*****************************************************************
03/19/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.71
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS
1 Plans try to keep nuke waste out
2 Fire Shuts Taiwan Nuclear Plant
3 Fire hobbles nuclear plant in Pingtung
4 Speakers stress need for Peaceful use of N-energy
5 Setback for French nuclear company
6 Czech Temelin Reactor Restarts After Repair
7 Finnish PM calls Bellona terrorists
8 Mixed emotions greet Russian nuclear plant
9 Criticism of Piketon's operator
10 Chernobyl crews strike for benefits
11 Russia rejects G-7 concern over nuclear regulatory body
12 Energy needs may spur rebirth of nuclear power --
13 Energy lobbyists making hay
14 UN: General Assembly adopts resolution on IAEA, adds agenda item
NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS
1 North Korea Lashes Out at U.S., Says It Risks War
2 Iran, Russia Arms Deal Stirs Chaos
3 NIF project advances within budget
4 Hanford product will come down with Mir
5 Bechtel Jacobs awards $1.4M cleanup contract
6 Hawaii Attorney fighting for Enewetak compensation
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
1 Plans try to keep nuke waste out
BY GEOFF DORNAN
Appeal Capitol Bureau
March 16, 2001
Two resolutions and one proposed law designed to help keep
nuclear waste out of Nevada were introduced in the Nevada Senate
on Thursday.
Senate Bill 361 by Sen. Ray Shaffer, D-Las Vegas, attempts to
make it illegal to transport nuclear waste within 10 miles of any
city or town in Nevada which has a population of more than 3,000.
In addition, the proposed legislation would require the state
Environmental Commission to put conditions on the transportation
and storage of nuclear waste in Nevada including required
monitoring systems, limits on the amount of radiation that could
escape from the storage and access by the public as well as state
regulatory officials.
In addition, Sen. Jon Porter, R-Las Vegas, introduced Senate
Joint Resolution 11 asking Congress for an environmental impact
statement on transporting waste to Yucca Mountain. He said at
present, the impact study on transportation isn't scheduled for
completion until after the decision on whether to store nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain is made.
"The current site and proposed transportation routes are
unacceptable," said Porter. "The transportation of nuclear waste
materials is as great a cause for concern as the hazards
associated with permanent Yucca Mountain storage."
And Shaffer introduced Senate Joint Resolution 10 asking that
safety standards for the proposed site be kept high.
All three were referred to the Transportation Committee for study
over the objections of Sen. Mark James, R-Las Vegas, and Minority
Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas.
Titus said the legislation and resolutions should go to Natural
Resources instead of Transportation under Senate rules. When that
was denied, James bluntly charged that nuclear waste issues were
being sent to Transportation to die. .
"Oh, yeah," said James after the floor session adjourned. "If
they're anti-nuke, I think they are."
"I'll have to talk to him about that," said Transportation
Chairman Bill O'Donnell, R-Las Vegas, when asked about the
comment.
*****************************************************************
2 Fire Shuts Taiwan Nuclear Plant
March 18, 2001
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) - A small fire closed a Taiwanese nuclear
power plant, but there were no radiation leaks, officials said
Monday. The fire broke out early Sunday in one of the generators
vital to cooling the plant's two nuclear reactors, the Taiwan
Power Co. said. The plant was immediately shut down.
The malfunction did not occur in the nuclear reactor and did not
cause any radiation leaks or injuries, said spokeswoman Huang
Huei-yu.
The company said there was no threat of an electricity shortage
on the island since it has enough power in reserves to make up
the shortfall.
Initial findings showed that salty deposits had accumulated in
four electric transmission lines, causing a circuit breaker to
malfunction in one of the generators and starting the fire, the
company said.
Officials did not know when the plant could resume normal
operations.
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
3 Fire hobbles nuclear plant in Pingtung
The Taipei Times Online: 2001-03-19
March 19th, 2001
POWER TROUBLE: A fire that broke out early yesterday at the Third
Nuclear Power plant has left the plant operating at less than
full capacity, but there was no radiation leak
By Chiu Yu-Tzu
STAFF REPORTER
A fire broke out at the Third Nuclear Power Plant (®Ö¤T¼t) in
Pingtung County early yesterday morning, leaving two electricity
generators out of commission and severely cutting the plant's
output.
Officials say the accident, the most serious of its kind in
Taiwan's history, did not cause any radiation leaks or pose any
risk to the nation's power supply.
According to Taiwan Power Co (Taipower, ¥x¹q), the state-owned
company that runs the plant, the plant supplied 4,190 megawatts
of reserved electricity yesterday and will supply 2,970 megawatts
of reserved electricity today.
The accident occurred after two electricity generators, No. 1
and No. 2, were closed down early Saturday morning because salty
deposits from fog triggered an electricity transmission
malfunction, plant officials said. Sudden short circuits occurred
on four electric transmission lines connecting the power plant
and two high voltage towers at Ta-peng (¤jÄP) and Lungchi (Às±T).
Officials from Taipower admitted yesterday that short circuits
could be attributed to a failure to remove the salty particles
stuck on electricity transmission lines.
The generators are used to produce electricity for part of the
process of cooling the plant's nuclear reactors.
Early yesterday, just as plant officials were writing an
accident report to the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) about the
transmission failure, the fire broke out.
The fire erupted when operators tried to use diesel-powered
generators to bring electricity generator No. 1 back on line.
The emergency measure unfortunately caused two breakers,
commonly known as switchers, to malfunction. The mechanical
malfunction increased the temperature on the curcuit and soon
heavy smoke damaged more than 100 breakers, officials said.
They denied, however, that an explosion occurred subsequent to
the fire when the generator was trying to get back on line.
"No explosion occurred. We are still figuring out what the real
cause of the fire was," Chen Pu-tsan (³¯¥¬Àé), deputy station
manager of the plant, told the *Taipei Times.*
Chen said that, fortunately, fire extinguishers quickly emitted
carbon dioxide and prevented further damage.
