***************************************************************** /01/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.252 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: The Nuclear Security Act of 2002 - Summary 2 NZ: Anti-nuclear protesters greet Le Defi 3 US: Records Show White Unit Involved in Wholesale Trading/* 4 Japan: N-agency won't punish TEPCO 5 Japan: TEPCO restarting six plants - 6 US: NRC Grants TVA License Amendments to Produce Tritium at Sequoyah NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 US: Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 8 US: NRC Expands Special Inspection of Worker Radiation Exposures at 9 US: Personnel moves just one step at Davis-Besse - 10 US: Oversight of nuclear plants a concern along with terrorism NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 Turk Nuke Fuel Bust Just One of Several Recently 12 US: Beryllium tests are urged for ammunition plant contractors 13 Turk Nuke Fuel Bust Just One of Several Recently* 14 US: Plan to destroy Russian weapons nears collapse If U.S. Congress 15 Report: Seized Material Not Uranium 16 US: COUNTY PREPS RESIDENTS FOR NUCLEAR EMERGENCY 17 US: Too Slow -- Sick workers need timely aid 18 US: Conference: 10-10-02 Radiation and Health in the Nuclear Heartla NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 19 US: Nebraska loses nuclear waste lawsuit 20 US: Nuke waste case decided against Nebraska 21 US: Rift remains for many in Boyd County 22 US: Hanford on schedule in waste-tank cleanup 23 US: Nebraska: Waste-site timeline 24 US: Nuke suit: Nebraska State told to pay up 25 US: Canada: Court ruling shuts down uranium mine 26 US: Davis vetoes bill banning nuclear waste dumping 27 US: Davis vetoes nuke waste bill; orders waste disposal limits 28 US: Letter: Government is trespassing 29 US: Federal judge fines Nebraska $151 million in nuclear waste dump 30 US: Nebraska Sen. Nelson outlines stance on waste site 31 US: Uranium mining legislation is too confusing: Ralph. NUCLEAR WEAPONS 32 Bush's Nuclear Gamble 33 US: Administration shouldn't rush to judgment in Iraq 34 NZ: Saddam's no Doctor Evil 35 US: Full Text of Senators' Iraq Resolution 36 US: New mission for Trident sub: Navy will remove nuclear warheads 37 US: Nuclear nonproliferation needs teeth -- 38 US: A Glowing Endorsement For Hideout 39 US: How Saddam Got Weapons of Mass Destruction 40 Writing the inspection rules 41 US: Why Invade? The truth about Iraq. 42 Iraq and UN agree over weapons inspectors Staff and agencies 43 Sharon in Moscow sets out Israeli views on Mideast settlement 44 Inspectors Press Iraq for Access 45 Blair: World Must Set Iraq Ultimatum US DEPT. OF ENERGY 46 Old Argonne secrets seen in documentary* 47 SRS is candidate for new plant OTHER NUCLEAR 48 Worldcom-inspired 'whistle-blower' law has flaws 49 At 40, accelerator center full of energy / Stanford lab's 50 Racial Tensions: 'Things are not black and white' ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 The Nuclear Security Act of 2002 - Summary *Background* More than one year after the tragic September 11th attacks, Congress has not enacted any legislation to reduce the terrorist threat at nuclear power plants. Yet, nuclear power plants have known vulnerabilities to terrorist attack and recent reports indicate that Al Qaeda specifically discussed targeting U.S. nuclear power plants. Not only are nuclear power plants not designed to withstand the type of attack experienced on September 11th last year, nearly half of the facilities tested under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?s Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations (OSRE) program between 1991 and 2001 failed to protect target-sensitive equipment necessary to prevent a meltdown. A new report by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) found that even after 9/11, security forces at nuclear power plants remain undermanned, under-equipped, and under-trained. What is Congress waiting for? The Nuclear Security Act of 2002 (S.1746) begins to address some of these security concerns. Although the bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in July, it has not been brought to the floor for a vote. The nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission oppose this bill, fearing that it would add extra cost and "regulatory burden" to nuclear power operations. Is Congress protecting nuclear industry profits at the expense of public safety? *Take Action!* Contact your Senators and ask why Congress has not addressed the issue of security at nuclear power plants. Tell them that further delay is unacceptable; the Senate should act on this matter before the 107th Congress adjourns. Urge your Senators to support the Nuclear Security Act (S.1746), as a step in the right direction. *CALL* the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be transferred to the office of your Senator. *The Nuclear Security Act of 2002* * Establishes an interagency task force to assess security vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants and waste storage facilities and make recommendations for reducing security risks, taking into account specified threats including attacks comparable to 9/11. The task force would consult with Federal, State, and local agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public, as appropriate, and report to the President and Congress within 120 days. * Requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct a rulemaking to upgrade security requirements for nuclear facilities, based on the recommendations of the task force. * Requires the NRC to regularly review security plans at commercial nuclear facilities and ensure upgrades of security plans, based on the task force?s recommendations. * Establishes an Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response within the NRC. The Office will employ a "mock terrorist team" to conduct rigorous force-on-force security evaluations at nuclear power plants every 3 years. Stipulates civil penalties for facilities that repeatedly fail to satisfy performance criteria and do not take required corrective action. * Requires the NRC to conduct emergency response exercises every two years to evaluate the preparedness of Federal, State, and local responders for a radiological emergency at nuclear facilities and the adequacy of emergency response and evaluation plans. * Establishes a Nuclear Infrastructure Antiterrorism Team that can be called upon to provide protection at the perimeter of nuclear facilities under threat. * Requires the NRC to specify circumstances under which the Coast Guard would be deployed an/or the air space restricted in order to protect nuclear facilities and establishes a training program for the National Guard and law enforcement agencies in responding to threats against sensitive nuclear facilities. * Requires the NRC to hire and train a Federal Security Coordinator at each nuclear power plant, to coordinate security measures among private guards, Federal, State, and local authorities, the Antiterrorism Team, and the NRC. * Requires the NRC to review and update hiring and training standards for employees at nuclear power plants. Permits fingerprinting of those with unescorted access to a nuclear facility. Authorizes disqualification of those who pose a national security threat. Expands whistle-blower protection to NRC contractors and subcontractors. * Clarifies regulations authorizing security guards at nuclear power plants to carry firearms and arrest individuals who pose a security threat, subject to NRC Guidelines. * Requires the task force to evaluate and make recommendations to improve the security of radioactive materials that could be used as "dirty bombs." Requires the NRC to adopt these recommendations in licensing rules. 01.10.2002 A small group of anti-nuclear Greenpeace activists in kayaks protested against the French nuclear-sponsored America?s Cup yacht as it left Auckland harbour today for the first race of the Cup challengers series. About 10 protesters formed what the environmental group described as "a guard of shame" as the bright green-hulled Le Defi Areva boat left its mooring for their first Louis Vuitton Cup race against Swiss favourites Alinghi. "We want to make sure we use as many opportunities as possible to get the message across to people like Areva that their dirty nuclear industry is not welcome," Greenpeace spokeswoman Bunny McDiarmid said. The French appeared unconcerned as they were towed past the protesters to the race course in the Hauraki Gulf and have welcomed Greenpeace?s interest in their campaign. Le Defi?s principal sponsor for their campaign is Areva SA, the French nuclear power supplier, a connection which has angered many in New Zealand, where nuclear-powered vessels have been banned from entering its waters. Areva is estimated to have contributed about 60 per cent of the team?s budget. Greenpeace delivered organic New Zealand cheese and kiwifruit wine to the Le Defi camp when their two boats arrived in August. Some local observers have described the boats? iridescent hulls as "radioactive green" but syndicate head Xavier de Lesquen?s team promptly threw a small party to thank Greenpeace for their gifts. French Greenpeace activists earlier this year branded Areva?s involvement as the height of contempt because of the 1985 sinking of the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour. The vessel was blown up by two French secret agents working for the General Directorate of External Security, the French equivalent of the CIA. The explosion killed Dutch-Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira and left the Rainbow Warrior half-submerged in Auckland harbour. The Rainbow Warrior had been about to set sail for Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia to join protests against French nuclear testing there. France angered many in the Pacific 10 years later when they staged more nuclear tests. - REUTERS ©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald ***************************************************************** 3 Records Show White Unit Involved in Wholesale Trading/* */Sept. 30, 2002/* *Public Citizen: Documents Raise Questions About Army Secretary Thomas White?s Senate Testimony on Energy Trades* WASHINGTON, D.C. ? In a letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ernest Hollings, Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook raised questions about the accuracy of Army Secretary Thomas White?s July 18 Senate testimony, during which he denied that wholesale energy trading operations fell under his control as an executive at Enron Corp. and said his division played no role in the manipulation of Western energy markets. Claybrook urged the committee to investigate White?s responses more thoroughly. Before President Bush named him to head the Army in May 2001, White worked as vice chairman of Enron Energy Services (EES), a division of Houston-based Enron Corp. "It appears that White was not entirely truthful about his role in the California energy crisis, including the independence and size of his division?s energy trading operations, his responsibilities in overseeing wholesale energy trading services, his decision to dispose of California retail contracts and stick taxpayers with the liabilities, and the collaborate legal and policy efforts between EES and Enron Power Marketing," Claybrook?s letter says. "Given the enormous costs incurred by West Coast consumers and taxpayers from Enron?s manipulation of energy trading, Public Citizen believes it is essential for Thomas White to again serve as a witness before your committee to explain these discrepancies. You may also want to request a GAO investigation of White?s role." In the nine-page letter, Claybrook raised concerns about three major areas of White?s testimony: Energy trading. White insisted that EES was an electricity retailer and was not significantly involved in wholesale trading operations. He said EES operated at "arm?s length" from Enron?s wholesale operations, which conducted trades. But EES was indeed a registered "power marketer," meaning the company was authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to buy and sell wholesale energy contracts in deregulated markets. FERC records indicate that EES did engage in wholesale trading. In fact, EES became one of the fastest growing energy traders in the country during White?s tenure, with its wholesale electricity sales jumping nearly 300 percent, from 2.8 million megawatts in 1998 to 11.1 million megawatts in 2000. In March 2001 ? after White left the division ? Enron moved EES?s wholesale trading operations into its Wholesale Services division. "Until March 2001, the trading operations of EES were completely separate from the Wholesale Energy unit ? meaning Thomas White was responsible for a huge trading operation that played a significant role in California," the letter says. "In fact, White?s original biography on the Army web site listed commodity management ? which includes energy trading ? among his duties while at EES." That description on the Army Web site was removed after Enron declared bankruptcy. In a footnote to the division?s April 16, 2001, earnings summary, EES restated revenues for 2000 without the risk management, or power trading, operations included. Before the restatement, EES had 2000 revenues of $4.6 billion; afterward, the division had revenues of $1.7 billion, demonstrating how important wholesale energy trading was to White?s bottom line. "It?s clear that Enron Energy Services was doing more than selling electricity to retail clients," said Tyson Slocum, research director for Public Citizen?s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Enron had several different units buying and selling power, even among themselves, at the height of the California energy crisis, and all the while the company was lobbying the White House in an effort to avoid the price controls that eventually ended its market manipulation." Dumping California customers. EES had contracts to supply electricity to a number of retail clients in California. Beginning in January 2001, the division began unilaterally dropping those clients, who had been getting electricity for less than the prices that had been artificially driven up by various wholesale trading schemes employed by Enron and other marketers. "White failed to describe the reasons why EES severed at least two large retail contracts in California in January/February 2001 during the height of the energy crisis," the letter says. "Based on the evidence at hand, it appears as though EES took the power that had been obligated to serve these retail customers and sold it in the wholesale market, where EES could fetch higher prices than they could continuing to sell power at lower, fixed rates to retail customers." Facing lawsuits, EES resumed providing electricity to several high-profile clients ? but only after FERC enacted price controls in the West Coast electricity market on June 19, 2001. A Public Citizen analysis of trading sales volume by EES shows that the division actually increased West Coast wholesale trading sales by 18 percent from February 2001 (when it dumped all of its California retail customers) to June 2001 (when it resumed service). EES collaborating with Enron Power Marketing. White said during his testimony that EES operated at "arm?s length" from Enron?s wholesale operations. But on at least three occasions during White?s tenure, EES and Enron Power Marketing (a wholesale unit) jointly filed motions and reports to FERC. These joint filings represented Enron?s core response to significant regulatory concerns at the height of the California crisis, suggesting substantial policy and legal coordination between the two divisions. These filings included a 68-page white paper outlining the steps Enron believed FERC should take in California. In addition, the two divisions shared legal counsel before FERC as regulators began their inquiry into the actions of Enron and other energy traders. Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 4 Japan: N-agency won't punish TEPCO [Daily Yomiuri On-Line] Yomiuri Shimbun The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry decided Monday not to file criminal complaints against or impose administrative punishment on Tokyo Electric Power Co. on 29 cases of falsified inspection records at its nuclear power plants, agency officials said. "As the equipment in question has already been repaired or replaced, there is no material evidence," an agency official said. The agency said it decided not to charge TEPCO because it was impossible to confirm whether the core shrouds with cracks were operational within the criteria specified under the Electric Utility Law as they had been repaired or replaced; the technical criteria stipulated by the government was in itself a problem due to unnecessarily severe restrictions, requiring equipment at nuclear reactors always to be in pristine condition; and the statute of limitations in each case had expired. The agency had earlier announced that it would abandon both criminal accusations and administrative punishment against the power company. However, Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma instructed the agency to reverse the decision following a wave of public outrage. The agency announced on Sept. 13 the result of its provisional investigation into the 29 cases of record falsification. They cited six cases that are suspected to have violated the Electric Utility Law and the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law--five in which TEPCO hid knowledge of cracks in the core shrouds while continuing to operate the nuclear reactors, and one in which it failed to keep inspection records. However, agency officials announced the same day they would not be lodging criminal complaints or punishing TEPCO officials. The officials instead said they informed the company that it may have violated the laws. However, after the agency announced the result of its provisional investigation, politicians and residents of the regions where TEPCO operates nuclear power plants criticized the agency's decision not to punish the TEPCO officials. Hiranuma then announced a tentative reversal of the decision on Sept. 18, but informed the Diet that the agency would decide at the end of September if it would file criminal complaints against TEPCO. A senior agency official said that the public would not be satisfied unless TEPCO was in some way punished, adding that the agency was considering nonlegal punitive measures. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 5 Japan: TEPCO restarting six plants - Oct. 1, 2002 CNN.com - The company shut down the reactor at Hamaoko Nuclear Plant in May because it was leaking coolant TOKYO, Japan -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. expects to put six of its thermal plants back into operation by this winter, according to a report. The Nihon Keizai Shimbun stated Tuesday that TEPCO will restart the plants to make up for generating capacity it is losing at its nuclear plants. TEPCO is under investigation after the ministry of trade and industry found the company had covered up 29 cases of cracks at several nuclear reactors. Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma said Monday the government is not pursuing criminal charges against the company. "At the moment, we don't see any matter that should face criminal accusations," Hiranuma said, according to Reuters news agency. "But there are some new matters that we are looking into," he added. In-house investigation under way According to Kyodo news service, the statute of limitations has expired on some of the 29 cases and the others lack sufficient data, because the cracks have since been repaired. TEPCO on Monday started its in-house investigation into the cover-ups and false record keeping. Five top executives are stepping down to take responsibility, including President Nobuya Minami. (Full story) The Yomiuri Shimbun reported on Monday that sources at Hitachi Ltd., which checked the company's equipment, said the company manipulated air pressure to pass power-plant safety checks. According to the report, TEPCO kept two sets of records: an in-house copy with correct data and an official version with figures generated by manipulating the pressure. TEPCO workers gave government inspectors doctored data and staged inspections to match the figures, the Yomiuri Shimbun stated. An expensive switch The 29 cases of cover-ups took place in the late 1980s and the 1990s. Those revelations have led to heightened scrutiny of TEPCO's nuclear plants. By mid-October, it will have lost around 8 million kilowatts of capacity, or 13 percent of the company's total. TEPCO will reactivate the six thermal plants as a result. The plants have a combined output of more than 3 million kilowatts, or around 70 percent of TEPCO's thermal power plants that are now idle. Thermal plants are more expensive to operate, with a 1 million kilowatt thermal plant costing about 100 million yen ($819,000) more per day to run than a nuclear facility. © 2002 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 6 NRC Grants TVA License Amendments to Produce Tritium at Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant in Tennessee NRC: News Release - 2002-116 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: [opa@nrc.gov] www.nrc.gov No. 02-116 October 1, 2002 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) license amendments to produce tritium at Units 1 and 2 of its Sequoyah nuclear power plant for use by the Department of Energy (DOE). A similar license amendment was granted earlier to TVA for the Watts Bar facility. The license amendments grant TVA permission to use tritium-producing burnable absorber rods at the Sequoyah facility, located near Chattanooga, Tenn. DOE has developed technology to produce tritium using lithium, rather than boron, in burnable absorber rods to be installed in the Sequoyah reactors. The irradiated rods are to be removed from the reactors and shipped to the Savannah River Site, near Aiken, S.C., where DOE plans to extract the tritium. The NRC staff held public meetings on the issue in Rockville, Md. , in February 1997, and in Sweetwater, Tenn., in August 1997. The NRC staff determined in September 1997 that TVA could place 32 of the burnable absorber rods in the Watts Bar nuclear power plant reactor core to test the technology. TVA irradiated the rods until the spring of 1999 and removed them from the reactor. DOE has examined the rods and confirmed that the technology worked. A public meeting to discuss the tritium production, as well as NRCs process to determine the safety of producing the tritium and for reviewing the TVA license amendment requests for Watts Bar and Sequoyah, was held in Evensville, Tenn., last October. The license amendments permit TVA to install up to 2,256 of the rods into each Sequoyah reactor and irradiate them for one fuel cycle, which lasts about 18 months. TVA will then remove the irradiated rods for shipment to DOEs tritium extraction facility at the Savannah River Site. DOE subsequently plans to have TVA install new rods in the Sequoyah reactors to repeat the process for the life of the plant. An NRC public meeting discussing the staffs safety reviews supporting these license amendments will be held on October 30, from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m., in the Rhea County Welcome Centers Community Room, located at 107 Main Street in Dayton, Tennessee. An open house will start at 6 p.m. The TVA Sequoyah license amendments will be publicly accessible from the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Room sometime in October. Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 301-415-4737, or 800-397-4209. Privacy Statement | Site Disclaimer Last revised Tuesday, October 01, 2002 ***************************************************************** 7 Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:12:07 -0400 (EDT) http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/ ====================================================== [Federal Register: October 1, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 190)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 61494-61495] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01oc02-9] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-01-071] RIN 2115-AA97 Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Temporary final rule; change of effective period; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the effective period and requesting comments for a temporary security zone in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Calvert County, Maryland. This security zone is necessary to help ensure public safety and security. The security zone will prohibit vessels from entering a well-defined area around Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. DATES: The amendment to Sec. 165.T05-071 (d) in this rule is effective at 5 p.m. on September 30, 2002. Section 165.T05-071, added at 67 FR 9205, February 28, 2002, effective January 9, 2002, to 5 p.m. June 15, 2002, and amended at 67 FR 41177, June 17, 2002, extending the effective period from June 17, 2002 to 5 p.m. September 30, 2002, as amended in this rule, is extended in effect to 5 p.m. on March 31, 2003. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-01-071 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander, Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Dulani Woods, Port Safety and Security, Activities Baltimore, at (410) 576-2513. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. When we promulgated the rule we intended to either allow it to expire on June 15, 2002, or to cancel it if we made permanent changes before that date. We requested comments from the public and to date have not received any. In 67 FR 41177, June 17, 2002, we extended the effective period to September 30, 2002, to ensure the security of this facility and the safety of the public while determining whether a permanent rule is warranted. We have not determined whether a permanent rule is necessary; however, if we determine that a permanent rule is warranted, we will follow normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures, and a final rule should be published before March 31, 2003. Continuing the temporary rule in effect while considering promulgation of a permanent rule will help to ensure the security of this facility and the safety of the public during that period. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. It is not practicable to publish an NPRM because the security of the facility and the safety of the public needs to continue. Request for Comments Although the Coast Guard has good cause to implement this regulation without engaging in the notice of proposed rulemaking process, we want to afford the maritime community the opportunity to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material regarding the size, scope and duration of the Regulated Navigation Areas, safety zones and security zones in order to minimize unnecessary burdens on waterway users. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD05-01-071], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 \1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self- addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this temporary rule in view of them. Background and Purpose Due to the terrorist attacks on New York City, New York, and Washington DC, on September 11, 2001 and continued warnings from national security and intelligence officials that future terrorist attacks are possible, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. On October 3, 2001, Constellation Nuclear-Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant requested a limited access area to reduce the potential threat that may be posed by vessels that approach the power plant. On February 28, 2002, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled ``Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD,'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 9203). The temporary rule established a security zone around the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. There is a continuing need for the protection of the plant. The initial extension of the temporary security zone surrounding the plant was only effective to 5 p.m. on September 30, 2002. As a result, the Coast Guard is further extending the effective date of the rule to 5 p.m. on March 31, 2003. There is no indication that the present rule has been burdensome on the maritime public; users of the areas surrounding the plant are able to pass safely outside the zone. Regulatory Evaluation This temporary rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. Vessels may transit around the security zone and may be permitted within the security zone with the approval of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule was not preceded by a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities. This rule will affect the [[Page 61495]] following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, Maryland. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the office listed under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualified and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Security Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal implication'' under the Order. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that Order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Environment We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46. 2. In temporary Sec. 165.T05-071, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 165.T05-071 Security Zone; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, MD. * * * * * (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 5 p.m. on September 30, 2002 to 5 p.m. on March 31, 2003. * * * * * Dated: September 17, 2002. R. B. Peoples, Captain, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. 02-24940 Filed 9-30-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ***************************************************************** 8 NRC Expands Special Inspection of Worker Radiation Exposures at Davis-Besse NRC: News Release - Region III - 2002-053 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-02-053 October 1, 2002 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has expanded its inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the radiation exposures received by several workers at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station while working on the steam generators in February of this year. The plant, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company is located at Oak Harbor, Ohio. The NRC initiated a special inspection in April, which focused on how microscopic radioactive particles were carried off the Davis-Besse site on the clothing of several workers who had performed maintenance on the plants steam generators. The workers were employed by a contractor conducting activities at the Davis-Besse plant. Isolated, low-levels of radioactive contamination was subsequently found at various locations in Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The steam generator work was not related to the reactor vessel head damage discovered at the plant in early March. During a review of the incident, the NRC staff raised questions with FirstEnergy about the level of radiation exposure of the workers involved with the steam generator work. FirstEnegy has concluded that worker exposures were within NRC limits. The NRC arranged for an independent radiation dose assessment of one of the workers by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. However, the companys and the NRCs estimates differ, and the NRC has decided to expand its original inspection to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the event and generate the final analysis on the radiation dose received by the workers. The expanded NRC special inspection will focus on work planning, the precautions taken during the steam generator work, the measurements of radioactive contamination received by the workers at the time, and the radiation dose received as a result of any inhalation or ingestion of radioactive material by the workers. The inspection team is led by a manager from the NRCs Region III Office in Lisle, Illinois, and includes four Region III radiological protection specialists and is supplemented by contractor expertise. A report detailing the findings of how the discreet radioactive particles had been carried off the Davis-Besse site and the radiation dose received by the workers will be publicly available on the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation.ht ml. Privacy Statement | Site Disclaimer Last revised Tuesday, October 01, 2002 ***************************************************************** 9 Personnel moves just one step at Davis-Besse - portclintonnewsherald.com [http://www.centralohio.com] Monday, September 30, 2002 EDITORIALS It's appropriate that FirstEnergy Corp. has taken steps to deal with employees and officers involved with -- and apparently to blame for -- a series of problems that have resulted in the shutting down of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. But no one should see the punishments and personnel changes as the resolution to this situation. Safety must be the top priority. The safety of plant workers and area residents must be assured and more effective safeguards must be in place before this issue is resolved and the plant can be restarted. There should be no rush to resume operations. The plant is the target of several investigations prompted by a series of physical and operational problems. Troubles began with the discovery of a crack in a nozzle and corrosion in the reactor head and grew to include improper monitoring and questions about safety practices and general operations. Managers who allowed less than determined attitude on the part of employees responsible for safety measures and employees who failed to monitor the plant properly deserve tough action by the company. But some of these issues have been going on for years and the company itself must take responsibility for that. That not only means answering for the mistakes but also taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure that they don't happen again. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be certain that it is satisfied that safety will no longer be compromised. Originally published Monday, September 30, 2002 Copyright ©2002 News Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Oversight of nuclear plants a concern along with terrorism KRT Wire | 10/01/2002 | [http://www.macon.com] BY TIM JONES Chicago Tribune OAK HARBOR, Ohio - KRT NEWSFEATURES (KRT) - The undetected 6-inch-deep hole in the carbon steel layer protecting the nuclear reactor was about the size of a brick - and slowly getting bigger - when officials at FirstEnergy Corp. declared that Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station was "one of the safest and most reliable" in the nation. When plant inspectors on a routine check finally discovered the corroded cavity a few weeks later, in early March, Davis-Besse was immediately shut down and an unusual and ongoing regulatory chain reaction began. Stunned by the sudden discovery of dangerous boric acid corrosion that had been threatening the reactor for years, investigators are challenging not only the safety and maintenance procedures at the facility 25 miles east of Toledo but also the reliability of the nation's chief nuclear watchdog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. After months of investigations, studies and costly repairs at the 24-year-old nuclear plant, FirstEnergy announced in September that it wants to reopen Davis-Besse in early December, despite lingering questions about the safety of the nuclear plant and other similar facilities built in the 1970s. That cannot happen without the approval of the NRC, which is investigating FirstEnergy for possible criminal negligence, including charges of falsifying documents. The controversy over Davis-Besse comes at a time when the Bush administration has advocated greater reliance on nuclear power. At the same time, congressional critics say government inspections of the nation's aging collection of nuclear power plants are not aggressive enough. The threat to the nuclear reactor at Davis-Besse, a facility that has a checkered and at times troubled operational history, was discovered in time to prevent the release of radioactive material. Often characterized as the worst U.S. nuclear power safety breach since Three Mile Island, it is more of an incident loaded with dangerous potential than the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, which resulted in radioactive particles being released. However, the fact that the corrosion remained undetected for four years and maybe longer, according to government reports, has brought a torrent of criticism on FirstEnergy and the NRC. "This is an example where the absence of effective oversight has exposed the dangers inherent in failing nuclear power plants," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who is a member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs. "There is no justification for reopening that plant given its checkered history and the inability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protect the public interest," Kucinich said. In recent weeks more problems at Davis-Besse have surfaced. FirstEnergy reported the stainless steel liner protecting the reactor was thinner than officials originally thought. The company also said several previously undisclosed hairline cracks had appeared in the steel coating. "Every week they're backtracking from what they've said before, presenting something new and troubling and it is either lying or stupidity or both," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat whose Toledo-area district is served by Davis-Besse. "The NRC and the company have squandered their credibility with the public." While FirstEnergy Corp., headquartered in Akron, has acknowledged that it put the interests of profits ahead of safety at Davis-Besse, the company insists that a recent management housecleaning at the plant will assure safe operations. "We have a lot of work to do to regain the public's confidence," Lew Myers, FirstEnergy's chief operating officer, said recently. Myers said the company will "earn the right to lead through our behaviors and actions." The NRC described the investigation of what happened at Davis-Besse as "long and involved." Jan Strasma, an agency spokesman, said the corrosion "does call into question how well or not so well the NRC did with Davis-Besse and what improvements are needed." Strasma said the NRC relied, in part, on assurances from FirstEnergy that the company's inspectors had given the reactor area a clean bill of health. The NRC is expected to issue its findings on what happened at Davis-Besse in mid-October, Strasma said. There are 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. and 69 of them, including Davis-Besse, are pressurized water reactor facilities. Of those 69, 32 are as old or older than Davis-Besse, according to NRC records. Illinois has 11 nuclear plants with four of the same design as Davis-Besse. Those facilities opened between 1985 and 1988. The NRC has two resident inspectors at each nuclear plant, Strasma said After discovering cracks on nozzles at South Carolina's Oconee nuclear station in August 2001, the NRC sought inspections for the same kinds of cracks at 13 plants considered susceptible to similar cracking. Davis-Besse was among those the agency wanted inspected before the end of 2001. FirstEnergy sought a delay of the inspection and the NRC granted it. That delay has come back to haunt the agency because of the danger the corrosion would have caused if the acid had broken through the steel protective layer. There are differences of opinion as to what might have happened if the hole had reached Davis-Besse's reactor. Strasma said it "would not be a good situation, but it was within the safety systems to keep a significant release of radioactive material from escaping." Kucinich said it would have threatened more than 6 million people who live within a 100-mile radius of the plant, including the metropolitan areas of Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the debate over nuclear power plant safety has centered on the possibility of outside threats from terrorists, rather than structural threats from inside. David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, argues that more aggressive inspections of nuclear plants are needed because they are getting older and need more attention. "Up to now we have been relying too much on luck," Lochbaum said. The NRC's Strasma said there may have been a slight reduction in the number of inspectors in the past several years, but nothing that would suggest a significant cut in inspections. Strasma said the agency is "convinced" that other nuclear plants are safe. Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, who owns a summer home on Lake Erie in Port Clinton, about 15 miles east of Davis-Besse, said the mistakes made at the plant "were not of the nature that would justify shutting it down." "Since there are other plants of similar design, why not shut them all down?" Gillmor added. Lochbaum said he believes FirstEnergy is sincere when it says it wants to improve the performance at Davis-Besse. "But the problem isn't just broken equipment. There's been an attitude where problems were tolerated, and that's a much harder problem. … You can't change that overnight." Todd Schneider, a spokesman for FirstEnergy, acknowledged this "kind of change will not happen overnight, but we are working on it every day. "We'll improve the reliability," Schneider said. There are plenty of skeptics. Terry Lodge, a Toledo attorney who represents several environmental organizations in the area, said, "Davis-Besse should be a showcase for the rapidly spiraling problems in aging nuclear reactors." Lodge said his concern is that the NRC will allow Davis-Besse to reopen before government and independent investigators have had time to complete their probes. If that occurs, FirstEnergy will be able to "effectively blunt future findings" of guilt. "If the NRC is unwilling to close down the reactor, it's writ very large that there is no set of circumstances short of a Three Mile Island meltdown that would force the NRC to shut down a plant," Lodge said. Kaptur, whose new congressional district will include Davis-Besse, said she sees no evidence that would assure her the plant can operate safely. "Given all that has happened, you have to wonder what else in there is not operating properly," Kaptur said. "How are they going to raise our confidence level prior to reopening? Why would any of us trust them?" © 2002, Chicago Tribune. ***************************************************************** 11 Turk Nuke Fuel Bust Just One of Several Recently With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff Monday, Sept. 30, 2002 10:42 a.m. EDT When Turkish police seized a little more than a quarter pound of suspected weapons grade uranium from smugglers caught near the Iraqi border on Friday, it was far from the first time they'd busted deadly nuke fuel traffickers traveling through the country looking for the highest bidder. In fact, less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, paramilitary police in Istanbul seized about a kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of weapons-grade uranium and detained two Turks who attempted to sell the substance to undercover agents, a Turkish security official told Agence France Press. Other reports estimated that the November 6 weapons grade uranium bust yielded as much as 3.5 lbs. of the deadly substance. "Police have often seized illicit substances, including nuclear materials, in Istanbul," the French news agency noted, calling the Turkish city "a hub of criminal activity located at the meeting point between Asia and Europe." Smuggling of uranium and other contraband has increased since the end of the Cold War, as tens of thousand of people from former Communist countries flock to Istanbul to deal in the so-called "suitcase trade." Turkish police have even uncovered "smuggling rings" that specialize in the trafficking of radioactive substances, successfully breaking up one such operation just a month before the 9/11 attacks. Six Turks were arrested for trafficking in nuclear material in the August 2001 bust. In early Sept. the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British defense think tank, issued a report predicting that Saddam Hussein could produce a workable nuclear weapon within months if he could "obtain fissile material from abroad, steal it or buy it in some way." Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com ***************************************************************** 12 Beryllium tests are urged for ammunition plant contractors Omaha.com October 1, 2002 MIDDLETOWN, Iowa (AP) - Independent contractors who worked at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant should be evaluated for exposure to the toxic metal beryllium, a health researcher said. Some people who haven't been in the southeast Iowa plant also could have been exposed to beryllium due to the burning of hazardous wastes and metals or from contact with relatives who worked there, Dr. Lar Fuortes, an epidemiologist at the University of Iowa's College of Public Health, said Friday. Contractors, such as electricians, plumbers and carpenters, and area residents could have come into contact with beryllium dust, which can cause chronic beryllium disease, an ailment that causes scarring of the lungs, said Fuortes, director of the University of Iowa's health survey team. Symptoms include weight loss, coughing, chest symptoms or abnormalities in chest X-rays. Fuortes said he hopes to screen the independent contract and trade workers. Plant workers involved in the production of nuclear weapons on the Atomic Energy Commission's production Line 1 from the late 1940s until the mid-1970s came into contact with the toxic metal. Beryllium dust had been found in several plant buildings, according to recently discovered and declassified plant records. University researchers said 15 former plant workers have tested positive for sensitivity to beryllium. That represents about 3 percent of the 473 former nuclear weapons workers who have been given blood tests. ©2002 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright ***************************************************************** 13 Turk Nuke Fuel Bust Just One of Several Recently* *Home · Late-Night Jokes *With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff* *Monday, Sept. 30, 2002 10:42 a.m. EDT* When Turkish police seized a little more than a quarter pound of suspected weapons grade uranium from smugglers caught near the Iraqi border on Friday, it was far from the first time they'd busted deadly nuke fuel traffickers traveling through the country looking for the highest bidder. In fact, less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, paramilitary police in Istanbul seized about a kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of weapons-grade uranium and detained two Turks who attempted to sell the substance to undercover agents, a Turkish security official told Agence France Press. Other reports estimated that the November 6 weapons grade uranium bust yielded as much as 3.5 lbs. of the deadly substance. "Police have often seized illicit substances, including nuclear materials, in Istanbul," the French news agency noted, calling the Turkish city "a hub of criminal activity located at the meeting point between Asia and Europe." Smuggling of uranium and other contraband has increased since the end of the Cold War, as tens of thousand of people from former Communist countries flock to Istanbul to deal in the so-called "suitcase trade." Turkish police have even uncovered "smuggling rings" that specialize in the trafficking of radioactive substances, successfully breaking up one such operation just a month before the 9/11 attacks. Six Turks were arrested for trafficking in nuclear material in the August 2001 bust. In early Sept. the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British defense think tank, issued a report predicting that Saddam Hussein could produce a workable nuclear weapon within months if he could "obtain fissile material from abroad, steal it or buy it in some way." *Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:* All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com ***************************************************************** 14 Plan to destroy Russian weapons nears collapse If U.S. Congress doesn't deliver promised funds this month, Pentagon could end the project By Peter Eisler USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has spent $230 million trying to build a Russian plant to destroy thousands of tons of deadly chemical munitions from the old Soviet arsenal. This month, unless Congress acts, the Pentagon will begin closing down the project without laying a single brick -- or eliminating a single weapon. The facility was designed to wipe out one of the world's most worrisome stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction: nearly 2 million artillery shells and missile warheads filled with deadly nerve gasses. Stored in open racks in a cluster of wooden warehouses in the town of Shchuch'ye, they are among the most portable, ready-made weapons of mass destruction a terrorist could obtain. Even the smallest shells, which fit in a briefcase, can kill 100,000 or more if set off in a crowded city. There have been no reported thefts at Shchuch'ye (SHOO-che), but U.S. officials note that such an act would be hard to detect and represents a serious threat. President Bush called the stockpile's destruction a ''vital mission'' in a national security address last winter at The Citadel military college in South Carolina. Yet the U.S. effort to build the plant that would dismantle and neutralize the arms at Shchuch'ye has been unraveling quietly for years. Now, it's close to collapse. The project is the most costly and ambitious of U.S. efforts to help eliminate Russia's chemical arsenal. With the $230 million spent so far, design and site preparation are complete for the plant. But hundreds of millions of dollars pledged for construction have been frozen for three years by congressional critics who distrust Russia's plans to destroy its stockpile. Pentagon officials, having kept the project alive with a trickle of residual funds, say they will start canceling construction contracts this month because their money runs out today, the start of the new fiscal year. Even if the cash is released later this fall, the holdup has added years to the project -- and to Russia's entire chemical weapons disposal schedule. The delays in destroying the 5,400 tons of weaponized nerve gas at Shchuch'ye are emblematic of setbacks that have plagued U.S. and international efforts to help Russia wipe out its 40,000 tons of mostly Soviet-made chemical weapons. It's the world's largest collection of nerve and skin-burning blister compounds, stored both in bulk and in munitions. Virtually none has been eliminated. The U.S. assistance is part of a multibillion-dollar Cooperative Threat Reduction program Congress began in 1992 to help newly independent Soviet states secure and destroy nuclear, biological and chemical weapons they inherited. A decade later, the effort to address Russia's chemical stocks is perhaps the least successful of its cooperative assistance initiatives. Russia's balky, cash-strapped, demilitarization campaign has no chance of eliminating the arsenal by 2007, the deadline in the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention for destroying stockpiles worldwide. Critics say Russia's slow progress shows a lack of commitment, and they argue that continued assistance for the Shchuch'ye project is unwarranted. The critics ''don't realize how serious this situation is,'' says Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who helped set up the assistance program. ''This is the kind of stuff, at Shchuch'ye, that (terrorists) are after. We have an opportunity to get rid of it, and we're not moving forward.'' The unaddressed threat The weapons at Shchuch'ye represent one-seventh of Russia's chemical arsenal, nearly all of it inherited from the Soviets. The Soviet chemical warfare program, which continued secretly into the early years of Russian statehood, was the world's most advanced. Besides working with such widely used nerve gases as VX and sarin, the Soviets built a secret program, called novichok, or ''new shock,'' that created more lethal toxins from agricultural compounds. The Shchuch'ye stockpile, one of seven in Russia, is a major concern: * The weapons are portable and ready to use, making them a more attractive target for theft than the bulk containers of toxins stored at other Russian sites. Many of the shells and warheads at Shchuch'ye are easy to hide and are launchable from widely available artillery pieces and rockets. * The stockpile is vulnerable. It sits in an impoverished region near the border with Kazakhstan and Asian havens for al-Qaeda and other terror networks. Security, despite recent upgrades, is weaker than at Russian nuclear facilities and other sensitive sites. There's no reliable inventory, so thefts by an insider could go unnoticed. * The munitions are deadly. Most of the shells and warheads are packed with sarin, soman and VX gasses, all of which can kill in minutes. An 85mm shell of sarin -- the smallest artillery piece at Shchuch'ye -- can kill up to 140,000 if set off in a densely populated area. It can fit in a briefcase. Paul Walker, who toured Shchuch'ye as a congressional staffer on the first U.S. inspection, in 1994, calls it ''one of the most vulnerable and worrisome sites worldwide.'' ''It certainly has the potential of becoming a Wal-Mart for terrorists,'' says Walker, now with Global Green USA. It's part of an environmental organization, Green Cross International, set up by former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev to facilitate elimination of weapons stockpiles. The money spent on the Shchuch'ye plant so far is about a quarter of the $888 million that U.S. officials pledged to complete the project. It is the largest American investment in helping Russia eliminate chemical arms. The Pentagon also has spent millions to install alarms and other safeguards at both Shchuch'ye and Kizner, a chemical stockpile in central Russia. U.S. officials say the upgrades addressed the sites' big weaknesses, though they remain worried about insider thefts or a well-executed raid. Other U.S.-backed initiatives focus on dismantling chemical weapons production facilities and providing research equipment and jobs to former weapons scientists who might otherwise be lured to work for rogue states or terrorists. European nations fund similar projects, including a German-financed disposal plant set to start running this winter at Gornyy, a bulk-container stockpile 500 miles southeast of Moscow. But the Shchuch'ye plant is the key to Russia's chemical demilitarization plans, which envision expanding the facility to destroy munitions from several stockpiles. The Russian Embassy in Washington declined to comment on the funding freeze. Officials in Moscow have said it's unwarranted. They note that they've boosted budgets for the program and replaced military managers with more committed civilians. ''We are fulfilling all of our obligations,'' says Nikolai Platι, of the State Commission on Chemical Disarmament. He dismisses criticism that Russia has hidden the true size of its arsenal. Officials would not underestimate the size of the stockpiles because that might result in less assistance, he says. ''The U.S. promised this money, and they should give it to us and come see that we will use it to destroy the weapons,'' Platι says. Old suspicions, new hurdles Questions about Russia's tally of its chemical weapons were a central issue when a small group of mostly Republican lawmakers blocked spending for the Shchuch'ye project in late 1999. The hold lasted until Congress approved $35 million for Shchuch'ye in its 2002 budget. But critics set conditions that still left the Pentagon unable to spend the funds. The spending restrictions are far stricter than those for other threat reduction programs. Such rules generally require the administration to ''certify'' that states receiving assistance are making progress in getting rid of the arsenals they inherited. But the added conditions for Russian chemical weapons programs include six criteria, requiring that Russia provide a detailed inventory of its chemical weapons and more verifiable plans for destroying them. Critics ''are using these criteria as a stick to hit the Russians,'' says Michael Moodie, an arms control negotiator in the first Bush administration who now runs the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Washington. ''Their feeling is, 'If we're going to have these assistance programs, we're going to make it as hard as we can for the Russians.' '' The Bush administration has asked Congress for authority to waive the funding criteria. But the idea has hit resistance. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, an Armed Services Committee member, says it's more likely that Congress will pass a limited, short-term waiver later this year. ''A blanket waiver removes some of the leverage we have to make sure Russia complies with the intended purposes for these funds,'' he adds, noting that Russia's demilitarization program has a history of management problems. ''The bigger issue is how big is the problem and if we spend this much money, how much of a dent will it make?'' Foes of a waiver accuse Russia of lying about the size and nature of its stocks. They note that despite admissions about the novichok program by its former managers, Russia has not detailed what became of those toxins. They also say Russia has not provided sufficient U.S. access to chemical weapons sites. ''They want a confession, and what we need is a solution,'' says former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, who now runs the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a foundation that seeks to eliminate excess Soviet weapons. He says the Russians have shown ''good faith'' and may not know the full extent of their arsenal. Nunn says U.S. officials should seize the chance to destroy the weapons at Shchuch'ye. ''It's going to take unprecedented cooperation to make this work,'' he says. The multibuilding complex planned for Shchuch'ye would drain the weapons, neutralize and immobilize their toxins in asphalt, and incinerate the shells. It was to begin operation by 2006, but is at least two years behind schedule. The Pentagon is requesting $126 million for construction at the site in the new fiscal year. Officials say they need at least the $35 million that is frozen in the bank to keep the project viable after the residual, pre-freeze money they've used to sustain it runs out today. ''If we don't get this money, we're going to have to start taking down the (contracting) teams we've assembled,'' says Thomas Kuenning, chief of Cooperative Threat Reduction for the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency. If the money is released now, construction could begin in weeks, Kuenning adds, but the start-up time will grow exponentially if it becomes necessary to line up new contractors. ''Eight months from now, it may take a year. Those people will go and find other work.'' Without the assistance, most U.S. officials agree, Russia has no hope of meeting the Chemical Weapons Convention deadline for stockpile destruction, even given the likelihood that it will be extended to 2012 at Russia's request. U.S. stockpiles, interests The United States also will be pressed by that deadline, despite having smaller chemical weapons stocks -- 30,000 tons vs. Russia's 40,000 -- and far more money. The Pentagon has destroyed a bit more than 25% of its chemical weapons, and officials say the job can't be done by the treaty's original 2007 target. Meanwhile, cost estimates for eliminating the entire stockpile have climbed from $15 billion to $24 billion. Russia, its economy in shambles, hopes to spend about $6 billion. Critics say Russia's comparatively small financial commitment and its reluctance to open the books on its arsenal justify the hold on money for Shchuch'ye. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., who chairs the House military procurement subcommittee, sees some validity to the criticism, though he wants the project funded. ''The Russians have got to be more transparent, more flexible. You can't just blame the Congress.'' Supporters of the Shchuch'ye project say it must be viewed in the larger context of U.S. interests. ''I don't think the Russians have been completely up front with us,'' says Amy Smithson, a chemical weapons expert at The Henry L. Stimson Center who testifies often before Congress. ''Does that mean we should allow the weapons to sit there? We have a chance to address a serious national security problem. It behooves us to do so.''Cover storyCover story © Copyright 2002 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Report: Seized Material Not Uranium ABCNEWS.com : September 30, 2002 Report: Seized Material Not Uranium Turkish Atomic Energy Institute Says Seized Material Not Uranium The Associated Press ANKARA, Turkey Sept. 30 — Atomic energy officials said Monday that a substance seized by police near the Syrian border was not weapons-grade uranium as Turkish officials first reported, according to the Anatolia news agency. Atomic Energy Institute chief Guler Koksal said the material was harmless, containing zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese. The announcement ended days of speculation that the substance might have been destined for neighboring Iraq, which the United States accuses of trying to smuggle in nuclear material for a secret weapons program. Police, acting on a tip, recovered the material in a taxi last week in Sanliurfa province, near the Syrian border. Two Turks who were trying to sell the material as uranium were released from custody. The seizure alarmed intelligence agencies around the world when the Turkish police said it weighed 35 pounds last week. On Monday, police said the material weighed only 5 ounces. The disparity occurred because authorities initially included the weight of the lead container in which the material was placed, police said. photo credit and caption: Captured weapons-grade uranium is displayed at the paramilitary police headquarters in Sanliurfa, southeastern Turkey, Saturday, Sept. 28, 2002. Turkish paramilitary police have seized 15.7 kilograms (34.54 pounds) of uranium and arrested two Turks who they said planned to sell the weapons-grade substance, the Anatolia news agency reported. Sanliurfa, some 800 kilometers (480 miles) from the capital Ankara, is close to the Syrian border. (AP Photo/Ercan Akkar/Anatolia) Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This Copyright © 2002 ABCNEWS Internet Ventures. Click here for: ***************************************************************** 16 COUNTY PREPS RESIDENTS FOR NUCLEAR EMERGENCY The Palladium Times Online By CLIFF DROUGHT, City Editor SCRIBA -- Oswego County began its distribution of potassium iodide pills Saturday, leading hundreds of area residents to the county's highway garage to fill out forms and pick up tablets in single dose silver packages. The distribution was one of three planned by the county's Emergency Management Office to provide pills to residents who live within 10 miles of the three nuclear plants at Nine Mile Point in Scriba. The pills are part of federally initiated safety enhancements sparked by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Should disaster strike at the nuclear plants, potassium iodide is expected to protect the thyroid by blocking the intake of radioactive iodine. Potassium iodide does not offer overall protection from radiation, according to Patricia Egan, director of the Emergency Management Office. She estimated there are about 42,000 people who live within the 10-mile zone. Most of those receiving their pills Saturday were aware of what to expect, according to Terry Bennett, a public information specialist with the office. "Things have been going pretty smoothly," she said toward the middle of the four-hour distribution. "I think people in Oswego County have a pretty good understanding of what the pills are for." Pill poppers County Health Department staff were on hand to provide the pills, given to the county by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bennett said a steady flow of residents came Saturday to receive their pills. Each resident within the 10-mile radius can receive a single pill. One person from each eligible household was directed to a folding table to receive the allotment Saturday. Informational brochures on potassium iodide were also available. "We had concerns that people might think this was a miracle drug that could totally protect them from radiation. It's not. So we wanted to also develop a comprehensive education program," Egan said before the initial distribution. In the event of a major disaster, county officials have stressed that evacuation would be the primary protective action during an emergency at Nine Mile Point. Instructions would be given through Emergency Alert System messages on local radio, television and cable outlets. Fields questions Diane Oldenburger, a public health educator, said questions from residents Saturday centered around whether the pills were safe for kids, how long the effects last and if the pills would work for pets. "(People) are very knowledgeable," added Kathleen Smith, director of public health services for the county. "They have lived in the area all their lives, so they're pretty calm." Lee Pelkey, who lives just inside the city of Oswego near its border with Scriba, came to get his household's allotment with three others. Pelkey said he was skeptical the pills would provide much help in the event of a large-scale disaster at one of the plants. "I think if something happens, you're toast," he said. "In terms of a terrorist attack, I think (county officials) are doing all they can." Distributions of potassium iodide pills are also planned this Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Oswego County Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 179 county Route 64, Mexico, and Oct. 24 from 1-7 p.m. at the Nick Sterio Public Health Center, 70 Bunner St., Oswego. Bennett said the county does not expect to distribute all of the pills at the three sessions. After the final distribution, she said, the county will keep the excess pills on hand for those who did not receive them. Information about potassium iodide is also available on the Emergency Management department page of the Oswego County Web site, www.oswegocounty.com. To receive a brochure or for information about any aspect of emergency planning, call the Oswego County Emergency Management Office at 591-9150 or 1-800-962-2792, or the Oswego County Health Department at 349-3547 or 1-800-596-3200, ext. 3547. [http://www.pall-times.com] | ***************************************************************** 17 Too Slow -- Sick workers need timely aid The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, October 01, 2002 Congress needs to rescue some 19,000 ailing nuclear industry workers from the bureaucratic swamps of the U.S. Department of Energy. These sick workers have been waiting for two years to receive compensation for illnesses they contracted while working in the government's nuclear program. So far, DOE has sent just four claims to a panel of doctors for evaluation. By contrast, the Department of Labor, which is administering a separate program for nuclear workers who were exposed to radiation and beryllium, has approved 465 claims in its Paducah office alone. Nationally, the Department of Labor has approved more than 34,000 claims and paid out $353 million to nuclear industry workers and their families, the Courier-Journal of Louisville reported. It's clear the Department of Labor, headed by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, is making an exceptional effort to ensure sick workers are compensated for the suffering they've endured as a result of their work for the government. But Department of Energy officials seem to be handling their part of the program with the same speed and efficiency they brought to the original environmental cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which consumed a decade and more than $400 million without removing a single barrel of waste. First District Congressman Ed Whitfield and a bipartisan group of House members have come up with a proposal to break the impasse. A bill introduced in the House would put the Department of Labor in charge of processing claims for the program and remove some of the regulatory and funding hurdles that have prevented workers from getting timely assistance. The bill also would expand eligibility for the program by including illnesses such as chronic renal disease and lung cancer caused by exposure to beryllium. One of the biggest hurdles for workers is the lack of private payers; DOE can't force a private contractor to pay claims for eligible workers. If Whitfield's bill is passed, all the claims would be paid from the $1.7 billion federal fund that covers claims under the program administered by the Department of Labor. Since the federal government has admitted responsibility for exposing nuclear workers to dangerous substances, fairness and logic dictate that the government pick up the full tab for compensation. The contractors were acting in behalf of the government. In any event, the current DOE compensation system is too unwieldy to provide the needed help for workers. Again, the government has taken responsibility for the harm suffered by these workers — they should not have to wait for years to receive assistance through DOE and state worker compensation programs. Whitfield's bill leaves DOE in charge of determining eligibility, but gives the agency 120 days from the date of filing to accept or reject a claim. After a worker is declared eligible, Department of Labor officials would determine the level of disability and process the claim. This should speed the delivery of benefits to sick workers, including some who have contracted fatal illnesses and may not survive long enough to receive aid through the current DOE program. Whitfield is unsure of the legislation's prospects in the waning days of the current session of Congress. A hope is that the congressional leadership, which has devoted quite a bit of time and tax money this year to funding projects that few would describe as essential, will see the need for helping sick veterans of the Cold War who are trapped in a well-intended but seriously flawed program. ***************************************************************** 18 Conference: 10-10-02 Radiation and Health in the Nuclear Heartland + Mary Fox Olson Normal Mary Fox Olson 5 325 2002-08-30T02:59:00Z 2002-09-05T16:33:00Z 2002-09-06T16:25:00Z 3 1023 5832 48 11 7162 9.3821 6 pt 2 2 Nuclear Information and Resource Service STAMP Learn what you need to know to take a stand and change the course of history toward Health and Sustainability Special Guest Dr. Helen Caldicott [http://www.unca.edu/occ/] at UNCA Asheville, NC October 11 & 12, 2002 This educational conference is geared for lay people, professionals, and decision-makers. It is open at no cost ( optional lunch and refreshments payment requested) Who should attend this event? Concerned members of the public interested in learning more. Technical information will be presented for lay people. We will be teaching basic concepts that will help you understand complex policy issues. Healthcare and emergency professionals will learn new information. Decision-makers, staff and advisors will gain important new perspective in the post 9-11 era. Parents and future parents need this valuable information since we live in the Nuclear Heartland!!! Why this event now? Our country is the world pacesetter in both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. The US is currently on the brink of a NUCLEAR REVIVAL – new uranium processing; extended operations at nuclear reactors as well as new reactors; new nuclear weapons production: the Southeast is where the nuclear revival is happening. You cannot afford to miss this event. Our future generations need you to attend! Conference Schedule All Scheduled Events at [http://www.unca.edu/occ/] 7:00 pm Friday October 11 Dr. Helen Caldicott **** Keynote Address Author of “The New Nuclear Danger,” “Nuclear Madness,” “Missile Envy” and “If You Love This Planet” Bob Del Tredici Slide Presentation Noted Photographer and author of “at Work in the Field of the Bomb” Saturday October 12 Informational sessions and public policy discussion on ionizing radiation health and our environment PRESENTERS include: Dr. Steven Wing, Department of Epidemiology, UNC Chapel Hill Dr. Judith Johnsrud, Sierra Club advisory group on radiation Dr. Edwin Lyman, Nuclear Control Institute Robert Alvarez, STAR Foundation Jerry Vehaun, Director Buncombe County Emergency Services Dr. Martha Salyers Leader, Public Health Regional Surveillance Team Mary Olson, Diane D’Arrigo, Cindy Folkers, Nuclear Information and Resource Service -- And many others!!! Saturday Program at Owen Conference Center 8:30 Hot beverages and registration (please pre-register now!) 9:00 Kitty Boniske Opening dedication to Dr. Alice Stewart 9:10 Keynote: Dr Steve Wing – Health effects of low level ionizing radiation - Insights from the work of Alice Stewart 9:45 – 10:15 Panel on Sources of Radiological Risk in the SE Moderated by Mary Olson, NIRS Southeast, including: Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance * Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League * NC WARN * Carolina Peace Resource Center * Georgians Against Nuclear Energy * Action for a Clean Environment * Georgians for Clean Energy * Nuclear Information and Resource Service * 10:30 – 12:30 Breakout sessions on basics of radiation impact on health -- NIRS staff, Dr. Wing, Dr. Lyman, Dr. Judith Johnsrud, and others 12:30 Buffet lunch to be served on-site… registration donation will cover lunch. Students and low-income $10 and others $20 1:30 Panel on Security Concerns and Emergency Response Dr. Terry Clark, moderator Jerry Vehaun, Dr. Martha Salyers, Jim Warren, Dr. Edwin Lyman… 2:30 The Myth of the Millirem a fantasy: the Dept. of Energy’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Release of Radioactively Contaminated Materials for Unrestricted Reuse – a multi-media presentation by Dr. Judith Johnsrud, and others. 3:30 Action to reduce, halt and prevent radiological risk in our region – and what anyone can do. Breakout sessions with Southeast action groups on nuclear transport, plutonium fuel production and use, new bomb production, new reactor siting, nuclear waste, old reactor start-up and license extension, uranium enrichment, tritium production and more. 4:45 – 5:15 Bob Alvarez, STAR Foundation (formerly of DOE, and Senate Government Affairs Committee) -- Policy and Health concerns created by the Bush administration’s commitment to new nuclear weapons production in the Southeastern United States 5:15 Dr. Lew Patrie -- Closing Remarks Info on line at [http://www.main.nc.us/psr/rads/radconf.htm] Or call 828-675-1792 Sponsoring Organizations: Nuclear Information and Resource Service [http://main.nc.us/psr/index.html] Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom / Asheville The Environmental Studies Department of the University of North Carolina, Asheville Western North Carolina Peace Coalition Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Carolina Peace Resource Center Georgians for Clean Energy Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance NC WARN Action for a Clean Environment Women’s Action for New Directions Physicians for Social Responsibility / Atlanta Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Clean Water Fund for North Carolina To view registration form as a separate page for printing go HERE . To add your formal registration in the final weeks approaching the conference you can contact Mary Olson at this email [radconf@yahoo.com?subject=I have decided to attend] which is setup specifically for this conference. If you prefer Plain Text Registration form go there to copy and paste into an email notification. PREREGISTRATION FORM -- PLEASE PRINT AND SNAIL MAIL – please register now! The only cost is lunch and snacks $20 ($10 for low-income / student; full scholarship available for medical students and residents courtesy of WNCPSR). If you bring your own, there is no conference fee, but please let us know you are coming by registering now. Thank you! Number of people_________ contact phone:________________ Additional phone numbers______________________________ Names:_________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ Address_____________________________________________ City__________________________State_____Zip__________ e-mail________________________ website________________ Yes include me on a participant roster_____ OR no don’t_____ Yes I/we want lunch_______ how many total?__________ how many vegetarian?___________ how many meat?________ Total enclosed:_________________ ($20 each/$10 low income) I need information on accommodations________ best way and time to reach me is____________________________________ Questions ? – call Mary Fox Olson 828-675-1792 Snail Mail this form and your check made out to “NIRS” to NIRS Southeast PO BOX 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 Thank You! ***************************************************************** 19 Nebraska loses nuclear waste lawsuit Omaha.com September 30, 2002 BY ROBYNN TYSVER WORLD-HERALD BUREAU More background on the case Read the judgment (Acrobat Reader required) LINCOLN - In 1990, Ben Nelson told a cheering crowd that if he was elected governor it was unlikely that a low-level radioactive waste facility would be built in Boyd County. That campaign promise was fulfilled, but it* *could cost Nebraskans $151 million. On Monday, a federal judge ruled that Nelson, who is now a U.S. senator, carried out his campaign vow through a rigged licensing process. "Governor Nelson, either directly or through his subordinates, influenced the process in order to fulfill a campaign promise which required that the license be denied without regard to technical merits," wrote U.S District Judge Richard Kopf. Nelson continued to maintain that sound science underscored the license denial. "This opinion does not change the fact that the license was denied because the site was unsafe and the developer was nearly broke," Nelson said. Nelson also said that the campaign statement was taken out of context. After an eight-year review, the state in 1998 denied a license for a low-level radioactive waste facility near Butte, in Boyd County. The five-state compact that sought to build the regional facility then sued Nebraska for violating its contract. The state will appeal Kopf's decision, and the case will probably end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be years before taxpayers will be asked to pay the bill, if ever. Gov. Mike Johanns said he thinks the state has a sound basis for appeal, including the fact that a single judge and not a jury decided the issue of damages. Johanns also said he did not think it would be proper for the state to begin setting aside money to pay the damages while its appeal was pending. "I don't want to do anything that can be regarded as me waving a white flag," he said. Finally, Johanns said neither he nor other Republicans should use the case to bash Nelson, a Democrat. Johanns is often mentioned as a possible Senate candidate against Nelson in 2006. Johanns refused Monday to discuss Nelson and his role in the case. The 194-page opinion came after a two-month trial this summer. Nebraska spent $22 million to defend itself against the charge it acted in "bad faith" when it denied a license for the proposed facility. The judge made it clear that he would neither force the state to issue a license nor go forward with an independent review. The five-state commission had wanted a special master appointed to consider the license. "Nebraska could frustrate, or defeat, any court order to license a facility within its borders," Kopf said. The question of whether a facility will ever be built in Nebraska remains unclear. The state is set to leave the commission in 2004. The commission could still seek a license for a facility in Nebraska under compact rules, said Alan Peterson, the attorney for the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission. He disputed comments made by Johanns at a press conference that none of the parties involved wanted to continue to pursue a facility. Nebraska joined the five-state compact in 1983. The Boyd County site was chosen for the facility in 1989. Nelson opposed the site on the campaign trail in 1990. The license was denied in 1998. The commission sued, seeking to recoup the nearly $95 million spent during the license review. The four other states in the compact are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas and Arkansas. During the trial, some of the most explosive evidence against the state was found in the hundreds of e-mails and memos compiled by Kate Allen, a former policy researcher for Nelson. Allen, an adamant opponent of the waste facility, was appointed to the post by Nelson in early 1991 and worked during the early years of the license process. When she was fired in 1992, Allen left office with 19 boxes of files. She stored the boxes in her basement for about eight years until turning them over to attorneys in 2001. Kopf gave great weight to Allen's notes, saying that she worked with opponents to the Boyd County site to torpedo the facility and that she worked "hand in glove" with the Nelson administration. Allen's notes documented strategy meetings between Nelson and site opponents. Nelson attended two meetings with people from Save Boyd County, a group opposed to the site, in January 1991 and June 1992. In the meetings, Nelson made it clear that he opposed the facility being built in Nebraska and that he planned to make it very difficult for the compact. "Never underestimate fatigue factor and deranged governor," Nelson allegedly said. He also reportedly said in quotes attributed to him by Allen: *? *"Our best bet is to be the underdog who has been taken advantage of by the bad power companies. We have to be careful not to get public sentiment against us." ? "We have a well-crafted strategy. Worse thing in the world is to lose public sentiment." ? "It's a poor site, but it may still be a licensable site." ? "Create noise & difficulties; think we can win it, expensive." At one point in the 1992 meeting, Nelson is asked what he meant by "stop." His reported reply: "Get it out of Nebraska. Have no problem with Nebraska taking responsibility for its own waste." Kopf found the statements troubling. "Without engaging in strained semantics, there is no plausible way that these statements can be squared with any notion of good faith," Kopf wrote. Nelson has said he doesn't remember the meetings but he believes some of his comments were taken out of context. ©2002 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright ***************************************************************** 20 Nuke waste case decided against Nebraska LJWorld.com: The Lawrence Journal-World, The Associated Press Tuesday, October 1, 2002 Lincoln, Neb. — Former Gov. Ben Nelson purposely submarined plans to build a waste dump for low-level radioactive waste in Nebraska, a federal judge ruled Monday and ordered the state to pay $151 million in damages. U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said Nelson, now a U.S. senator, and the state acted in bad faith in refusing to license the facility, which was to hold waste from Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. "Governor Nelson, either directly or through his subordinates, influenced the process in order to fulfill a campaign promise, which required that the license be denied without regard to the technical merits," Kopf said. Gov. Mike Johanns said the state would appeal the ruling to the 8th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. The battle had its genesis in 1970, when Nevada, South Carolina and Washington grew tired of accepting low-level radioactive waste from the rest of the country. Congress told states in 1980 to build their own dumps or join regional groups to dispose of the waste, which includes contaminated tools and clothing from nuclear power plants, hospitals and research centers. Nebraska joined Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana in 1983 to form the Central Interstate Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact. The other states voted in 1987 to put the dump in Nebraska. Copyright © 2002 The Lawrence Journal-World. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Rift remains for many in Boyd County Omaha.com October 1, 2002 *BY LESLIE REED* WORLD-HERALD BUREAU LINCOLN - Nearly 15 years ago, when nuclear-waste generators came calling about putting a disposal site in their county, Boyd County residents split into opposing camps. Some saw it as a chance to bring badly needed jobs and money to their remote, sparsely populated county. Others saw it as an outsiders' attempt to exploit their county simply because it is remote and sparsely populated. The rift remains. Monday, a federal judge ruled that Nebraska officials acted in bad faith when they denied a license to the proposed low-level radioactive-waste facility. U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said he could not force the state to license the disposal facility, but he ordered Nebraska to pay $151 million in damages to the five-state compact that sought the disposal site. Lowell Fisher, the Spencer rancher who staged a 1990 hunger strike to oppose the Boyd County disposal site, said the judge's ruling held more good news than bad for his county. "The important thing to Boyd County is that he is basically saying it can't be built here," Fisher said. "The decision is bad financially, but it is good as far as Boyd County and the dump is concerned." Loren Sieh, a convenience store and repair shop owner in Naper, said $151 million is not too much to pay if it keeps the waste site out of Boyd County. Divided among Nebraska's residents, "it works out to about $135 for my wife, three children and four grandchildren," he said. "I'll send a check tomorrow morning - just tell me where." But residents who viewed the disposal facility as an economic opportunity say they hope that with a $151 million judgment hanging over its head, the state might now be willing to negotiate. Butte rancher Ken Reiser said the state obviously doesn't have the cash to pay the judgment. Lawmakers already are facing a $400 million deficit when they return to Lincoln in January. "Even if they get the checkbook out, it'll probably bounce," he said. "I'd still be hopeful that there could be some negotiation and a site built." Reiser said that even 20 new jobs could make a big difference. Butte Mayor Cindy Schroetlin said the judgment is only going to compound problems for Boyd County and other rural counties. The site selected was near Butte. "Where's that money going to come from but us taxpayers?" she said. "They can't balance the budget now - they're taking money away from our schools. This is something that could have been avoided. It wasn't a perfect or ideal environmental development option, but what is?" Kopf's ruling came on a hot, sunny day at the end of a drought-stricken growing season. Fisher and Reiser, like many of the area's ranchers and cattle feeders, were rushing to put up a thin crop of hay or chopping cornstalks for cattle feed. As the radioactive-waste controversy raged over 15 years, children have grown up and moved away and parents have become grandparents. Boyd County's population has dropped from more than 2,800 in 1990 to close to 2,400 in 2000. Those interviewed from both sides said the waste-site controversy transformed their lives and their communities. Fisher, for example, became a political activist who had two sitting governors come talk to him across his kitchen table. Mildred Tiefenthaler, a farmer's widow, recalled traveling to Lincoln several times to testify against the disposal facility, which would have been built across the road from her family farmstead. She said the scars over the controversy linger. "It's just a different feeling in the community, among the people," she said. "It's quite obvious we're all trying to put it behind us. But you know how it is, it doesn't go away." ©2002 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright ***************************************************************** 22 Hanford on schedule in waste-tank cleanup The Seattle Times: Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Nicholas K. Geranios The Associated Press SPOKANE — Workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation have reached a major milestone in cleaning up the former nuclear weapons production site, officials said yesterday. More than 2-1/2 million gallons of liquid radioactive wastes have now been removed from older underground tanks, leaving 550,000 gallons to be removed by 2004. "We're going to get that last 550,000 gallons out of the ground," vowed Ed Aromi, president of CH2M Hill Hanford Group, the main contractor on the tank farm. The Energy Department was facing a Sept. 30 deadline imposed in a consent decree after the state complained about the slow pace of Hanford cleanup. Hanford officials said they beat the deadline, which called for only 18 percent of liquid wastes to remain in the single-walled tanks, by two days. But the state Department of Ecology said it will need several days to verify that the goal was achieved. "We have to go over their records," said Sheryl Hutchison, a department spokeswoman. "It gets really complicated really fast." Hanford officials said of the approximately 3 million gallons of liquid nuclear wastes, just over 1 million had been pumped out of older tanks between 1998 and last November. But an additional 1.25 million gallons have been pumped out since. There are 16 of 149 single-walled tanks that still contain some pumpable liquid wastes, Hanford officials said. Fifteen of those tanks are already being pumped, and work at the last tank is scheduled to begin this month. The goal is to have only 2 percent of the liquid remaining in single-walled tanks by Sept. 30, 2003, Hanford officials said. The liquid wastes are pumped into newer and safer double-walled tanks. They will be stored there as work continues on a multibillion-dollar plant to convert those wastes into glass logs for eventual burial in Nevada. Meanwhile, the Energy Department is now preparing to inject water and chemicals into the sludge at the bottom of the pumped tanks to loosen it enough to be pumped out. When pumping is no longer effective, the remaining sludge will be covered with a bonding material and the tank will be filled with a material like sand and gravel. Then the tank will be declared closed, Hanford officials said. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 23 Nebraska: Waste-site timeline Omaha.com October 1, 2002 *1980 and 1985:* Congress approves and later amends legislation requiring states to find sites to store low-level radioactive waste, such as tools and clothing from nuclear power plants and hospitals. *1983:* Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kansas form the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. *1987:* The Central Interstate Compact selects Nebraska as the host state for the proposed waste repository. *1989:* An area near Butte, Neb., in Boyd County is selected as the site for the facility. It is chosen over sites in Nuckolls and Nemaha Counties. *1993:* Nebraska announces its intent to deny a license application for the facility because the site contains wetlands and has poor drainage. Later, state officials withdraw their intent to deny a license after US Ecology redraws the site, reducing its size to 110 acres, to avoid wetlands. *August 1998:* The state issues a preliminary decision to deny a license. *December 1998:* The compact sues, saying Nebraska should honor its contractual commitments. *April 1999:* U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issues a preliminary injunction barring the state from collecting or spending more of the utilities' money on the site. He said it appeared that the state acted in bad faith in denying the license. *June 2002: *An eight-week trial begins in U.S. District Court. *Sept. 10:* Kopf hears closing arguments. *Sept. 30:* Kopf issues a $151 million judgment against the State of Nebraska. ©2002 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright ***************************************************************** 24 Nuke suit: Nebraska State told to pay up / Lincoln Journal Star A federal judge on Monday ordered the state to pay $151 million in damages upon finding former Gov. Ben Nelson orchestrated efforts to undermine a proposed radioactive warehouse in northeast Nebraska. U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf said Nelson, now a U.S. senator, oversaw a warehouse licensing process "littered" with evidence of bad faith. "Governor Nelson, either directly or though his subordinates, influenced the process in order to fulfill a campaign promise which required that the license be denied without regard to the technical merits,"the judge wrote. "Frankly, I cannot conceive of a stronger case of bad faith in the performance of a contract." Nelson, in a written statement, bitterly denounced the ruling. He maintained the state denied the license because the warehouse would have posed a threat to the environment and because its proposed developer, US Ecology, was nearly broke. "Judge Kopf's decision is both disappointing and expected," Nelson said. "I held out hope for an unbiased consideration of the facts of the case even after the court blocked a trial by jury." Gov. Mike Johanns also denounced the decision and said in a news conference the state would appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as early as today. He said Kopf's 194-page memorandum and order left the state with "solid ground for appeal." Meanwhile, Alan Peterson, attorney for the five-state compact commission that wanted to build the warehouse, hailed the decision. "In general, they (the commission members) are elated with the decision," he said in an interview. "This opinion is very eloquent and very strong and very clear and speaks for itself." Although Kopf denied a request from the commission -- formally known as the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission -- to appoint an independent body to relicense the warehouse, Peterson said his clients could still attempt to build the facility. Johanns in the news conference said actual construction of the warehouse had become "quite irrelevant." "I think the site is dead," he said. Responded Peterson:"I don't know where he's (Johanns) getting that from. It's up to the commission to decide that issue." He said a final decision on whether to pursue a license has not been made. Monday's decision was the culmination of events that sprang from a 1980 federal order directing states to either construct low-level nuclear waste warehouses or form compacts with other states to store the materials. Low-level waste includes materials generated by nuclear power plants, hospitals, doctor's offices and universities. In 1983 Nebraska joined a waste compact with Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. Four years later, the compact's governing body, the five-member commission, selected Nebraska as the host state. Boyd County, near the South Dakota border, was later selected as host county. Although some Boyd County residents favored the warehouse, others opposed its construction on environmental and other grounds. The proposed warehouse also became the subject of a number of lawsuits filed in federal court by Nebraska or warehouse opponents against the commission or US Ecology. Five of those lawsuits were dismissed in favor of the defendants. A sixth lawsuit was settled out of court. Moreover, Nelson made the proposed warehouse a part of his 1990 gubernatorial campaign. In the order Monday, Kopf noted Nelson's campaign promise, reported by The Associated Press, that construction of the warehouse "is not likely" if he were elected governor. "To the extent that Nelson now denies making the statement, that denial is not credible," Kopf wrote. State officials announced in December 1998 they intended to deny US Ecology's license application. The officials cited the potential for groundwater contamination and concerns about the the contractor's financial health. Later that month, the nuclear waste generators, which had spent roughly $90 million trying to get the warehouse built, sued the state in federal court on "bad faith" allegations. On appeal, the 8th Circuit dismissed the generators as plaintiffs, but allowed the commission, which had joined the lawsuit in 1999, to continue suing the state. The lawsuit went to trial in July, lasted some eight weeks and generated millions of pages of evidence and testimony from dozens of witnesses, including Nelson. Kopf, in his ruling Monday, said he was particularly persuaded by evidence of Nelson's interference in the licensing process as well as statements attributable to members of his administration; among them Kate Allen, a low-level waste policy analyst. Allen, who in a 1991 memo said Nelson calls her "Waste Woman," was known within the administration as being biased against the warehouse. "`Waste woman's conduct while working for the State of Nebraska was the very essence of bad faith, and the Nelson administration knew of it, tolerated it and, alas, encouraged her," Kopf wrote. Roughly one-third of the $151 million is for pre-judgment interest. Peterson said his clients got "nearly every dime" they asked for, including roughly $12.2 million for US Ecology's contribution to the licensing process. He said the commission will not seek attorney's fees. The judgment also did not include the state's expenditures on private legal fees. That figure could reach $15 million or more. Johanns said the cost of an appeal would be "a large number" but would be small in comparison to the cost of fighting the lawsuit. In addition, Kopf wrote in a separate order Monday that a final ruling on the waste generators' cross-claim against the commission was premature. Most of the money the commission channeled to the state came from the generators. Tom Johnson, an attorney for the generators, said he believed the generators would eventually be compensated. Johanns said the state would raise several issues on appeal. Those include the judge's decision to not try the case before a jury and his "unprecedented" award of monetary damages for an administrative hearing. Rather than award damages, Kopf should have ordered the licensing process to begin anew, he said. "What the judge said was, there's no possibility whatsoever of getting a fair result in Nebraska," Johanns said. In addition, the governor questioned how Kopf could reach the bad-faith finding without deciding whether the proposed site should have been licensed on the merits. "I would be foolish not to direct an appeal in this case," he said. Reach Butch Mabin at 473-7234 or bmabin@journalstar.com. Copyright © 2002, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 25 Canada: Court ruling shuts down uranium mine www.sen.ca.gov [http://www.sen.ca.gov] © Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 28 Letter: Government is trespassing Las Vegas SUN Today: October 01, 2002 at 9:08:25 PDT What does the 1987 "Screw Nevada" legislation have in common with the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty? Both involve tyranny and deception on the part of the federal government! The 1987 legislation was against Nevada and Nevadans, and the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty legislation effort was against the Western Shoshone Nation. Both involve Yucca Mountain, which, under the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, is included as Western Shoshone land. Phone Senator Harry Reid and Senator John Ensign to get an explanation of their efforts to force the Western Shoshone Nation to accept compensation. Under the treaty there is a cloud on the title to Yucca Mountain. The DOE is trespassing! The Western Shoshone Nation has rights to Yucca Mountain under the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty. FRANK PERNA All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 29 Federal judge fines Nebraska $151 million in nuclear waste dump fight - 10/1/2002 - ENN.com Tuesday, October 01, 2002 By Kevin O'Hanlon, Associated Press LINCOLN, Neb. — A federal judge fined Nebraska $151 million Monday for thwarting a plan to open a radioactive waste dump in a remote county. U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf agreed with utilities and other states that sued former Gov. Ben Nelson, accusing him of acting in bad faith when he refused to issue a license for the multistate dump in 1998. "Nebraska breached its good-faith obligation under the contract," the judge wrote. He added, "I hope that this opinion will not be misused for partisan political purposes. Nebraskans have had quite enough of that self-serving behavior." The state is expected to appeal, and the dispute could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Nelson was governor from 1991 to 1999 and was elected to the Senate in 2000. He was not governor when the state joined a multistate compact to create a dump or when the other states picked Nebraska to host the site. The dump, which was supposed to be in Butte along the South Dakota state line, was intended to store low-level radioactive waste from Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Such waste includes contaminated tools and clothing from nuclear power plants, hospitals, and research centers. The state argued during a trial that Nebraska denied the license because of pollution concerns and a high water table near the proposed site. Kopf noted comments Nelson made about the dump while campaigning for governor in 1990. "As a candidate, Ben Nelson promised that 'If I am elected governor, it is not likely that there will be a nuclear dump in Boyd County,'" the judge wrote. Kopf also noted that while running for the Senate, "Nelson proudly claimed that 'I kept the nuclear waste out of Nebraska.'" Nelson denied acting in bad faith. "I held out hope for an unbiased consideration of the facts," he said. "The state has acted in good faith since the inception of the compact in the mid-1980's, and I am confident that on appeal Nebraskans will receive a fair hearing and the judgment will be overturned," he said in a statement. Alan Peterson, a lawyer for the compact, had no immediate comment. The battle had its genesis decades ago, when Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington grew tired of accepting low-level radioactive waste from the rest of the country. Congress told states in 1980 to build their own dumps or join regional groups to dispose of the waste. Copyright 2002, Associated Press Copyright © 2001 Environmental News Network Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 Nebraska Sen. Nelson outlines stance on waste site McCook Gazette McCook, Nebraska, 69001 09/30/02 Gloria Masoner, City Editor Respond to this story [cityed@ocsmccook.com] Email this story to a friend U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson began a 40-minute teleconference call he made Thursday by expressing his sympathies to the city of Norfolk. Nelson said he received the news of the five deaths at U.S. Bank in Norfolk shortly after it had happened and had been monitoring the situation throughout the day. Nelson told a representative of the Norfolk Daily News that his office was ready to do anything needed to help the community get through the trying times. Nelson’s office scheduled the teleconference to discuss the upcoming court decision on the lawsuit over the low-level nuclear waste site in Butte. He explained the events leading up to the lawsuit and his predictions of the outcome of the lawsuit brought by the compact. The state of Nebraska denied a license for the site in 1998, citing concerns over groundwater and the financial instability of the developer, U.S. Ecology. Following the denial, Omaha Public Power District; Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operation Corp. of Delaware filed suit against the state. The compact, consisting of the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas along with U.S. Ecology joined the suit, saying the state’s decision not to license the facility was based on politics and not sound scientific findings. In August 2001, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf ruled the five energy generators could not sue the state for their losses. Nelson said he believes that decision should release the state from any monetary damage awards since the two remaining plaintiffs did not suffer any financial loss. Nelson, who was Nebraska Governor at the time of the denial, continues to assert the license denial was not based on anything but sound scientific facts and said if he had it to do all over again, “I would not have handled it differently. I made it clear from the very beginning that the state was going to go through the process by the book,” and that is the way it happened, he said. “I don’t know what could have been done differently.” Although, he said, “If I’d had my druthers, I would have rather they found the right site in the first place.” Both the compact and U.S. Ecology have requested the judge appoint a special master to renew the licensing process. Nelson said he didn’t believe a special master would approve the license. “It’s hard for me to believe that any other licensing process would give a different finding,” he said. “The fact is, there’s still a wetland area on the proposed site and there’s still a contractor that’s financially unable to perform its duties.” Nelson said he hopes the state will win the case, but even if it doesn’t there will be no need for anyone to “pull out their checkbook,” he said. Whatever Judge Kopf’s decision, the loser of the case is likely to appeal, he said. Nelson said he believes the case will eventually end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, but that could take several years. After new legislation was passed in Nebraska to withdraw from the Compact in 2004, Nelson said the state would have no regulatory authority over the site and would not be allowed to use it. But that would only happen if a special master approved licensing the site. Nelson said he believes that will be a non-issue since new technology has greatly reduced the amount of waste produced. “This type of site is most likely obsolete.” Since the U.S. developed the compact system in 1980, there have been no low-level nuclear waste sites built and only one site has been licensed. That site, in California, was never built. Nelson and his family are in McCook this weekend for the city’s annual Heritage Days Celebration. The Nelson family has been named this year’s Honor Family. ***************************************************************** 31 Uranium mining legislation is too confusing: Ralph. 