assumes a greater role in storing warheads that await dismantlement. Texas is home to the Pantex plant, now busy taking apart army nuclear warheads and other older weapons. Many of Kirtland's weapons are only temporarily "staged," awaiting shipment to Pantex. U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed at two types of bases: operational, and long-term storage. Third-ranking North Dakota has a base for strategic forces, as do Washington (fifth), Michigan (eighth), and Wyoming (tenth). But the high rankings of California (sixth), Louisiana (seventh), and Virginia (ninth), are due mainly to their long-term storage depots. Since 1985, New York has dropped from second to eleventh, a result of the retirement of large numbers of army warheads and the closure of a bomber base. With the deployment of the MX missile between 1986 and 1988, Wyoming rose from nineteenth to tenth during the same period. Nine hundred underground ICBM silos are spread across seven states, a reduction of 152 silos since 1985. By the year 2000, we expect only 500 silos to remain. Two states, Arizona and New Hampshire, have given up nuclear weapons storage altogether since 1985. There are currently 50 U.S. nuclear storage sites in all. This is a decline from 164 in 1985, when there were 125 sites abroad, and small storage sites dotted the European countryside. There are now only 16 storage sites in Europe, and since the late 1970s, all U.S. nuclear weapons have been removed from Spain, the Philippines, Guam, South Korea, and Canada. Greater numbers of weapons are being stored at a few large depots. The air force has three main storage bases; the navy, nine; and the army, two. Forty percent of the stockpile is deployed at 32 operational air force bases--17 in the United States and 16 in Europe. About 10 percent of the stockpile (1,800 warheads) are deployed at sea aboard ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). We estimate that four SSBNs are patrolling in the Pacific and seven in the Atlantic at any given time. Another 4,000 submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads are located at three navy bases that support the submarine nuclear forces. The future. Current plans call for the stockpile to be reduced to an estimated 5,400 warheads by the turn of the century. Of these, 3,800 will be for strategic forces, and 1,600 will be non-strategic. Some 3,500 strategic warheads will be "accountable" under the START treaty, with an estimated 300 extra weapons retained as "spares." The U.S.-Russian Joint Understanding of June 17, 1992, specifies new rules for segregating conventional heavy bombers from nuclear types. The agreement also bans the storage of spare warheads at bases for conventional bombers. Nuclear storage at several bomber bases will probably cease over the next seven years, and the number of states in which nuclear weapons are deployed or stored will drop to 17. In addition, 15-16,000 weapons pits removed from dismantled weapons will be stored at the Pantex plant in Texas. The ratio between strategic and non-strategic warheads will remain virtually the same as it is today--about two-thirds to one-third. Tactical nuclear bombs in Europe will decline to around 500; they will be housed at about a dozen bases in seven NATO countries. We estimate that the navy will retain around 450 land-attack strike bombs for about 10 carriers. The navy also will keep about 350 Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarines, cruisers, and destroyers, although these non-strategic weapons will be stored ashore, following George Bush's September 1991 announcement removing them from active ships. With fewer weapons and fewer missions, still other sites are likely to close. The navy's nuclear storage sites in Alaska and Maine will probably close, as will those at Cecil Field in northern Florida, and at Earle Naval Weapons Station in New Jersey. Storage will be consolidated at larger East Coast depots. The army said in early July that the nuclear weapons mission at Seneca Army Depot in Romulus, New York--once one of the largest nuclear storage sites in the United States--will end on October 1. Its counterpart on the West Coast, the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, California, will also end its nuclear storage mission soon, as the army abandons its nuclear role. Disassembly. Since 1945, the United States has produced nearly 70,000 nuclear weapons, of which more than 50,000 have been retired and disassembled. Of the nearly 19,000 warheads in today's stockpile, 11,500 are in active service and 7,500 await dismantlement (see June 1992 "Nuclear Notebook"). Beginning in October, the Energy Department's Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas, is scheduled to disassemble 2,000 warheads per year for the foreseeable future. From October 1987 to 1988, Pantex dismantled 280 warheads. Since then, the number of weapons disassembled annually has risen steadily. It is expected to total 1,800 in fiscal year 1992, and 2,000 in fiscal 1993. Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council and William M. Arkin of Greenpeace. Inquiries should be directed to NRDC, 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202-783-7800). September 1992 pp. 48-49 (vol. 48, no. 07) © 1992 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arizona Palo Verde nuclear plant problems prod oversight 12.08.2006 Tucson Citizen news@tucsoncitizen.com http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/35134.php PHOENIX - Federal regulators could be poised to move the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station outside Phoenix into their most stringent oversight category after they found yet another problem with an emergency backup system. An inspection at the plant in late September found that an emergency diesel generator had been inoperative for most of the month, according to a report released Thursday. The finding is the latest in a series of problems that have plagued the plant in the past two years. The most serious was the discovery by inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2004 that a large pipe that is supposed to flood the reactors with water in an emergency had been left dry for years. Regulators also have recently discovered that an improper chemical mix in pipes in the emergency cooling system led to corrosion that went undetected for years. Responding to concerns about reactor operations from regulators, plant operator Arizona Public Service Co. also fired or transferred a dozen supervisors and line workers earlier this year. Palo Verde is currently listed by the NRC in the second-to-worst safety monitoring category, and if it finds the latest problems are anything but minor, the plant would face the strictest monitoring possible from the agency. "One more finding of anything but green will change the landscape for Palo Verde," said Victor Dricks, an NRC spokesman. That likely would cost APS and its customers millions of dollars because of increased repair and monitoring requirements. APS spokesman Jim McDonald acknowledged that performance at the plant "hasn't been up to our high standards of the past, and we're committed to changing that." The commission and Palo Verde officials will meet Jan. 16 in Arlington, Texas, to discuss the agency's report on the faulty generator and the improper chemical mix. In addition to APS, partners in the plant include Arizona's Salt River Project, El Paso Electric Co., Southern California Edison, Public Service Co. of New Mexico, Southern California Public Power Authority and the Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power. -------- MILITARY -------- britain MPs warn over US fighter jet deal Britain is expected to take 138 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft Friday, 8 December 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6219122.stm The UK should not agree to a US deal to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter unless the US releases details allowing independent operation, MPs have warned. The defence committee said an assurance was needed from the US "by the end of the year" that all the technical information would be given to the UK. The $276.5bn (£140bn) Anglo-US project will supply the armed forces of the US, Britain and several other countries. Earlier this year, the government expressed concerns about the deal. More detail on the F-35 The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the world's most expensive military project, is expected to take to the skies for its maiden test flight next week. 'Plan B' The US will account for the lion's share of the Lockheed Martin-designed plane, with 2,400 in service by 2027, while the UK is expected to take delivery of 138 fighters. Britain's BAE Systems is one of the key players in the aircraft's development, and has pumped $2bn into the project. The Ministry of Defence is planning to get a variation of the JSF for use by the Royal Navy on two future aircraft carriers. It still remains unclear whether the US will agree to transfer the technology required to give the UK operational sovereignty of the aircraft. The committee said if there is no deal by the end of the year, the government should focus on developing a "plan B" to acquire alternative aircraft. Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said the Conservatives had endorsed the government's call for the transfer of the technology to the UK. Helicopter concerns In its report published on Friday, the MPs also highlighted the equipment urgently needed by UK Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. They welcomed Prime Minister Tony Blair's promise in October that forces would get whatever resources they asked for. They urged the MoD to process such requests quickly and the Treasury to approve additional funding "to support new equipment once in service, so that commanders are not inhibited from asking for equipment by fears for their future budgets". They were particularly concerned about £205m spent on eight Chinook Mk3 helicopters, housed in hangars but not being used - " possibly until the next decade, while the MoD negotiates with Boeing about responsibility for solving a software problem". Mr Howarth said: "The report reiterates some of the serious concerns we have with the government's procurement policy, particularly highlighting the delays affecting some major projects and the cutting of equipment numbers to control costs. "The government has failed to deliver the essential equipment needed by our Armed Forces when Britain's military commitments are