Chen said that it would be impossible for generator No. 1 to
function in the near future because it would take time to repair
the breakers.
Left with no other option, operators at the plant started
backup, diesel-powered electric generators soon after the
accident to supply electricity.
Chen stressed that the incident would not effect consumers
because the plant's reserve electricity output of 1,900 megawatts
would make up for the shortage.
Officials at the plant say that because generator No. 2 was not
damaged it may be fixed more quickly than No. 1, but they had no
idea how long that would be.
The schedule for restarting generators has to be approved by the
AEC, which oversees the plant.
Taipower has sped-up the work of removing salt particles from
electricity transmission lines and the AEC has already begun an
investigation into the accident.
AEC officials said that the council might restrict the plant's
operation or ask Taipower to file a more detailed report if human
error is discovered.
This story has been viewed 972 times.
URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/03/19/story/0000078134]
Copyright © 1999-2001 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Speakers stress need for Peaceful use of N-energy
The Daily Star: General News
Volume 3 Number 551 Mon. March 19, 2001 ![]()
March 19, 2001
By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
SPECIAL REPORT
Perhaps the most visible sign that nuclear power is back came
last month when Silicon Valley executives declared that it would
be the best solution to the chronic electricity shortage facing
California, though it still faces formidable political obstacles.
"Nuclear power is the answer," said Craig Barrett, chief
executive of Intel Corp., "but it's not politically correct."
The computer-chip executive said his company risks losing
millions of dollars each time power fluctuates during one of
California's rolling blackouts, disrupting the manufacture of
microchips.
Nuclear, which provides about one-fifth of America's power, is
one of the most reliable and plentiful sources of electricity
since nuclear plants can run 24 hours a day, seven days a week
and are not affected by drought or frigid weather like
hydroelectric and conventional power sources.
But Mr. Barrett acknowledged that resistance to nuclear power
remains strong, particularly in Northern California, where the
Green Party and other environmental groups are major political
forces. He said local officials have consistently blocked efforts
to build new power facilities in the valley, and the company
would not expand there for that reason.
Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun Microsystems Inc., agreed
in a speech at the National Press Club last month that nuclear is
the best alternative for California.
"In terms of environmental and cost and competitiveness and all
of the rest of it, I just don't see any other solution," the
software executive said, alluding to another nuclear selling
point: It is largely pollutant-free and requires no disruptive
drilling in sensitive environmental areas, unlike oil and gas.
The hard facts
The statements from high-tech executives may appear mostly
symbolic. But hard statistics show that nuclear no longer is the
dying industry that only a few years ago was biding time waiting
for aging power plants built during the 1970s to crumble toward
their inevitable burial.
Today, with the cost of natural gas and oil soaring, old nuclear
plants that had been mothballed because they were too expensive
to maintain and operate suddenly can be brought back on line and
made profitable once again.
A brisk business in buying and selling closed plants has
developed, and 80 percent to 90 percent of the nation's 103
nuclear plants are expected to seek 20-year extensions of their
operating licenses.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.'s Calvert Cliffs plant in March
2000 was the first to win relicensing.
With demand for electricity at record highs, existing nuclear
power plants have been producing a record amount of power — up
3.7 percent to 755 billion kilowatt hours last year, according to
the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Improvements in maintenance procedures that mean, among other
things, less down time for refueling also enabled the plants to
operate at a record 89.6 percent of capacity in 2000, the
institute said. Also for the first time in more than a decade,
nuclear production has become less expensive than any other
source of electricity generation.
"It's the best year ever in performance," said Alfred C.
Tollison, executive vice president of the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations. "The foundation is being put in place for a
renaissance in nuclear power," though he added, "that depends on
the industry remaining accident-free."
Safety questions persist
All sides agree that public perceptions about the safety of
nuclear power and the question of how to permanently dispose of
nuclear wastes remain significant obstacles. Because of that, no
new nuclear plants have been built in the United States in the
last two decades, and none are on the drawing board.
But there are signs that the political opposition may not be as
potent as in past years. The interest shown by many technology
professionals suggests that younger generations are not as
worried by the scare surrounding the Three Mile Island and the
Chernobyl nuclear accidents that made the power source
untouchable to older generations.
Observers say nuclear's clean record on safety after decades of
operating power plants in the United States, France, Japan and
other industrialized nations also is vindicating the reputation
of the industry.
Meanwhile, a new generation of technology is being developed that
could virtually guarantee safety through automatic shutdown
mechanisms designed to prevent even the remote possibility of a
meltdown.
Exelon Corp. wants to start building a new plant using this new
technology in South Africa by 2002 and then export the technology
to the United States. The South African plant is expected to be
smaller, quicker and cheaper to build than the older U.S. plants.
"Nuclear power is much safer than fossil-fuel systems in terms of
industrial accidents, environmental damage, health effects and
long-term risk," Richard Rhodes, a Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist and author on energy issues, said in testimony last
year before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"The U.S. nuclear power industry has an extraordinary record of
safe operation across the past 40 years, and I would submit to
you that disposal of civilian nuclear waste is a political, not a
technical, problem," he said.
The Energy Department could designate a permanent disposal site —
most likely Yucca Mountain in Nevada — as early as this year
under procedures Congress established in 1987 that require
extensive scientific review for safety.
Congress intrigued
Despite the still-emotional debate surrounding waste disposal and
safety, interest in nuclear is quietly picking up in Congress.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats are saying nuclear should
play a significant role in solving the country's energy crisis.
Further chronic power shortages are expected in California this
summer and could crop up in the West, New York and other
Northeast cities in coming months as well. During the 1990s, most
utilities expanded power generation by building small,
inexpensive units fired by natural gas, which became the power
source of choice for environmental as well as economic reasons.
Now, with the quadrupling of natural gas prices in the last year,
those gas-fired plants have become expensive to run and are a
major reason that wholesale electricity rates skyrocketed in
California, bankrupting the state's utilities.