1/10/2002. ABC News Online The Gunjehmi Aboriginal Corporation has told a Senate Inquiry, into the environmental regulation of uranium mining, that current regulations are inadequate. The corporation's Andy Ralph, representing the Mirrar people, said the mix of Northern Territory and Federal legislation regulating mining at Ranger and Jabiluka is complex, confusing and inconsistent. Mr Ralph said there was no point including Jabiluka in the inquiry because the Mirrar people would continue to oppose the mine on cultural and environmental grounds. He told the inquiry the traditional owners want new, all encompassing Federal legislation to regulate uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers region. © 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 32 Bush's Nuclear Gamble Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:17:51 -0500 (CDT) The Bush administration has convinced many Americans that an invasion of Iraq is needed to reduce the threat of terrorists getting hold of a nuclear bomb. But the reality could be just the opposite: an invasion could hasten the day that the Bomb falls into al-Qaeda's hands. For a look at this doomsday possibility that is nearly absent from the U.S. war debate, go to Consortiumnews.com at http://www.consortiumnews.com _______________________________________________________________________ Powered by List Builder To unsubscribe follow the link: http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/sp?c=13595&s=C0937926CCE254AA&m=188 ***************************************************************** 33 Administration shouldn't rush to judgment in Iraq The Seattle Times: Tuesday, October 01, 2002, 12:00 a.m. Pacific Guest columnist By Edward Wenk Jr. Special to The Times In harsh, combative and unequivocal English, President Bush demands that Congress concur on use of military force to bring about a regime change in Iraq. To eliminate risks of Iraq using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, we should wage war to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The president argued at the United Nations that since its defeat in 1991 after an unprovoked attack on Kuwait, Iraq has violated numerous U.N. resolutions that were intended to reduce risk of catastrophe to other nations, and to foster human rights in Iraq and its neighborhood. Indeed, Saddam is dangerous. The question before Congress, however, is not as simple as war or peace. The president has offered no evidence that the danger is immediate, that Iraq was complicit in the 9/11 disaster, or that Iraq's threat is unmistakable. The president seems afraid to consult the good judgment of the American people, and the Congress is being steam-rollered into a hasty decision without examining the unintended consequences that could be tragic. Consider these: • War on Iraq diverts attention from priorities to deal with continuing and credible threats from al-Qaida cells distributed worldwide. Intelligence agencies failed with early warning before 9/11, and doubts continue that breakdowns have been fixed. A year later, the president finally called for an independent investigation because the weaknesses are so troubling. • The president is advocating a radical change in national-security policy, from contain-and-deter to preemption. On its own, that precedent deserves intense study. Other nations could follow to suit their geopolitical convenience with enormous danger to world order — over Kashmir, for example. • The "collateral damage" of war is incalculable, with possibly massive civilian casualties, opening the "gates of Hell" on the Arab street so as to precipitate support for al-Qaida from Tunis to Indonesia, and thus trigger more terrorism against our mainland. • War could readily stir retaliation against Israel as our only ally within range of Iraqi missiles, as happened in the 1990-91 war. • The United Nations has been put on notice by the president to move swiftly with a new resolution under its charter in response to Iraq's documented violations of past actions. It would seem disrespectful to that body and to its members to jump the gun. • Indeed, the U.S. embarking further on unilateralism, as it has recently with several treaties, may undermine partnerships so vital to a concerted and successful war on terrorism. • The president's resolution is open-ended on targets he selects, not just Iraq, and on our possible use of nuclear arms. Our prior use against Japan had a rationale not at all present now. • The economic as well as social costs of engaging in immediate war have not been fully explored, recalling that much of the 1991 cost was borne by allies. We are still vibrating from impacts on the economy of 9/11 and loss in confidence in government's discipline of bad actors. • Plans have not been publicized, if indeed formulated, on post-victory commitments — helping to rebuild damage to Iraqi infrastructure, compensating innocent victims, cooling civil strife among the Shiites, Sunnis and ethnic Kurds, and fostering new leadership committed to democracy. Our follow-through in Afghanistan is not encouraging. • A declaration of war would be a major distraction from a portfolio of issues and financial demands deserving of congressional attention. In short, assertions by the administration of a clear and present danger are not convincing. A rush to judgment carries a host of perils. Let Congress apply common sense nourished by recall of dangers when driving a car in heavy traffic. When threats are ambiguous, we slow down. Defensive driving may have its counterpart in diplomacy. We, the people, should encourage the Congress to act, but only after listening to all sides of the many issues. Edward Wenk Jr. is emeritus professor of engineering, public affairs and social management of technology at the University of Washington. He was the first science adviser to Congress and a science policy adviser to presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 34 NZ: Saddam's no Doctor Evil /Gwynne Dyer:/ 01.10.2002 Cartoon villains have no need of complex personalities or even motives; they're pure evil. From the Joker in the old Batman comics to Evil the Cat in Earthworm Jim, they seek to destroy our hero and conquer the universe simply because evil is their vocation. Saddam Hussein's image in Western propaganda is a lot like that. The 50-page dossier, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, published by the British Government last week, is a major attempt to persuade the sceptical British public (and the even more sceptical Governments of America's other allies) that there is an urgent need to overthrow Saddam. It avoids most of the tricks of language and blatant manipulation of facts that contaminate comparable United States efforts, trades on the reputation of British intelligence - and still fails to convince. Nowhere, for example, is there a single mention of al-Qaeda. (But if there are no known links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, why is dealing with Saddam a more urgent issue this year than last?) It warns that Iraq could build nuclear weapons within a couple of years if it got its hands on fissile material (but fails to mention that so could any other country bigger than Costa Rica, or that there are already elaborate and effective controls to stop fissile materials reaching Iraq). The British intelligence analysts did their best to come up with alarming facts to please their political masters, but they refused to compromise their basic integrity, so the report is really quite reassuring. For example, on nuclear weapons: "In early 2002 the Joint Intelligence Committee judged that ... while UN sanctions on Iraq remain effective Iraq would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon. If they were removed or proved ineffective, it would take Iraq at least five years to produce sufficient fissile material for a weapon indigenously ... " What the report evades entirely is analysis of Iraq's strategy: why has Saddam pursued "weapons of mass destruction" for over 20 years? By not addressing the question of what rational reasons he might have for wanting nuclear weapons, the war party in Washington and London hopes to leave the impression that he is like Evil the Cat: pure, unmotivated, boundless malevolence. US and British propaganda try to reinforce this by stressing Saddam's unquestioned ruthlessness towards opponents. A favourite accusation is that "he gassed his own people", a reference to his Army's 1988 attack on the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja, which killed 3200 to 5000 civilians. What they omit is that it was the last year of the Iran-Iraq war, and Baghdad believed that Iranian troops were still occupying the town. Iraqi forces did not know the Iranians had gone and the civilians had returned. Washington and London also fail to mention that they were both perfectly well aware that Saddam was illegally using chemical weapons against Iran throughout the war, and repeatedly co-operated at the United Nations to stymie attempts to get Security Council resolutions explicitly condemning their protege for his crimes. The whole era when the Reagan Administration treated Saddam as a de facto US ally and even secretly lent him US Air Force officers to help to plan his (poison-gas-drenched) offensives against Iran has been dropped down the memory hole. Then he was a useful thug that the US could work with; now he is a berserk monster. Saddam is, indeed, a cruel dictator who crushes all opposition, but there is no evidence that he seeks to overrun the region, let alone "destroy civilisation" (as one US official recently alleged). His attacks on Iran and Kuwait, criminal and stupid though they were, grew out of border disputes dating back long before he took power. As for his quest for nuclear weapons, it makes perfectly good sense in terms of the region's politics. In his clumsy, brutal way, Saddam has always aspired to lead the Arab world both against Israel and towards unity: his real dream is to be the new Nasser. The Arabs' biggest perceived problem for 20 years has been their hopeless military inferiority to Israel, and the biggest single reason is that Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and no Arab state has any. A handful of Iraqi nuclear weapons would transform the strategic balance in the region. Given the certainty of massive Israeli retaliation, they would not give Saddam (who has never shown suicidal tendencies) the ability to carry out a first strike against Israel, but they might deter an Israeli nuclear attack in a crisis, and they would make Saddam the most popular man in the Arab world. This (but nothing worse) might come to pass five or 10 years from now if UN sanctions were lifted tomorrow with no further controls, and if Saddam lived that long. But the controls are in place, and a low-risk containment strategy has worked reasonably well for over a decade now. Americans and their allies are being asked to go to war to fix what isn't broken, and one inevitably starts to wonder what other agendas are running here. * Gwynne Dyer is a London independent journalist. ©Copyright 2002, New Zealand Herald ***************************************************************** 35 Full Text of Senators' Iraq Resolution The New York Times Politics October 1, 2002* /Following is the full text from a resolution on removing weapons of mass destruction, presented by Senators Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, that is being offered as an alternative to the Bush administration proposal on the issue./ S.J. Res. -------- Authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council seeking to enforce the destruction and dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missiles program or pursuant to the United States right of individual or collective self-defense if the Security Council fails to act. Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision, its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction program"), as well as its program to develop or acquire ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq's "prohibited ballistic missile program"), and undertook unconditionally not to develop any such weapons thereafter. Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United Nations Security Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687, most recently in Resolution 1284, which established a new weapons inspection regime to ensure Iraqi compliance with its obligations under Resolution 687; Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United States and the United Nations Security Council have condemned Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under Resolution 687 to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; Whereas Iraq under Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in its war with Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq in 1988; Whereas since 1990, the United States has considered Iraq to be a state sponsor of terrorism; Whereas Iraq's failure to comply with its international obligations to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program, its record of using weapons of mass destruction, its record of using force against neighboring states, and its support for international terrorism require a strong diplomatic, and if necessary, military response by the international community, led by the United States: Now, therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces. (a) Authorization for the Use of Force. - The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate - (1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or (2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program. (b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that - (1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1). Section 3. Consultation and reports (a) Consultation. - The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed on matters relevant to this joint resolution. (b) Initial Report. - (1) As soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after exercising the authority under subsection 2(a), the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth information - (A) about the degree to which other nations will assist the United States in the use of force in Iraq; (B) regarding measures the United States is taking, or preparing to take, to protect key allies in the region from armed attack by Iraq; and (C) on planning to establish a secure environment in the immediate aftermath of the use of force (including estimated expenditures by the United States and allied nations), and, if necessary, prepare for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq following the use of force. (2) Classification of report. - The report required by paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified form. (c) Subsequent Reports. - Following transmittal of the report required by subsection (b), the President shall submit a report to Congress every 60 days thereafter on the status of United States diplomatic, military and reconstruction operations with respect to Iraq. Section 4. War Powers Resolution Requirements (a) Specific statutory authorization- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that section 2 is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (b) Applicability of other requirements. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 36 New mission for Trident sub: Navy will remove nuclear warheads The Seattle Times: Local News: October 01, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific By J.J. Jensen GREG GILBERT / THE SEATTLE TIMES USS Ohio Master Chief Jim Flint walks on the bow of the submarine as it cruises south in Hood Canal. Yesterday was the Ohio's last day on duty before the sub goes to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton in the next few weeks for a refitting. ABOARD THE USS OHIO — If the USS Ohio were to launch one of its nuclear warheads, it would have the capability of destroying an area the size of Western Washington. Fortunately, the submarine served its purpose and never had to. Many Navy brass say the sobering power of the Ohio, and the seven other Ohio-class Trident submarines, were a large part of why the United States emerged victorious from the Cold War. Now, as regional conflict has become a more pressing threat than nuclear annihilation, the Navy is redefining the Trident mission. In the very near future, the four oldest Ohio-class submarines will be transformed into modern street fighters. The Ohio will be first. Within the next few weeks, the Ohio will travel to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton. There, it will be refitted to launch conventional tactical weapons, such as Tomahawk missiles, and will be equipped with submersible vehicles to carry Navy SEAL teams between the sub and shore. In addition to its normal crew of 160 sailors and officers, the submarine will be able to transport as many as 66 SEALs. "You gain a tremendous amount of utility," said Duane Baker, commanding officer at Bangor Submarine Base, the Ohio's home port for 20 years. "And the other beauty is because Tomahawks have such a long range, you can put them just about anywhere and point them in a place to reach people who act like they deserve it." Alas, the Ohio's role as a deterrent to nuclear war came to an end in the chill morning hours yesterday in the waters of Hood Canal and Dabob Bay. GREG GILBERT / THE SEATTLE TIMES USS Ohio crew members carry magnetic numbers and letters on the submarine in Hood Canal yesterday as the sub headed to its home port at Bangor after a 70-day mission. Prior to returning to its home port on the Kitsap Peninsula, the Ohio concluded its 65th patrol, the most of all the Tridents, with some missile-launch drills. The Ohio went out with a bang. In the past year, it was honored as the No. 1 unit in the Pacific with the Arleigh Burke Trophy. It also won recognition as the top ship in the Pacific in battle, tactical, strategic and navigation performance. "It's cool to be a part of the last patrol as a Trident," Lt. j.g. Steve Stage said. "It's a unique honor not many can say they did." Being on a submarine with such destructive capabilities was not without its perils, however, said missile technician Adam Stein. "This is a nuclear-weapons system we work with every day," he said. "There's not one moment that goes by that we can't take our job extremely seriously." Though the Tridents will be losing their nuclear weapons, they'll continue to be machines of mass destruction nonetheless. The refitted submarines will have the capability of carrying 154 Tomahawks, the same as an entire battle group. The idea to convert the four oldest Ohio-class submarines — the Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia — came after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when Congress approved a new defense-spending bill. The cost of converting the subs, which have enough nuclear power to last another 20 years, is estimated at $3.4 billion, said Baker. To create a new class of four submarines would take 13 years and cost several billion dollars per ship. The Ohio's conversion from a ballistic-missile submarine to a guided-missile submarine could be completed within 18 months, and by 2007, it is anticipated all four submarines will be available to the Navy. Two will sail from Bangor. GREG GILBERT / THE SEATTLE TIMES USS Ohio crewman Daniel Nunez, right, gives his 10-week-old baby daughter, Kayanna, a hug as his wife, Tera, looks on yesterday. The Trident submarine completed a 70-day patrol yesterday. Upon hearing of the Ohio's final patrol, Bainbridge Island's Don Hill, who served on its first patrol, rushed to Bangor for its homecoming. Dressed as "Scooter the Clown," he entertained young children at the pier, but was also there to pay his respects. "Everybody who goes out has a tough job," he said. "It's all hard, no matter what you do, but with these guys, it's all silent and you don't know what they do. You can step off the boat, but the boat never steps off you." Also greeting the crew of the Ohio after its 70-day patrol were the Navy band and about 100 wives, girlfriends, children and other relatives. Pam Dreyer, 22, of Bremerton immediately engaged husband Chris Dreyer, 23, an electrician on the sub, in the type of kiss you only see in chewing-gum commercials. "We're very proud of him," she said. "It takes a lot for a serviceman to be away from his family and protect the United States." J.J. Jensen: 206-464-2386 or jjensen@seattletimes.com [jjensen@seattletimes.com] . [http://www.seattletimescompany.com/] ***************************************************************** 37 Nuclear nonproliferation needs teeth -- The Washington Times October 1, 2002 Gordon Prather      President Bush has demanded that the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) authorize the forcible removable of Saddam Hussein if the United States cannot be assured, by a date certain, that Iraq is in complete compliance with various Gulf War-related UNSC resolutions.      