increasing." -------- spies Secret Agents Spilling Secrets The Washington Post Friday, December 8, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800932_pf.html Following are excerpts from a wiretapped conversation in June 2006 between Gen. Gustavo Pignero, former director of counter-espionage for the ItalI'military intelligence agency known as SISMI, and his successor at SISMI, Marco Mancin'the pair discussed the origins of a CIA-sponsored operation in 2003 to kidnap a radical Muslim preacher known as Abu Omar and take him from Milan to Cairo. One month after the conversation was recorded, Pignero and Mancini were both arrested and charged in Abu Omar's kidnapping. Pignero died of cancer on Sept. 11, 2006. Warrants in the case have also been issued for the arrest of 25 CIA officers and a U.S. military officer. Note: Translated from the original Italian by The Washington Post. The identity of the CIA's Rome station chief has been redacted because the officer still serves in an undercover capacity. EdI'made by The Washington Post noted in [brackets]. Source: Italian court documents G. PIGNERO: At the end of 2002 I often met with [the CIA's Rome station chief] M. MANCINI: Of course. G. PIGNERO: ...because it was... M. MANCINI: You were behind the division, of course. G. PIGNERO: ...it was a normal thing... M. MANCINI: Of course, of course. G. PIGNERO: ...and we often met. During one of these meetings -- I said -- which took place in (inaudible), one of the things we talked about was that the CIA was planning to start up the American public project of... M. MANCINI: Of renditions. G. PIGNERO: I didn'talk about renditions, I said exactly this: of search... M. MANCINI: Yes. G. PIGNERO: ...localization and capture... M. MANCINI: Ah, perfect. G. PIGNERO: ...of people they believed were... M. MANCINI: Involved. G. PIGNERO: ...anywhere they might be in the world, even in Europe and Italy, who were involved in the attack on the two towers or with Al Qaeda activities. M. MANCINI: Exactly. G. PIGNERO: In this context, informally and only verbally, he gave me a series of names, a series of characters... M. MANCINI: Americans? G. PIGNERO: No, Arabs. M. MANCINI: Arabs, ah, yes. G. PIGNERO: Um, to look for. M. MANCINI: Ah... G. PIGNERO: To look for, to look for. M. MANCINI: ...I understood the magistrate... G. PIGNERO: To look for. M. MANCINI: Yes. G. PIGNERO: As far as I can remember, I'm saying, vaguely, they were in Europe ... and I threw out ... Holland, Belgium, Austria, because more or less it seemed to me that that's where they were. M. MANCINI: This I haven't... You didn'tell me this, this thing here. G. PIGNERO: Well, okay. But it seems to me that... M. MANCINI: Of course. G. PIGNERO: Furthermore, I said, also in Italy, he gave me some names of people in Italy, but I can't remember the names now... But Abu Omar was one of these names, only in the sense that... he wasn't indicating him as 'Abu Omar,' but with his own proper name. M. MANCINI: Yes. G. PIGNERO: However, since he also told me this guy's function, that he was the Imam in Milan, etcetera, then I knew it was Abu Omar, that guy. In addition to this he also told me about this guy working in Vercelli... M. MANCINI: Hey, you didn't tell me about that guy, though. G. PIGNERO: ...In Vercelli, Naples, Turin... M. MANCINI: Yeah, but you didn't tell me about this part. G. PIGNERO: Yes, but there was a list of... M. MANCINI: Ah, I understand, I understand. G. PIGNERO: Turin, etcetera, etcetera. M. MANCINI: But you told me the director gave you the list, not him. G. PIGNERO: Yeah, but I didn't... I took the director out of this completely. M. MANCINI: Okay, okay. G. PIGNERO: I mean, the meeting was between me and [CIA's Rome station chief]. M. MANCINI: Okay, okay. G. PIGNERO: Also because I don't want the director coming to me tomorrow and saying: "You didn't say a [expletive] thing to me, but you got me involved." M. MANCINI: I get it. G. PIGNERO: And I'll say: "I didn't get you involved at all." M. MANCINI: Of course. G. PIGNERO: So, ahem... So Abu Omar was one of the names in the middle of the others. Now, okay, what did I do? Naturally, this was back in 2002, nobody was talking about kidnapping, nobody was talking about renditions... Yes, he said, "But maybe Clinton has already talked about it," etcetera. He talked about it! We were tied up in a whole other series of things. M. MANCINI: Yes, but you said that... You told me, if you remember, you said to me that: "The Americans want to take him." Do you remember? G. PIGNERO: Yes, but I was giving you the version that I was assuming was... M. MANCINI: No, I know, but, what I'm saying is... G. PIGNERO: Saving... M. MANCINI: You said "capture," right? G. PIGNERO: Yes, to him I did, yes. M. MANCINI: Ah, perfect. Okay. (...) Omissis* (...) [Editor's note: Pignero and Mancini discuss how Gen. Nicolo Pollari, director of SISMI, passed along the request from the CIA for the rendition of Abu Omar] G. PIGNERO: So there's no... There's no exchange of documents, nothing written down... M. MANCINI: How was that request we made written, was it protocol? G. PIGNERO: Which request? M. MANCINI: The one for the rendition, the one the director gave you, was it protocol or not? G. PIGNERO: Noooo! No, no. M. MANCINI: Then what was it? G. PIGNERO: No, no. It was