The woes faced by gas-fired plants, many of which are just coming
on line, will continue, energy analysts say. They predict that
robust demand for gas from both power plants and homeowners will
keep prices elevated at around $5 per million British thermal
units —double what they were at the end of 1999.
Gas prices at those levels make nuclear plants, which are more
expensive to build but cheaper to operate, competitive
economically for the first time in years, industry officials say.
Marvin Fertel, a vice president at the nuclear institute, said
they would make new nuclear plants feasible within five years.
With most of the political opposition to nuclear coming from the
left wing, perhaps the most potent testament that nuclear's time
may have arrived is the interest centrist Democrats are showing
in it as an effective way to curb the carbon-dioxide emissions
thought to cause global warming.
Environmental assets
Unlike coal, natural gas and oil-fired power plants, nuclear
plants are free not only of carbon emissions but also of other
noxious gases like sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide
that have made fossil-fuel-burning plants the biggest sources of
air pollution in the United States.
In 1999, nuclear plants provided about half of the total carbon
reductions achieved by U.S. industry under a federal voluntary
reporting program.
The Clinton administration gave nuclear a little-noticed boost as
it sought to find economical and relatively pain-free ways to
comply with the steep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions called for
under the global-warming treaty.
In negotiations over the treaty at The Hague in November, the
Clinton administration waged a monumental fight with
environmentalists and the 15-nation European Union over whether
to allow the use of nuclear power to curb carbon emissions in
developing countries. Major Third World nations like China and
India insisted that they should play a major role in averting
climate change.
"Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, cared for
meticulously, has a place in the world's energy supply," former
Vice President Al Gore said at the Chernobyl museum in Kiev in
1998.
Mr. Gore's running mate for president last year, Sen. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, also endorsed nuclear as "part
of the solution to solving the world's energy, environment and
global-warming problems."
Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who is concerned about
potentially catastrophic floods caused by global warming in his
state, said nuclear's potential to reduce the one-third of U.S.
carbon emissions generated by power plants has piqued his
interest.
France, Japan and several other industrialized countries rely
heavily on nuclear power to reduce their carbon emissions.
Mr. Graham was startled by the conclusion of a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission study that found that if the United States used
nuclear power to the extent that France does — 80 percent — it
could in one fell swoop achieve the goals of the environmental
treaty, which calls for a 10 percent reduction of U.S. emissions
below 1990 levels.
Also, nuclear power does not require the destructive drilling
off-shore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that would
be required to produce significantly more oil and gas in the
United States. Mr. Graham, like many other Democrats, opposes
drilling in the Alaskan refuge as well as in the Gulf of Mexico
off Florida.
"Nuclear power is not a magic bullet, but it should also not be a
poison pill," the senator said. "The technology exists to make
nuclear power — already one of our cleanest energy sources — also
one of our safest, most reliable and least expensive."
Mr. Graham is the co-sponsor of a bill to expand the use of
nuclear energy and support advanced research into technologies to
minimize nuclear wastes, introduced this month by Sen. Pete V.
Domenici, New Mexico Republican.
Two other Southern Democrats have signed onto that legislation,
Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, Sen. Blanche Lincoln,
Arkansas Democrat, with a raft of Republicans.
Mr. Domenici said new technologies promise to make nuclear
"totally safe" and are prompting new interest in Congress.
"We'll be talking about this in 18 months," he predicted. "The
U.S. can't just sit by and say we don't need this. We need it."
National strategy
The Senate's energy development bill, introduced this month by
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank H.
Murkowski, Alaska Republican, also offers incentives for nuclear
production, including liability protection in case of nuclear
accidents.
Nuclear is also expected to get support from the Bush
administration, which views nuclear as "an integral part of U.S.
energy security," though it has not offered any detailed
proposals. Recommendations from a White House energy task force
headed by Vice President Richard B. Cheney are expected within
weeks.
In a sign that the administration will take a strong pro-nuclear
stance, U.S. representatives at environmental negotiations on
sustainable development last month insisted that nuclear power be
considered a "sustainable" and safe energy source — prompting an
outcry from environmentalists.
"We do not understand how a technology whose radioactive waste
could be used to build a weapon of unthinkable destruction could
be considered sustainable under any definition," said a group of
65 environmental, consumer and health organizations in a letter
last week to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
While the environmental groups raise questions about nuclear
proliferation, House Republican leaders see nuclear as a key
component of a national energy strategy aimed at enhancing
national security through energy independence. They too are
promising incentives for nuclear power in the House's energy bill
later this year.
"The nuclear industry has been stagnant for years, yet it offers
the capacity for clean and emissions-free power," said Rep. J.C.
Watts Jr., Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the House
Republican Conference.
Environmental groups dispute the nuclear industry's claim to be
emissions-free and question whether it will remain competitive
for long. Kit Kennedy of the Natural Resources Defense Council
says extensive drilling will force natural gas prices down again
within a few years and nuclear will become less attractive.
"We think natural gas will continue to be a lot more tempting
than taking on the huge task of building new nuclear plants,"
which face stringent opposition from local activists, she said.
The environmental group has challenged advertisements by the
Nuclear Energy Institute that portray nuclear as "clean and
green," asking both the Federal Trade Commission and the Better
Business Bureau to investigate the claims, she said. Neither
agency has taken enforcement action.
Ms. Kennedy said nuclear is not emissions-free because huge
amounts of electricity from "dirty coal-burning plants" must be
used to enrich uranium fuel.
In addition, the cooling systems in nuclear power plants suck up
water from nearby rivers and bays, heat and then discharge it,
killing billions of fish eggs and fish larvae, she said.
And while the possibility of major life-threatening accidents at
nuclear plants is "remote," she said, any meltdown would have
"tremendous public health implications."
All site contents copyright © 2001 News World
Communications, Inc.
*****************************************************************
13 Energy lobbyists making hay
Anchorage Daily News -
INFLUENCE: New administration lends sympathetic ear to gas, oil, coal and
nuclear industries.