The UNSC refused similar demands by President Clinton back in 1998. Are they any more likely to do it now? Well, that depends upon what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team finds when it re-enters Iraq next month.      Following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, the UNSC did invoke Chapter VII, Article 42 of the U.N. Charter, authorizing the "coalition of states cooperating with Kuwait" to forcibly eject the Iraqi aggressors. That accomplished, a Kuwaiti-Iraqi cease-fire was obtained, wherein Iraq — the aggressor nation — agreed to abide by various UNSC resolutions.      Before the Gulf War, it was known that Iraq was in violation of U.N. chemical and biological weapons conventions. But the discovery of Iraq's massive violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was sobering, to put it mildly.      The UNSC can impose sanctions for violations of U.N. conventions, such as the NPT, and may — if it can be shown that the violations result in immediate danger to other nations — authorize the use of force to remove the danger.      The UNSC did impose economic sanctions on Iraq and directed the IAEA — which is responsible for verifying NPT compliance — to oversee the destruction of Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.      Here are excerpts from the IAEA Action Team assessment of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, as of December 1998:      • There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons.      • There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.      • There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material.      • All the "safeguarded" research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.      • There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.      Hence, by the end of 1998, Iraq's nuclear infrastructure had been completely destroyed, and continuous real-time monitoring systems were being installed at all NPT-relevant sites in Iraq.      Other U.N. inspectors reported that Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capability had been substantially destroyed.      Upon receiving these "final" reports of arms-destruction, UNSC members Russia and France attempted to get the UNSC sanctions lifted. Mr. Clinton vetoed that. Instead, over the vigorous objections of Russia and France, Mr. Clinton attempted regime change in Iraq from 20,000 feet, a la Bosnia.      Failing, Mr. Clinton belatedly sought UNSC authorization for forcible regime change. Russia and France refused that, but did allow — in return for partial lifting of sanctions — the establishment of a new regime to monitor Iraqi activities and verify that nuclear and chemical/biological weapons programs are not reconstituted.      Now, most Americans will support a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq if — and only if — Saddam has nuclear weapons and intends to give them to terrorists. They don't much care whether Saddam beats his wives, or grows "wheat smut" in his basement. It's nukes they care about.      With President Bush holding a gun at his head, Saddam has now agreed to allow all U.N. inspectors immediate and unfettered access to Iraq. The IAEA could be on the job by mid-October.      But, having forced Saddam to admit the IAEA Action Team, Mr. Bush is now attempting to keep it out. He shouldn't.      Here's why. Suppose the IAEA finds that Saddam hasn't jump-started his nuclear weapons program. Our troops can all be home for Christmas. But the IAEA will remain there indefinitely, verifying that Iraq stays in compliance with the NPT, long after the Gulf War sanctions are lifted.      But suppose the IAEA discovers Saddam has restarted his nuclear weapons program. Then the UNSC will almost certainly authorize a U.S.-enforced regime-change in Iraq, and our troops will all be in Baghdad for Christmas.      Either way, Mr. Bush will have put some teeth in the NPT, and the world will thank him for it. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is our last best hope for preventing rogue nations — not just Iraq — and terrorists — not just al Qaeda — from nuking you and yours in your jammies.       Gordon Prather was a nuclear physicist at Sandia National Laboratory, a national security adviser to Senator Henry Bellmon, and a Reagan appointee in the Pentagon. ***************************************************************** 38 A Glowing Endorsement For Hideout The Salt Lake Tribune -- Monday, September 30, 2002 BY KURT KRAGTHORPE None of this would have happened without radioactive soil. The 2,200 residents of Monticello in southeastern Utah have a golf course that rivals any municipal facility in the state, paid for by the federal government. The Hideout Golf Club opened recently, thanks to a $6.5 million buyout that covered the cleanup and restoration of a former uranium mill site on the other side of Highway 191. Monticello took the money, contracted for the remediation and built a golf course. The 18-hole Hideout replaced Blue Mountain Meadows, a nine-hole course that was a lot like the town: friendly, unassuming and relaxing, but not spectacular. The new course offers the same views and some of the old charm, with a stunning design for a rural setting. Even having toured the course during construction in the summer of 2001, I was unprepared for the grown-in version. Every hole is its own adventure. Forrest Richardson, The Hideout's Phoenix-based architect, was thrilled with this site. No wonder. The land includes five distinct segments, with ravines, natural washes, elevation changes and varying vegetation. If the old course was open and inviting, The Hideout -- including one original hole -- is demanding. The holes are not terribly long, but require strategy and accuracy from start to finish. The par-3s are all a little intimidating, until golfers discover where they can miss. The shorter par-4s may be the toughest, with sloping fairways and greens on perches. The par-5 fairways widen and tighten, so players have to think about position on each shot. Several greens, as designed by Jack Snyder (Richardson's partner and the original nine's architect), make otherwise easier holes more difficult. Richardson built the climbs mostly from the greens to the tees, so walking is strenuous in spots. The trade-off is hitting from elevated tees, highlighting the mountain views. Richardson is an expert in routing, concerned as much about the flow of the course as designing the holes themselves, and one of his tricks is hinting at what's to come. The nines intersect, giving golfers glimpses of future holes. After all of the twists and turns in funding and construction, the course had to survive one of the worst droughts in the area's history. Reactivating four city-owned wells and rationing water allowed officials to get the front nine through the summer, while delaying the opening of the back nine until late August. Just then, the rains came. "That saved us," said Seth Allison, the course's golf professional. The weather was just another part of The Hideout's saga. The plan was to leave the original nine in place and build nine new holes on the mill site. Richardson worked on a new nine, but the loss of vegetation in the cleanup spoiled his design. A big break came when Ray Jensen, a high school teacher, donated 120 acres of land adjoining Blue Mountain Meadows. That's when the project moved back across the road, and Richardson delivered an 18-hole design. Even in the rare position of owning a course with no debt service, Monticello needs outside traffic. That's why city officials supported the project, hoping to make a destination of a town tourists usually pass through on the way to other attractions. Already, the course is the most publicized in Utah. In 1999, Golf Journal, the magazine of the United States Golf Association, commissioned what has become an 11-part story. So the secret is out about The Hideout, and anyone who plays the course will want to come back. And the deer do not seem to mind visitors. I should know better than to judge anything in September -- after driving around Iowa for four days, I was even ready to move there -- but The Hideout hooked me. Walking to the clubhouse from the 18th green, I looked back at the No. 1 fairway (it's wider than the rest, trust me) and wished I could have had another shot at the course. Richardson wants to promote a Four Corners Golf Trail, but this course is one you could play every day for a week. I've always thought there was a lot to be said for radioactivity. kkragthorpe@sltrib.com © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is ***************************************************************** 39 How Saddam Got Weapons of Mass Destruction Posted Sept. 30, 2002 By Kenneth R. Timmerman Recent intelligence information revealing dramatic progress in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program has given a new urgency to U.S. and British efforts to build international support for war with Iraq, according to Iraqi opposition leaders interviewed by Insight in London. The information, from recent defectors and other sources working with the broad-based Iraqi National Congress (INC), indicates that Baghdad has made "a recent breakthrough" in production of the fissile material needed to produce the bomb. It was buttressed on Sept. 24 when the British government released an "unprecedented" white paper based in part on classified intelligence information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. As U.N. inspectors ultimately discovered after several years of investigations in Iraq, the lack of nuclear-weapons materials was the only obstacle that blocked Iraq from joining the nuclear club before the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It remains so today. The warnings from the opposition INC coincide with new assessments of Iraqi weapons programs from independent think tanks. "If Iraq were to acquire material from another country, it is possible that it could assemble a nuclear weapon in months," the Carnegie Endowment in Washington concluded in a recent report. Former Clinton national-security official Gary Samore is more circumspect in a just completed "net assessment" of Iraq's weapons programs for the International Institute for Strategic Affairs in London. While he agrees that Iraq rapidly could assemble a weapon with fissile material from abroad, he doubts Iraq can produce special nuclear material on its own. "That will take much longer, with a relatively higher risk of detection than for chemical- or biological-weapons production," he tells Insight. But the think tanks also admit that they are just guessing. For the last four years there have been no international weapons inspectors in Baghdad. The only hard information on Iraqi weapons programs has come from Iraqi defectors and from U.S. national-technical means, including spy satellites and overflights of Iraq by combat air patrols. The U.S. intelligence community has all but admitted publicly that it has no human sources in Iraq. "We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country," President George W. Bush reminded the United Nations on Sept. 12. "Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?" To credit this regime's good faith is "to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble." A former senior Iraqi intelligence officer tells Insight that information obtained by the INC during the last few months indicates "Iraq has made significant progress recently in uranium enrichment." That conclusion is based on Iraqi purchases of specialized magnets from Germany and aluminum tubes for enrichment centrifuges from South Africa, as well as firsthand reports from defectors and sources in place who have visited new clandestine nuclear- and biological-weapons production sites during the last 18 months. Among those clandestine sites are several new uranium-enrichment plants, INC says. "Iraq is no longer using large, easy-to-spot facilities, but small-scale production plants that fit in small areas," a senior INC official says. According to Insight sources, Iraqi engineers are miniaturizing the bomb design to make it fit onto a missile, using modeling software and fast new computers recently imported through Dubai, and actively enriching uranium using centrifuges and gaseous-diffusion membranes. "Yes, there is a new urgency," says Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the six-man INC leadership committee in London. "We see an acceleration of these programs that shows Saddam is hell-bent on acquiring fissile material not just to build one bomb, but to have a stockpile of weapons," he tells Insight. The Iraqi regime is turning increasingly to South Africa to procure nuclear materials and forbidden equipment needed for its weapons programs, INC sources tell Insight. A top Iraqi intelligence official, Nadhim Jabouri, has been dispatched to the Iraqi embassy in Johannesburg to handle contacts with South African nuclear engineers. He also is in touch with Armscor, the state armaments directorate (also known as Denel), which supplied Iraq with advanced 155 mm howitzers during the Iran-Iraq war. To grease the skids and arrange travel documents, Iraqi procurement agents operating in Amman, Jordan, go through the first secretary of the South African embassy, Shoeman du Plessis. The willingness of the South African government to sell nuclear material and weapons to Iraq, and their fear of getting caught, could explain the virulent outburst by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who told Newsweek recently that the U.S. — not Saddam Hussein — presents "a threat to world peace." The credibility of the INC information was given a new boost in a White House report issued to buttress the president's U.N. speech. The section on Iraqi weapons programs began by citing Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, an Iraqi specialist who visited scores of clandestine weapons sites before defecting to the INC in November 2001. Al-Haideri had become Iraq's top authority in specialized epoxies used to seal minute cracks in concrete structures and clean rooms to prevent leaks that could give away their location. His skills made him an essential partner of Iraq's Special Security Organization, which used him to hide mini-production labs and storage facilities in private houses and other sites across Iraq. When the CIA debriefed him in December 2001, al-Haideri identified 300 separate clandestine sites used by Iraq to hide biological and chemical weapons and nuclear materials. Some of the equipment was hidden in lead containers stored in fake wells lined with concrete. Al-Haideri said he was called in to seal cracks in the concrete because the Iraqis feared U.S. surveillance satellites would pick up the slightest radioactive emissions. Al-Haideri's access to Iraq's best-kept secrets provided the United States with a "motherlode of intelligence," one source familiar with his debriefing tells Insight. Iraq is so worried about what he told the CIA that a senior official took reporters in early August to a Baghdad site he claimed al-Haideri had identified as a biological-weapons production plant. Instead, the official claimed, it was a "livestock vaccination laboratory." Reporters were shown abandoned monitoring cameras installed by the United Nations. Dust-covered equipment and bottles littered the floor. Pointing to this "evidence," their Iraqi escort claimed that al-Haideri "is lying to the CIA" and was "motivated by our enemies." Early this spring, intelligence analysts in Washington monitoring the progress of Iraq's nuclear-weapons programs were stunned when they discovered plans by a known Iraqi procurement front, al-Wasel &Babel, to purchase large quantities of special aluminum tubes for uranium-enrichment centrifuges. The procurement had been spread over a 14-month period, beginning in mid-2001. The involvement of al-Wasel &Babel set off alarm bells. "This is a known front for the Iraqi intelligence services and their parallel procurement network controlled by Saddam Hussein's son Qusay," the former intelligence officer says. Some shipments quietly were intercepted en route to Iraq, but a large number of the tubes slipped through, according to intelligence sources. Using these special aluminum tubes, Iraq now is believed to be operating a miniature uranium-enrichment "cascade" at a clandestine location, hermetically sealed to prevent telltale emissions. Al-Wasel &Babel is a joint venture between the Lootah group in Dubai and the Rawame family, an Iraqi clan with close ties to Saddam Hussein, that operates primarily out of Jordan. Their agent in Baghdad, Jamil al Hajaj, hand-delivers tasking messages from the regime to procurement agents operating outside of Iraq. Al-Wasel &Babel previously has been identified by U.S. intelligence as a conduit for clandestine purchases of Japanese fiber-optic cable through China. When Insight called the group's commercial manager in the city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, a Pakistani named Sabr Montaz al-Qoreishi, we were told that al-Hajaj was arriving from Baghdad on Sept. 14. Al Wasel &Babel is registered with the United Nations as a legitimate partner in oil-for-food deals and reportedly has handled close to $900 million of Iraqi government contracts. Money from Iraq's blocked account with the Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP) is routed to al-Wasel's account (No. 104 481 4976) at the al-Riggah branch of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in Dubai, contractual documents obtained by Insight show. The former intelligence officer, who now works with the INC, provided details of the dual networks Iraq has set up to get around the U.N. trade restrictions. For five years he personally ran a procurement network based in Dubai for the Special Security Organization, the elite of Saddam's vast intelligence apparatus in charge of overseas procurement and with hiding key equipment and material for Saddam's weapons programs. He was arrested by the regime in 1998, viciously tortured, then given an injection and dumped on the street. Bleeding from his nose, mouth and stomach, he managed to escape to Northern Iraq and ultimately to Turkey, where human-rights workers treated him successfully for thallium poisoning, a favorite method of the regime for executing its enemies. Saddam's thuggish older son, Uday, controls the first network. Its primary purpose is to flood the U.N. sanctions committee with export requests to trigger the release of funds from the escrow account with the BNP in New York City where since 1991 the proceeds from Iraq's oil revenues have been deposited. In some cases, the former officer said, Uday uses cutouts and middlemen to sign fictitious contracts with European companies for goods such as food and medicine that routinely are approved by the United Nations. "Once the contracts are approved, the money is released from the escrow account," he says. "Iraq then pays the company up to 40 percent for the paperwork, and lets them keep the goods. Saddam desperately needs the 60 percent in cash for forbidden goods and could care less about food or medicine." French exporters, interviewed by Insight, explained yet another finesse of Saddam's commercial network. They said they had been approached by an Iraqi front company known as ALIA, based in the Garden district of Amman, Jordan. "Uday uses ALIA to squeeze a 10 percent commission from exporters that gets kicked back to the regime," an exporter tells Insight. Large companies such as Renault Vehicules Industriels, Schneider Electric SA and Dow Agrosciences have used ALIA to sell several hundred million dollars worth of U.N.