an anonymous note. M. MANCINI: An anonymous note. G. PIGNERO: An anonymous note. It wasn't protocol; it was just a note I kept until one year ago, when... I kept it in my office. Then one fine day I read this thing... M. MANCINI: (Laughs) G. PIGNERO: You know what? M. MANCINI: (Laughing) You made a... G. PIGNERO: Ah, go [expletive] yourself! M. MANCINI: (Laughs) G. PIGNERO: I destroyed it, and that was the only copy. M. MANCINI: The one the director gave you. G. PIGNERO: Yeah. M. MANCINI: (Laughing) The [expletive] director... Omissis* G. PIGNERO: I remember that it was written in English. M. MANCINI: [Expletive!] The director doesn't speak English, so it's difficult to believe he wrote it himself. G. PIGNERO: Okay, but it wasn't... M. MANCINI: Protocol. G. PIGNERO: Protocol. There wasn't even a remote chance of tracing anything in any [expletive] direction. And even if the Americans did make a copy, and by some absurd crazy chance somebody drags out that copy, it was still a piece of paper with no date, no protocol. It could have been written today. M. MANCINI: Of course. G. PIGNERO: Nobody gives a [expletive]! M. MANCINI: As long as the Americans don't say: "Yes, the Italians knew about it." G. PIGNERO: They say that, but I say no. M. MANCINI: (Laughs) G. PIGNERO: I can't say anything... Right now I can't say anything different... M. MANCINI: No, for the love of God! G. PIGNERO: Because it would be a real mess. M. MANCINI: Of course. G. PIGNERO: Because of course everybody would say: "What, is Pignero crazy, suddenly starting to tell one thing instead of another?! Evidently he's under pressure from some politicians because he's starting to say..." M. MANCINI: Of course. G. PIGNERO: And then there'd be a whole other mess. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy EU Eyes Binding Targets for Renewable Energy - Draft Story by Jeff Mason REUTERS BELGIUM: December 8, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39382/story.htm BRUSSELS - The European Commission will propose a mandatory target next month for energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020 in an overhaul of EU policy on environmentally friendly fuels, a draft showed on Thursday. The draft of the EU executive's "Renewable Energy Road Map", obtained by Reuters, said legally binding targets were crucial to boost the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar within the 25-country bloc. But the proposal drew fire from environmentalists and the renewable energy industry for failing to establish specific targets for the electricity, heating and cooling sectors. "This is a roadmap to the grave indeed for the renewables industry in Europe," said Oliver Schaefer, policy director at the European Renewable Energy Council, which represents producers and manufacturers. "You have existing legislation on renewables in electricity which would automatically go down the drain." At present, the EU has a target for renewable sources to provide 21 percent of all electricity consumed by 2010 and for the proportion of biofuels used in transport to reach 5.75 percent by the same year. The EU's non-binding overall target seeks to have renewable sources make up 12 percent of the bloc's energy use by 2010. The draft does not specify a new overall goal, but it cites a call by the European Parliament for renewable energy to make up 20 percent of EU consumption by 2020. It promises a "new legislative framework for the promotion and the use of renewable energy in the European Union." The proposal will be part of a broad package that the Commission plans to present in January that sets out a common EU energy policy in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and secure future energy supplies. The Commission is in the middle of a brewing debate on how "green" that policy should be. AMBITIOUS TARGETS? A spokesman for EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said the Commission would propose "ambitious" targets when the package came out. He declined further comment. The European Renewable Energy Council's Schaefer said EU member states would likely reject a mandatory target, therefore diluting the proposal even more. The document gave a mixed review of current policies on renewable energy. It said the bloc would not meet its 2010 target. "This can only be considered a policy failure and a result of the inability or the unwillingness to back political declarations by political and economic incentives," it said. But it said electricity targets had largely worked out. Frauke Thies, a renewable energy specialist at environmental group Greenpeace, said her group recommended a 35 percent target for renewables in electricity and at least 25 percent for heating and cooling by 2020. "At a time when sector-specific support for renewable energy is starting to deliver results, the Commission must strengthen this system by setting binding targets," she said. The draft said proposals for a binding, minimum target for biofuels would be made in 2007. Though it did not set targets for the other sectors, it appeared to set some guidelines. "Electricity production from renewables could increase from the current 15 percent to approximately 34 percent of overall electricity consumption in 2020," it said. "The contribution from renewables in the heating and cooling sector could more than double, compared to the current share of 9 percent." -------- ACTIVISTS Trial Centers on Dispute Over War Protesters’ Arrests By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS Published: December 8, 2006 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/nyregion/08sheehan.html?ex=1169096400&en=c446c62a23215708&ei=5070 It started as a tiny act of protest. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who had held a vigil near President Bush’s ranch, and a group of women wanted to submit a petition to the United States Mission to the United Nations in Manhattan, demanding an end to the war. But Ms. Sheehan and three other women were handcuffed, arrested and jailed overnight. Now their misdemeanor trial in Manhattan Criminal Court has turned into a look at the use — and they say abuse — of police power, in the face of an antiwar protest. At the trial, the police and security officers told the jury that the four women had sat down and blocked the entrance to the building, and had resisted arrest by refusing to follow the instructions of arresting officers. And yesterday, Peggy Kerry, the sister of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and a liaison at the mission, testified that she was planning to meet with the protesters, but told one of them that she would not meet with the press because that was not her job. After learning that they had a celebrity, Ms. Sheehan, with them, Ms. Kerry turned off her phone and had no further contact with them. “I was angry that they had not told me Cindy Sheehan would be there,” Ms. Kerry, a prosecution witness, said, under questioning by Ms. Sheehan’s lawyer, Robert Gottlieb. The women, who showed a television news videotape in court yesterday to buttress their case, say the police and the security staff at the building, a private office building run by the Macklowe organization, locked the doors, refused to accept their petition and hemmed them in from all sides. The video shows police officers, some wearing helmets, moving in on the protesters, who are sitting in a public plaza. As the police handcuff the women leading the protest, the video shows Ms. Sheehan lying on the ground, hands behind her back, with her shirt pulled up and bra exposed. An arresting officer testified that Ms. Sheehan asked him to pull her shirt down and that he did. The police have testified that the arrests were routine. But the women say their treatment harks back to a pattern of excessive force by the police during the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004 and in other demonstrations around the city, a “policy of stifling dissent by arresting noted people,” Mr. Gottlieb said yesterday. He said that locking them up instead of giving them desk appearance tickets for misdemeanor offenses was “piling on.” Paul J. Browne, the deputy police commissioner for public information, said yesterday that the police “routinely accommodate dissent.” However, he said, “individuals who choose to engage in civil disobedience and, I would maintain, expect to be arrested, often are.” On March 6, the day they were arrested, the four defendants — Ms. Sheehan, 49, who lives in Northern California; the Rev. Patricia Ackerman, 48, an Episcopal priest; Susan Benjamin, 54, known as Medea; and Melissa Beattie, 57, known as Missy, were participating in a series of events to celebrate International Women’s Day. Mr. Gottlieb said they had no intention of being arrested and were scheduled to take a van to Washington that afternoon, a trip that they would miss. The case is expected to go to the jury today. So far, none of the women have testified, and their lawyers did not say whether they would. The oldest of Ms. Sheehan’s four children, Casey, a soldier, was killed in Iraq in April 2004 at the age of 24, and she has spoken out against the war ever since, most notably by camping out near President Bush’s ranch in Texas in the summer of 2005. A prosecution witness, Detective Frank Bogucki, said that as soon as the women appeared at the building on East 45th Street, senior police officers tried to steer them into a “designated area set aside for them opposite the U.S. Mission” while building security locked the doors. Ms. Kerry said that she had originally agreed to meet with Ms. Ackerman and a delegation of Iraqi women to accept the petition. But Ms. Kerry said that when she saw Ms. Ackerman with a large group of protesters and members of the news media, she turned off her cellphone. Richard Grenell, the mission’s head of external relations and Ms. Kerry’s boss, characterized the demonstration during testimony yesterday as a “media event.” He said he had seen women dressed in pink, to signify their membership in Code Pink, an antiwar group, being followed by reporters, and had agreed to meet with two women in his offices, but not “in front of cameras.” Then building security officials intervened, he said, and decided to close the building to maintain public safety. “These women in pink looked dangerous?” Mr. Gottlieb asked. “It sounds like women in pink are innocent,” Mr. Grenell replied. “But I was nervous that day. First of all, they were marching towards the mission. The police were coming. They clearly were happy, and they were not paying attention to anything else.”