By Lizette Alvarez
New York Times
*(Published March 18, 2001)*
Washington -- When U.S. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman
of the Natural Resources Committee, introduced his broad energy
proposal, he made sure to publicly thank, by name, the many
lobbying groups that helped shape the bill.
The praise was well deserved. The legislation is loaded with tax
breaks for the oil, coal and nuclear energy industries. It also
seeks to lift a ban on oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, a proposal that has sparked a fierce and
expensive lobbying war.
Last week the coal and oil industries got more good news.
President Bush, reversing a campaign pledge, decided not to try
to curb power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide, which many
people say causes global warming. The decision, which came after
industry lobbyists and Republican lawmakers pressured Bush, sent
a shudder through environmental advocacy groups.
These back-to-back successes illustrate the influence of the oil,
coal and nuclear energy industries now that Republicans are in
control of Capitol Hill and the White House. But perhaps the
greatest test to their newfound power over environmental groups
will come in the months ahead as Congress grapples with the
question of drilling in the Arctic refuge.
"Our hope is that the new administration will bring balance to
the debate," said Jack Gerard, president and chief executive
officer of the National Mining Association who was a member of
Bush's energy advisory group during the transition. "They will
say, 'How do we find that middle ground?' "
Just as environmental groups contributed lavishly to Democrats,
the oil, gas and coal industries directed record-breaking sums to
Republicans in the last election. Oil and gas companies and their
trade groups contributed $14 million total in 1999 and 2000, with
more than $10 million going to Republicans, according to the
Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan election research
group. The coal mining industry gave $3.8 million, 88 percent of
it to Republicans.
But the industry's power extends far beyond cash donations. The
White House is stocked with former oil executives, beginning with
Bush, who led an oil company in Texas. Others with ties to the
industry include Vice President Dick Cheney, who has created an
energy task force; Donald Evans, the commerce secretary; and
Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser.
"As soon as Bush was elected, they were licking their chops,"
Melinda Pierce, Alaska lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said of the
oil, coal, gas and nuclear energy industries.
Energy industry lobbyists say the benefits of such well-placed
allies are obvious: Oil, coal and nuclear energy companies are no
longer the presumed villains, and access to the White House is no
longer a problem.
"After not talking to the White House for eight years, it's a bit
of fresh air," said Roger Herrera, executive director of Arctic
Power, a group with the sole purpose of lobbying for drilling in
the Arctic refuge. "They know the issue. They understand the
issue better than most people do, so you don't have to worry
about that aspect of it. Most members of Congress don't have a
clue. They think oil magically gets in the gas tank and into
their car."
As the House and the White House prepare to overhaul Murkowski's
bill in the coming weeks, no energy battle looms larger than the
one over drilling in the refuge, a stretch of tundra on Alaska's
North Slope.
The issue is expected to come up first in April or May as part of
Congress' budget resolution, and Bush supports the drilling. The
proposal narrowly passed in the Senate last year but was dropped
from the budget resolution.
Environmental groups argue that the refuge, which is protected
from oil exploration until Congress says otherwise, should be
sacrosanct. Oil drilling, they say, would hurt the land, would
endanger migrating caribou and polar bears and would not recover
enough crude to make the effort worthwhile.
"There is unified opposition to drilling in the Arctic," said
Betsy Loyless, political director for the League of Conservation
Voters. "The environmental community will pull out all the stops
for a big win."
Several groups have already mobilized. Last week, the Audubon
Society began a television advertising campaign that features
caribou and geese on the refuge in summer and then shifts to a
shot of the Exxon Valdez tanker. The commercial asks, "Do we
really believe there won't be any more spills?"
The group has also set up a Web site that enables people to send
letters directly to Congress and is holding what it calls house
parties in 11 states. Defenders of Wildlife, a national
conservation group, set up a Web site in January that has
generated 800,000 e-mail messages and faxes to Congress.
But what their opponents lack in mobilizing the grass roots, they
make up for in money and powerful connections.
Arctic Power, a nonprofit group formed in 1992, includes oil
industry officials, Alaska union leaders and business groups on
its board.
"We're running it to the extent that we can like a political
campaign because that's what it is," said the group's leader,
Herrera, a former oil company geologist. "The environmentalists
are throwing tens of thousands of people at this. I hope we can
match them in political strategy."
The Anchorage Daily News
*****************************************************************
14 UN: General Assembly adopts resolution on IAEA, adds agenda item
on selection of judges for Rwanda Tribunal
[M2 Communications Ltd.]
Summary: Mar 19, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) --
Acting without a vote this afternoon, the General Assembly
adopted a resolution by the terms of which it would take note of
the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for
1999 and request the Secretary-General to transmit to the
Director General of the Agency the records of the fifty-fifth
Assembly session relating to the activities of the Agency.*
Story Filed: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:42 AM EST
Mar 19, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Acting without a vote
this afternoon, the General Assembly adopted a resolution by the
terms of which it would take note of the report of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 1999 and request
the Secretary-General to transmit to the Director General of the
Agency the records of the fifty-fifth Assembly session relating
to the activities of the Agency.
During discussion on the text, which was introduced by the
representative of Nigeria, speakers expressed their
disappointment that it had not been possible to reach consensus
on a substantive text, which would have more fully reflected,
among other things, Member States' support for the work of the
Agency.
The representative of the United States, speaking after the vote,
said "If we did not have the IAEA today, we would need to create
it, but recent deliberations clearly indicate that we almost
certainly could not do so". The IAEA was a unique institution
that could only remain effective if it received effective support
from its members, including adequate staff and funding.
Unfortunately, any outside observer witnessing the debate over
the resolution would be hard pressed to identify efforts to make
clear the participants' support for the Agency. He called upon
delegations to reaffirm their support for the Agency and pledge
that, in the future, their focus on the IAEA would emphasize
collective support for the organization, rather than dissolve
into prolonged disagreement that served only to divide countries.
Iraq's representative, also speaking after the vote, said he had
worked seriously during the consultations in order to try to
reach consensus on a substantive text. Iraq had proposed that a
substantive text should contain wording expressing satisfaction
with the resumption of IAEA activities in his country, in
accordance with the safeguard system. His country would also have
preferred that reference be made to Iraq's cooperation with the
expert team that had visited Iraq in January 2000.
Also this afternoon, the Assembly decided to include an
additional item on its agenda for the current session regarding
election of judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda.
Statements after the vote were made by Sweden (on behalf of the
European Union and associated States), Australia, Argentina,
Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Japan and Ukraine.
The representative of Egypt made a statement before the vote.
Background Information
When the General Assembly met this afternoon, it was expected to
take action on a draft resolution on the Report of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to consider the
organization of work of its fifty-fifth regular session, adoption
of the agenda and allocation of items.
By the terms of the draft, sponsored by Nigeria, (document
A/55/L.75), the Assembly would take note of the Agency's report
and request the Secretary-General to transmit to the Director
General of the Agency the records of the fifty-fifth session
relating to the activities of the Agency. [For a summary of the
Agency's report and the Assembly's debate on it, see Press
Release GA/9810 of 6 November 2000.]
Also before the Assembly was a note by the Secretary-General with
a request for the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda
of the fifty-fifth session regarding Election of judges of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons
Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of
Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other
Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States
between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (document A/55/239).
The note states that by its resolution 1329 (2000) of 30 November
2000, the Security Council decided to enlarge the membership of
the Appeals Chambers of the International Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In
order that the increase in the membership of the Appeals Chambers
might be effected at the earliest practicable date, the Council
also decided that two additional judges should be elected as soon
as possible as judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda. The Secretary-General requested that the election of the
judges be included in the agenda of Assembly's fifty-fifth
session and that it be considered directly in plenary meeting.
Action on Draft Resolution
O.S. SHODEINDE (Nigeria) introduced the draft resolution on the
report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (document
A/55/L.75). She said her country appreciated the IAEA's role in
promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and remained devoted
to the ideals of the Agency. She noted that the document was an
agreed text that basically recognized the importance of the
Agency's work. The resolution should be adopted without a vote.
REDA BEBARS (Egypt) said his delegation had always attached great
importance to the role of the IAEA, because the Agency was one of
the pillars designed to put an end to nuclear proliferation.
Egypt had, over the years participated in the various fields of
activity carried out by the Agency and was a member of the
governing board. Egypt had also participated in the discussions
on the report and the debates on the preparation of the draft
resolution. On the basis of its convictions, Egypt had proposed
an amendment to an earlier version of the text to clarify the
role of the Agency and bring it out in a precise way so as to
avoid any doubts regarding the Agency's safeguards. To ensure
that the resolution was a success, Egypt had decided to embark on
negotiations with other delegations on the question. This had
made possible a compromise satisfactory for all. He hoped that
the adoption of such procedural resolutions on the Agency would
be the exception.
The Assembly then adopted the text without a vote.
PER NORSTROM (Sweden) spoke on behalf of the European Union,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey,
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. He said the Union reiterated
its strong attachment to the work of the IAEA. He stressed the
fact that the Union had agreed to a procedural resolution in no
way detracted from its support for the Agency and for the
relationship between the Agency and the United Nations. The Union
found it most regrettable that it had not been possible to reach
consensus on a substantive text, which the Union would have liked
to co-sponsor.
STEPHEN METRUCK (United States) said that the debate over the
past few months concerning the resolution before the Assembly
clearly illustrated the difficulties of forging common ground
over the issues that once had seemed less complicated. Countries
shared collective responsibility for managing the challenges that
confronted them today, including the essential need to manage
developments in the nuclear field safely and securely. That was
the challenge the international community could not fail to meet.
The stakes of common prosperity and even survival were simply too
great. One of the most important means of managing nuclear
developments worldwide was through the work of the IAEA.
Most important was the assurance provided by the Agency through
its safeguards system, he said. Knowing where nuclear material
was and how it was being used across the planet was critical to
all. The IAEA's work in nuclear safety was being conducted in a
manner consistent with international guidelines and standards.
The Agency was working to reduce the prospect of any nuclear
accident. Its on-site safety reviews helped States pinpoint
potential problems and implement effective remedies, thus helping
to stop problems before they started.
The collective interest of ensuring the safety of nuclear
technology was served daily by the IAEA.
It seemed that collectively, countries had lost sight of the
reason for the yearly dialogue, he said. Safety, security and
prosperity were served well by the IAEA. "If we did not have the
IAEA today we would need to create it, but our recent
deliberations clearly indicate that we almost certainly could not
do so", he said. The IAEA was a unique institution, which could
only remain effective if it received effective support from its
members, including adequate staff and funding.
Unfortunately, any outside observer witnessing the debate over
the IAEA resolution would be hard pressed to identify efforts to
make clear the participants' support for the Agency.
In conclusion, he called upon the delegates to reaffirm their
support for the Agency and to pledge that in the future, the
focus of delegation on the IAEA would emphasize governments'
collective support for that organization rather than dissolve
into prolonged disagreement that served only to divide the
countries.
BRONTE MOULES (Australia) reconfirmed her country's strong
support for the Agency and its important work. She wanted to
register her delegation's disappointment that it had not been
possible after extensive negotiations to adopt a substantive
resolution on the Agency's activities this year. She also thanked
Nigeria in its capacity as Chair of the IAEA Board of Governors,
for all its efforts during
GABRIELA MARTINIC (Argentina) said her country supported the work
of the Agency and actively participated in it. She regretted that
it had turned out to be impossible to adopt a more substantive
resolution.
MOHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) appreciated the efforts of the
Agency to carry out its objective of ridding humankind of the
evils of nuclear weapons. It had been customary to adopt a
substantive text that contained reference to the various
activities of the Agency. This year, unfortunately, a procedural
resolution had been submitted.
He said Iraq had worked seriously during the consultations in
order to try to reach consensus on a substantive text. It had
proposed that a substantive text should contain wording
expressing satisfaction with the resumption of IAEA activities in
his country, in accordance with the safeguard system. His country
would also have preferred that reference be made to Iraq's
cooperation with the expert team that had visited Iraq in January
2000.
Iraq's draft had been in line with wording used in various United
Nations documents, he noted. He added that the resolution of the
general conference of the Agency clearly referred to Iraq's
cooperation with the Agency in accordance with the safeguard
system. Despite such reference dealing with cooperation, a
resolution of substance had not been agreed. Iraq had shown
flexibility to achieve a balanced substantive resolution and
reiterated its full willingness to cooperate with the Agency.
Mr. GOSAL (Canada) said his country subscribed to the statement
made by the Union regarding the need to fully support the
Agency's work. He stressed that a substantive and technical
resolution would more accurately reflect the work of the Agency.
SANTIAGO IRAZABAL MOURAO (Brazil) expressed gratitude for the
efforts of the Nigerian Chair of the IAEA Board of Governors and
said that it was hard to accommodate each point of view in the
discussion. He supported the draft and regretted that several
months of negotiations had not resulted in a text that
sufficiently reflected the role of the Agency.
No consensus could be reached on a number of points, but he hoped
that in the next negotiations, the constructive spirit would be
achieved, so that a swift outcome could be reached.
Mr. BURKHARD (New Zealand) joined other delegations in expressing
gratitude to the Nigerian delegation for its efforts to reach
consensus. The Agency was one of the pillars of the international
nuclear regime, and its essential contribution to nuclear safety
was important. He regretted that it had been impossible to reach
consensus on the substantive resolution. He hoped that in the
future, the delegations would be able to agree on a text that
could give credit to the Agency.
SHINGO MIYAMOTO (Japan) welcomed the fact that a resolution on
the report of the Agency had been adopted. He reiterated his
strong support for the Agency and expressed gratitude to all
delegations that had worked to reach consensus on the substantive
resolution. It was particularly regrettable that the consensus on
the substantive text had not been achieved, for all but a few
remaining paragraphs of the substantive text enjoyed support of
everybody involved. His delegation attached particular importance
to the paragraphs of the text devoted to the model additional
protocol. He hoped that a substantive text would be adopted at
the next session of the Assembly.
YURII V. ONISHCHENKO (Ukraine) said that as a traditional
co-sponsor of the draft on the IAEA, his delegation regretted
that it had been impossible to reach consensus on a substantive
resolution. He thanked Nigeria for its patient and tireless
efforts to reach a consensus.
Supporting a procedural resolution, he remained committed to the
Agency's goals.
The Assembly then turned to the Secretary-General's request to
include an additional item on its agenda for the current session
regarding election of judges of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda.
The Assembly, having agreed to waive the relevant provision of
rule 40 of its rules of procedure, decided to grant the
Secretary-General's request.
M2 Communications Ltd disclaims all liability for information
provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named
party/parties. Further information on M2 PressWIRE can be
obtained at http://www.presswire.neton the world wide web.
Inquiries to info@m2.com.
Copyright 1994-2001 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
1 North Korea Lashes Out at U.S., Says It Risks War
Reuters
Monday March 19 6:54 AM ET
By Elaine Lies
TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) fired the latest
volley in an increasingly strident attack on the administration
of U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) Monday,
saying Washington risked war if it did not soften its stance.
The statement followed a series of weekend anti-U.S. diatribes,
couched in rhetoric reminiscent of the Cold War era, in which the
Stalinist nation slammed the two-month-old Bush administration.
Washington risked seriously harming relations if it were to
reconsider a key 1994 agreement to help North Korea build nuclear
reactors, Tokyo-based monitoring agency Radiopress quoted North
Korean state-run broadcasters as saying Sunday.
Such a move would be ``tantamount to a declaration of war,'' it
quoted broadcasters Radio Pyongyang and Korean Central Radio as
saying.
The broadcasts cited reports that conservative U.S. lawmaker
Jesse Helms was urging the abandonment of the agreement, under
which Pyongyang agreed to freeze its nuclear program in return
for two light-water reactors and annual supplies of fuel oil.
``If this is the attitude of the United States, we will have to
adopt an extreme hard-line stance,'' the broadcast said. ``If the
U.S. imperialists demand war, we will respond a thousand-fold.
``If this is the will of the U.S., we feel no particular need to
be bound by an agreement that may or may not be fulfilled.''
Difficult Agreement
North Korea has for some months now blamed its acute shortage of
energy on delays in fulfilling the agreement. Under the terms of
the pact, the United States, South Korea and Japan jointly lead
the $4.6 billion light-water reactor project. Washington provides
the mandated fuel oil.
However, progress on the reactors has been hampered by
disagreements on how to shoulder the costs. The reactors are
unlikely to be completed until 2007.
This month, a spokesman for Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said the
resulting energy shortage was making it difficult for North Korea
unilaterally to keep its moratorium on launching satellites and
missiles in force.
South Korean (news - web sites) officials said last month they
did not expect the Bush administration to seek changes to the
agreement.
Relations between North Korea and the United States had begun to
warm toward the end of Bill Clinton's administration and Clinton
nearly went to Pyongyang in his final days in office to seal a
deal that would have mothballed the communist state's long range
missile program in exchange for better ties with Washington.
Bush has made clear that he sees North Korea as a threat.
In talks with South Korean leader Kim Dae-jung (news - web sites)
this month, Bush pointedly questioned whether Pyongyang's
enigmatic leader Kim Jong-il would honor any new arms control
pact.
Washington views Pyongyang as one of the main exporters of
missile technology to the world and U.S. officials regularly cite
it as one of the reasons the United States wants to build a
missile defense shield to ward off potential attacks.
Nevertheless, while denying that it poses any missile threat,
Pyongyang said Monday that it would not launch pre-emptive
strikes against the United States.
``Regarding our side, we have no intention of launching
pre-emptive attacks against the United States,'' said the
official Rodong Sinmun newspaper.
``What we want to do is to resolve confrontation between DPRK and
the United States and improve relations,'' the daily said,
according to Radio Pyongyang monitored in Tokyo.
Bush has rehabilitated the expression ``rogue nations'' to
describe countries such as North Korea. The term was dropped by
the United States after a historic North-South summit last June.
In return, North Korea is now turning up the rhetorical heat,
threatening to pull out of missile and nuclear accords.
Sunday, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), monitored in
Tokyo, urged all ``anti-imperialist'' forces around the world to
''strengthen their unity and fight against the U.S. imperialists
with concerted efforts.''
``The progressive people of the world should heighten vigilance
against the U.S. 'double-faced tactics' and smash it to pieces,''
it said.
Copyright © 2001 ., and Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
2 Iran, Russia Arms Deal Stirs Chaos
March 18, 2001
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - Iran's latest arms deal with
Russia, underpinned by a surge in its oil revenue, has troubling
implications for its neighbors, almost all of whom are embroiled
in quarrels with Tehran that could turn violent.
Moscow and Tehran insist the deal is for defensive purposes only,
but the United States, itself a big weapons supplier to the
region, has expressed alarm.
News of the latest agreement came during a four-day visit by
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami last week. Russia agreed to
supply $7 billion worth of weapons over the next few years and to
complete Iran's only nuclear reactor by 2003.
Iran covets Russia's missile technology and its Su-25 warplanes
that could narrow the gap with its U.S.-supplied Gulf Arab
neighbors. In a single deal last year, the tiny United Arab
Emirates placed a $6.4 billion deal with the United States for 80
F-16 fighter planes.
A Russian official visiting Washington last week didn't mention
warplanes when asked about the Iran arms deal. "All defensive,"
insisted Sergei Ivanov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's
national security adviser. "Personnel carriers, tanks, anti-air
missiles, which are very legitimate."
But Russia already has helped Iran tip the regional naval balance
by selling it three Kilo-class submarines, the only subs owned by
a Gulf country, and between 1989 and 1999 it supplied a reported
$5 billion worth of weapons to Iran, the bulk of Tehran's recent
purchases.
Iran's military ambitions are not new. They can now be realized,
however, because of a windfall from oil revenues.
Russia makes no secret of its need for big customers to prop up
its flagging defense industries. By engaging with Iran, a major
and influential player in the region, Moscow also retains
powerful influence in the Gulf and beyond. But weapons sales to
Iran at this time raise concern because the Islamic Republic is
more unstable now than at any time since it rose out of the 1979
revolution.
Religious hard-liners who still believe in holy war and exporting
the revolution are waging a power struggle with pro-Khatami
reformists. Despite a thaw with Iraq, neither country can forget
their devastating 1980-88 war.
Across the Gulf, Iran is locked in a territorial dispute with the
Emirates. Ties with Turkey are strained over Tehran's support for
rebel Kurds and Ankara's military ties with Israel, Iran's arch
foe.
In 1998, Iran came close to war with Afghanistan's Taliban rulers
following the killing of seven Iranian diplomats and an Iranian
journalist by renegade Taliban troops.
And then there's the Mideast conflict. Iran's defense minister,
Ali Shamkhani, said in December that his country would retaliate
in an "astounding and unexpected" way if Israel attacked Syria or
Lebanon.
Iran has built and tested a number of missiles. Its latest, the
Shahab-3, has a range of 800 miles and can reach Israel or U.S.
troops in Saudi Arabia.
Israeli leaders repeatedly warn that Iran is close to developing
a nuclear weapon, despite denials by Tehran. Ignoring U.S.
concerns, Russia is building Iran's only nuclear reactor at a
power plant in the city of Bushehr.
Both countries insist the technology cannot be used to make
bombs, and can point out that Israel too is reported to have
nuclear warheads, plus the missiles to deliver them.
Russia has said Iran agreed to sign up for a second nuclear
reactor during Khatami's visit.
Moscow disregarded a 1995 agreement with Washington that called
for a ban on more arms sales to Iran.
"It is not wise to invest in regimes that do not follow
international standards of behavior," Secretary of State Colin
Powell said Wednesday, criticizing the latest arms deal with
Iran. The Russians, he said, should not be "investing in weapons
sales in countries such as Iran which have no future."
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
3 NIF project advances within budget
Weapons research program on track
*March 18, 2001*
By Glenn Roberts Jr.
STAFF WRITER
LIVERMORE -- A massive laser project at Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory is keeping pace with an expected $1 billion cost
overrun, a federally mandated progress report has concluded.
Livermore Lab officials said ,cmannounced Friday the review in
February found the National Ignition Facility laser project "has
made significant progress in all areas reviewed and is meeting
its planned milestones within budget."
The "Defense Programs Status Review of NIF" was organized by the
Energy Department as a six-month follow-up to an August review.
NIF is a nuclear weapons research tool that is expected to blast
tiny radioactive fuel targets with 192 ultra-violet laser beams
to produce nuclear weapons explosions and effects to scale.
Technical and management problems derailed the project from its
original cost and schedule -- NIF is an estimated $1 billion over
budget and six years behind schedule, with completion expected in
2008.
Federal officials estimate that the project's total cost is
between $3.5 billion to $4 billion.
Susan Houghton, a Livermore Lab spokeswoman, said, "We feel that
the (review) session went very well . . . and we believe that NIF
is going forward as planned."
John Belluardo, a spokesman for the Energy Department regional
office in Oakland, said the review team's report is in draft form
and is not yet available to the public.
"It will be submitted (to Congress) in the beginning of April,"
he said. Congress ordered the follow-up review in order to
determine whether the project is meeting its new cost and
schedule goals.
Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental
organization, and Livermore-based Tri-Valley Communities Against
a Radioactive Environment, a nuclear watchdog group, filed a
lawsuit alleging that the August review violated federal openness
laws.
Energy Department and lab officials say the August review was an
external review, though the lawsuit argues that most of the
review team's members were employed by the department and its
labs, and all of the team's proceedings were closed to the
public.
Members of the February review team studied a dollar-tracking
system that has been implemented on NIF and commented on lab
projections for the operating costs of NIF, the Friday lab
announcement stated. "Reviewers agreed that the operations cost
model was reasonable and recommended continued updating as cost
estimates mature."
Also on Friday, Livermore Lab officials announced that Brig. Gen.
Thomas F Gioconda, acting deputy administrator for Defense
Programs, authorized a transfer of $15 million from the 2007 and
2008 NIF budget years to the 2003 budget year.
*****************************************************************
4 Hanford product will come down with Mir
[Oregon Live]
*The Russian space station uses a radiation counter designed and
built at the nuclear reservation ANNETTE CARY *
Sunday, March 18, 2001
*From The Associated Press *
RICHLAND, Wash. -- When the Russian space station Mir crashes to
Earth this week, it will bring a part of Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory's history down with it.
Cosmonauts, astronauts and Hanford nuclear workers face
one of the same workplace hazards: the potential for exposure to
radiation. But while Hanford workers wear dosimeters that tally
total radiation exposure, people bombarded by the wide variety of
energy in space want to know the radiation activity in any given
minute.
The Richland laboratory began working on a radiation
measurement device to do that more than 20 years ago. Since then,
it's been used not just on Mir, but also on shuttle flights and
the international space station. It's also beginning to be used
closer to Earth to measure the radiation that flight crews
receive on long commercial flights.
"Lots of devices measure radiation," said Tom Conroy, a
former chief engineer at the Richland lab and now a scientist for
Far West Technology's Richland office. "This measures a wide
variety of radiation particles: neutrons, gammas, mu-mesons."
Space travelers don't have Earth's atmosphere to protect
them from radioactive particles thrown off by the sun and other
stars. Some high-energy particles may pass through their body and
do no harm, but others may hit something in the body and release
energy.
"Biologists want to know what energy is deposited in the
tissues," Conroy said. If the energy breaks a DNA strand and the
body repairs it incorrectly, it causes a mutation that can lead
to cancer.
To see how much energy is deposited in an area the width
of a DNA strand -- an area relatively small compared to the
nucleus of a cell -- former Richland physicist Les Braby
developed the "tissue equivalent proportional counter."
The device uses propane sealed in a container because it
contains elements in proportions similar enough to mimic that of
the human body, Conroy said.
But because propane is a gas, a small amount can be
spread over a large area.
The device measures the pulse of current that results
when a highly charged particle hits the propane and loses some of
its energy -- the equivalent of possibly damaging a human cell.
Depending on the size of the detector, it could record
1,000 counts a minute in space. However, when orbiting astronauts
pass through a belt of radiation that collects around Earth, the
pulses may increase to 10,000 to 100,000 counts per minute.
Astronauts are allowed a dose of radiation of 100 rems
over their career, Conroy said. But in some cases, such as the
Hubble Space Telescope repair mission, they can get up to a tenth
of that dose in a few days, he said.
By comparison, the Department of Energy limits nuclear
workers to 5 rems per year, and most of the DOE's contractors set
much lower limits.
Copyright 2001 Oregon Live. All rights reserved. This material
*****************************************************************
5 Bechtel Jacobs awards $1.4M cleanup contract
Oak Ridger Online -->
Story last updated at 2:11 p.m. on Monday, March 19, 2001
by Paul Parson
Oak Ridger staff
Bechtel Jacobs Co. recently awarded a $1.4 million subcontract
for the cleanup of 25 waste storage areas at Oak Ridge Department
of Energy sites.
TN &Associates Inc., the subcontract recipient, will be
responsible for closing storage units, waste holding areas and
tanks that are regulated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, according to Mark Musolf, Bechtel Jacobs spokesman.
Congress legislated the act in 1976 to establish a system for
managing non-hazardous and hazardous solid wastes from the point
of origin to the point of final disposal.
The waste storage areas in question are scattered across DOE's
three Oak Ridge sites.
Musolf was unable to confirm the exact contents of the storage
tanks, but described it as "mixed waste." He said cleanup methods
could range from simple mopping and pressure washing to complex
sand blasting or removing and transporting materials to a
disposal site.
TN &Associates is expected to complete the cleanup work by
September.
The company was also recently awarded a $284,000 subcontract by
Bechtel Jacobs to sample, excavate and dispose of the contents of
approximately 10 barrels that are located alongside state Highway
58 about half a mile west of the main entrance to the Oak Ridge
K-25 site. This project is expected to be finished by August.
Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., TN &Associates provides
engineering, environmental remediation and construction services
to a wide variety of clients including DOE, the Department of
Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest
Service agency of the Department of Agriculture. The company has
14 offices worldwide with its second largest facility located in
Oak Ridge.
Bechtel Jacobs is the DOE management and integration contractor
for cleanup work at the Oak Ridge Reservation and at DOE sites in
Paducah, Ky., and Portsmouth, Ohio.
All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger *
*****************************************************************
6 Hawaii Attorney fighting for Enewetak compensation
A Hawaii attorney says the people of Enewetak Atoll in the
Marshall Islands deserve compensation from the United States
similar to that given to Japanese Americans for their wrongful
internment during World War II.
Attorney Davor Pevec is representing the people of Enewetak in
their push to seek compensation from the U.S. for the use of
their atoll for nuclear testing.
The U.S. government evacuated the Enewetak islanders to conduct
43 nuclear tests between 1948 and 1958.
The evacuees returned to find their island devastated and
contaminated by the nuclear explosions.
The Nuclear Claims Tribunal has heard a number of cases in
relation to compensating people affected by nuclear testing, but
the Tribunal doesn't have sufficient funds to cover actual
payments of awards made. (18:09:44 AEST)
[Top] This service includes material from Pacnews, Agence
France-Presse (AFP) and
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************