-approved goods to Iraq, according to export documents obtained by Insight. The Iraqi purchases included off-road vehicles, large quantities of specialized pumps and chillers that could be used for uranium enrichment, 2,000-liter and 5,000-liter reactor vessels needed to produce chemical weapons and chemicals for pesticides. All ostensibly were sold for civilian purposes and approved by the U.N. sanctions committee in New York. In France, ALIA also is known as SOFRAG ALIA Development France, according to the documents. It applied to the United Nations for permission to export $1 million worth of oil-well logging equipment to Iraq under an approved program to rebuild Iraqi oil fields. Such equipment is particularly sensitive because it includes neutron generators which U.N. weapons inspectors discovered were key components in the crude gun-implosion nuclear device Iraq had designed and tested before the 1991 gulf war. The availability of dual-use equipment such as neutron generators provides an additional sense of urgency to the United States and Britain in making the case for war against Iraq. This is how Saddam Hussein built his war machine in the 1980s and early 1990s, arms experts and analysts who track the arms industries in developing countries agree. And yet, instead of tightening export controls on such sales, the United Nations dramatically loosened them in May after intense lobbying from France, Germany, China and Russia convinced the State Department to go along. "Before the new rules," one French exporter of agricultural equipment tells Insight, "it took us anywhere between 12 and 18 months to get a contract approved by the U.N. sanctions committee. Now they are required to give us an answer within 10 days, and failure to reply means the contract is automatically approved." Particularly worrying is the loosening of restrictions on high-tech equipment. Goods now available for export to Iraq under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1409, which was adopted in May, include a broad range of equipment with clear military applications — from agricultural sprayers that can be used to disperse biological weapons, to fiber optics and telecommunications hardware that have been used by the Iraqi military to improve and harden its integrated air-defense network. Until recently, state-owned Chinese companies were the main suppliers of fiber-optics gear to Baghdad [see "Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam," Feb. 18]. But new documents obtained by Insight show that Europe's premier technology giants now are getting into the act. Siemens of Germany and Alcatel of France have racked up sales worth several hundred million dollars that recently were approved by the U.N. sanctions committee, directly and through overseas subsidiaries. Both companies were partners of Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization before the 1991 gulf war. Their return to Iraq, albeit under the auspices of providing civilian telecommunications equipment, gives Baghdad access to the most advanced technology currently available in the West. Now, Saddam has agreed to the return of U.N. arms inspectors, but it will take them months to develop the cadres and tradecraft to counter Iraqi deception, Samore believes. Chief arms inspector Hans Blix "is operating with a skeletal staff because he has insisted that experts who come to work for him quit their government jobs to reassure Iraq that they won't engage in intelligence collection." In his previous role as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Blix regularly certified that Iraq was engaged in purely civilian nuclear research, thus allowing Saddam to import massive amounts of nuclear technology, which was used to develop nuclear weapons. But the U.N. sanctions have become irrelevant for another reason. Since 1999 there has been no monitoring of trade across the international land borders with Iraq. "King Abdallah [of Jordan] threw Lloyds of London out of the port of Aqaba, where they were supposed to monitor Iraqi imports," the former Iraqi intelligence officer says. "There are regular convoys of trucks to Baghdad from Jordan, and now a direct rail link from Syria carrying military spare parts and production gear, including equipment needed in Iraq's nuclear-weapons plants." In June, Iraq brought in by rail from the Syrian port of Tartous a shipment of 60 military jet engines to upgrade aging MiG-21 fighters, the source says. More recently, Iraq purchased four Kolchuga air-defense missile batteries from Ukraine and brought them in through Syria. In exchange for its aid, Iraq is supplying Syria with 250,000 barrels of oil per day through the reopened Banias pipeline. Syria uses the Iraqi oil for its domestic consumption, freeing up oil for its own small-scale production to earn hard currency on the export market. In Europe, meanwhile, reaction to Bush's U.N. speech was mixed, with many editorialists claiming the president had "not made the case" for war with Iraq. But, behind the scenes, well-informed sources tell Insight that the fix is in, the result of intensive backroom bargaining during the last six months by administration envoys. One well-informed businessman close to French President Jacques Chirac believes that the French rejection of the U.S.-U.K. war plans is just for show. "What Chirac is really afraid of is losing face," the businessman tells Insight. "Chirac fears that the Franco-German alliance in Europe is being outmaneuvered by Britain and its new allies, Italy and Spain. When push comes to shove, he will sacrifice the French companies now doing business in Iraq and throw in his lot with the United States." Samore has made four trips to Moscow in recent months and believes that securing Russian acquiescence will be the most difficult. "[Russian President Vladimir] Putin is probably inclined to go along with Bush at the U.N.," Samore believes. "But people in the Russian security and foreign-policy establishment are resentful of the concessions he's already made to Washington, and don't want to lend legitimacy to a U.S. effort to install a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad. It could get ugly." Iraqi opposition leaders, who also have had quiet discussions with top Russian officials in recent months, believe Moscow's main concern is getting some return on the $15 billion Iraq owes the former Soviet Union for arms purchases and industrial assistance in the 1980s. "I think the Russians are straightforward and keep their word," said one opposition source. "We don't expect any problem with them." Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine. email the author [ktimmerman@insightmag.com] The just-released British intelligence assessment of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs (which is available at the prime minister's Website (www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm [http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm] ) highlights Iraq's recent procurement successes. In addition to seeking "the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa," intelligence shows a pattern on Iraqi purchases of high-tech gear specially adapted for a revived nuclear-weapons program which the sanctions were unable to stop. According to British intelligence, these purchases include: + vacuum pumps that "could be used … in a gas-centrifuge cascade needed to enrich uranium"; + "an entire magnet-production line … for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges"; + anhydrous hydrogen fluoride and fluoride gas, both of which are required for "converting uranium into uranium hexafluoride for use in gas-centrifuge cascades"; + a large filament-winding machine "which could be used to manufacture carbon-fiber gas-centrifuge rotors," and a large balancing machine needed for the "initial centrifuge-balancing work"; + "repeated attempts covertly to acquire a very large quantity (60,000 or more) of specialized aluminum tubes" of the specification needed for gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. Added to this, the British report says intelligence "has confirmed that Iraq wants to extend the range of its missile systems to more than 1,000 kilometers (620 miles), enabling it to threaten other regional neighbors," and can now produce biological-warfare agents using "mobile laboratories." In presenting the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment — the first of its kind to be released to the public — Prime Minister Tony Blair emphasized that "Iraq is preparing plans to conceal evidence of these weapons, including documents, from renewed inspections," explaining the cynicism with which Saddam's promises to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq has been greeted in Washington and London. — KRT Saddam Hussein's European Helpers + Agco SA (France) — farm equipment ($24.5 million) + Alcatel CIT (France) — telecommunications equipment ($37.4 million) + ALLDOS Technique de Dosage (France) — specialized pumps ($1.6 million) + BWT France SA (France) — U.V. disinfection equipment ($5.5 million) + Envirotech Pump Systems (France) — Specialized pumps and spare parts ($25 million) + Hexacorp (France) — water chillers ($2.9 million) + Irrifrance (France) — agricultural sprayers, large reactor vessels ($8.3 million) + Levant Overseas Development Ltd. (France) — insecticide, chemicals, unidentified spare parts (11 contracts, $9.5 million) + Liebherr (Germany) — excavators, mobile cranes ($14 million) + Pompes-Salmson (France) — specialized pumps ($1.7 million) + Potain SA (France) — tower cranes ($6.5 million) + Renault Vehicules Industriels (France) — heavy trucks, transporters ($25.5 million) + Schneider Electric (France) — controllers ($3 million) + Sofrag Alia Development (France) — well-logging units ($1 million) + Siemens SAS (France) — pumps, spares, telecommunications gear ($4.92 million) + Siemens Medical (Germany) — medical equipment, linear accelerators ($12.7 million) + Siemens AG (Germany) — power-generating equipment ($171 million) + Siemens Information (Italy) —microwave links ($3.1 million) + Siemens Sanayi vfe Ticaret (Turkey) — Telecommunications and power-generation equipment ($58.5 million) Source: U.N. sanctions committee ***************************************************************** 40 Writing the inspection rules Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | US rejects Iraq inspections deal Sleaze fallout threatens Democrat majority Ian Traynor in Vienna Tuesday October 1, 2002 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Perched above the river Danube on the seventh floor of the United Nations tower in Vienna, teams of diplomats, scientists and military men haggled over arcane details that could determine the future of the Middle East. Under the chairmanship of the Swedish diplomat and UN official Hans Blix, nuclear scientists and experts in chemical weapons and ballistics wrestled with a couple of Iraqi generals sent to Vienna by Saddam Hussein in an attempt to ward off the overpowering might of the United States. At issue is the resumption of the UN arms inspection regime in Iraq, a mission truncated almost four years ago when the inspectors, fed up of the bullying, threats and obfuscation from Baghdad, scurried off to Bahrain. But the stakes are high. The resumed inspections could serve as midwife to a new Gulf war or, on the contrary, they could save the Saddam regime and avert the uncertainties and insecurities that would be caused by a White House declaration of war on Iraq. Mr Blix handled the international response to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He now has an arguably more momentous task as the head of the reformed mission of UN weapons inspectors trying to return to Baghdad for the cat-and-mouse game of hunting President Saddam's caches of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. He said: "The purpose of the talks is that we'd like to ensure that if and when inspections come about, we will not have clashes inside. We'd rather go through these things outside in advance." By last night UN officials were breezily confident that they were on the point of a breakthrough that could take them to Baghdad within three weeks. The two days of talks are being dominated by highly technical exchanges of data concerning rocket science, access, facilities, overflight rights, 24-hour telephone hotlines, secure communications, the use of satellite phones. "These are not political negotiations," said Melissa Fleming, spokeswoman for the IAEA, which is charged with investigating President Saddam's nuclear weapons ambitions, alongside Mr Blix's team of Unmovic inspectors which is to concentrate on ballistic missiles and chemical and biological weapons. UN officials and west European diplomats said that it looked as though the two key Iraqi officials, General Amir al-Sadi, Saddam Hussein's special science adviser, and General Rasheed Hassan, head of Iraq's national monitoring department, were finally showing the kind of transparency and offering the sort of cooperation and information needed to resume inspections. "When [the Iraqis] announced they were willing to accept the inspections without conditions, they also made it clear that they were now willing to discuss practical arrangements, and that is precisely what we have done," Mr Blix said. But two issues clouded the unusually optimistic mood: access to the so-called presidential sites, the key objective of the weapons inspectors, and the US warmongering tactics which many say aimed at wrecking the UN mission and clearing the way for enforced "regime change" in Iraq and the establishment of a new Pax Americana. President Saddam has hitherto blocked or restricted access to the presidential sites, sprawling palaces and estates believed to house facilities for weapons of mass destruction. The issue is so sensitive that it was left off the agenda in Vienna and referred to the security council in New York. And politically, much hinges on the fate of the toughly worded UN resolution drafted by the US. "It looks like the Iraqis are agreeing to everything," a west European diplomat monitoring the talks said. "But what does that mean for the draft resolution and the Americans? "It becomes more complicated for the Americans." If the inspections are resumed almost four years after they were abandoned, the priority is to establish what has changed in Iraq since 1998. The inspectors say that that will take them at least a year. Despite Tony Blair's Iraq dossier last week, the UN officials say they have no evidence of a covert nuclear arms programme and are confident that by 1998 they had "neutralised" President Saddam's earlier nuclear effort. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 41 Why Invade? The truth about Iraq. Stanley Kurtz on Iraq on National Review Online [http://www.nationalreview.com] September 30, 2002 9:00 a.m. Let me tell you the truth about our reasons for invading Iraq. We are not invading Iraq to protect the credibility of the United Nations. We are not invading Iraq to bring democracy to the Arab world. We are not invading Iraq to save the Iraqi people from poverty and oppression. The reason we are invading Iraq is to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons. It is true that Saddam's defiance of the United Nations is important. That defiance does help to undermine the credibility of international agreements. But what really destroyed the credibility of our multilateral agreements was the willingness of countries like France, Russia, and China to violate international trade sanctions against Iraq that they themselves had agreed to. Quite simply, these countries — supposed pillars of multilateral legality — allowed themselves to be bought off by Saddam's oil. The real importance of Saddam's defiance of the international sanctions is what it reveals about Saddam's intentions. In fighting the sanctions, Saddam Hussein has sacrificed $180 billion dollars in oil revenue, thrown his people into impoverishment, and even allowed his conventional military forces to deteriorate, all in an effort to obtain a nuclear bomb. It is true that after we conquer Iraq, we may succeed in bringing the Iraqi people a measure of democracy and prosperity. Many cultural barriers stand in the way of that goal, and the speed and direction of the transformation cannot be predicted. In other circumstances, the sacrifices and dangers of trying to remake an alien society from the bottom up would speak against conquest and transformation. But we now need to take on the task of gradual democratization and economic liberalization. We must do so because, in a world filled with weapons of mass destruction, it is no longer safe to allow an aggressively anti-Western or anti-American rogue state to survive. But why can't we allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons? After all, the Soviets had nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War, yet none were used. The reason we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons is that Saddam cannot be deterred. That is proven beyond any reasonable doubt in Kenneth Pollack's vitally important new book, [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375509283/qid=1033350297/sr=1-1 /ref=sr_1_1/103-6211135-0716608?v=glance/nationalreviewon] . Saddam has a nearly 30-year history of defying the logic of deterrence. Saddam regularly and radically miscalculates the dangers of his aggressive actions. He is ignorant of the outside world, and punishes or kills those who come to him with bad news. He is apt to seek revenge (as in the assassination attempt on former president Bush), even when revenge could cost him his life. And Saddam is possessed by a driving wish to dominate the Middle East. He also holds a vision of taking down his enemies when he goes, if go he must, with a terrible act of destruction that will permanently impress his "glory" into the pages of history. These propensities are real, not some caricature devised for political purposes by a war-obsessed Bush administration. Read The Threatening Storm, and you will believe. There are two reasons why Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons: First, because he may pass them to terrorists, or his own intelligence agents, for use against the United States. Second, because once in possession of nuclear weapons, Saddam will move to take control of the Gulf and subject America to nuclear blackmail. Some believe that Saddam's fear of nuclear retaliation will make him hold back from another move on Kuwait. But Saddam sees the matter in reverse. If he takes Kuwait before we can stop him, he will force the United States to decide between ceding him control of the region's oil supplies, and an invasion that would surely result in a nuclear strike by Saddam against either our troops, our cities, the Saudi oil fields, or all of these. Thus threatened, the United States may indeed be forced to back down and grant Saddam control of the world's oil. This is why Saddam has sacrificed all in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But wouldn't Saddam know that if he were to strike the Saudi oil fields with a nuclear weapon, we would surely wipe him out with our own nuclear arsenal? That is precisely the kind of gamble that Saddam has been willing to take. What would you do if you were forced to choose between saving the populace of New York City from a possible nuclear strike, and ceding control of the world's oil to Saddam Hussein? Saddam knows that you would hesitate to risk New York, so he is willing to gamble that he can get away with an invasion of Kuwait. In fact, he has already told his aides that his big mistake in Kuwait was not waiting until he had a nuclear device to invade. And Saddam might be right. He just might be able to get away with invasion and nuclear blackmail. You can bet he's three times more confident that he can safely pull it off than he ought to be. That is exactly why we must fear him. If we do attack and attempt to throw a nuclear-armed Hussein out of Kuwait, the least bad response we could expect would be a nuclear strike on the Saudi oil fields. Saddam might refrain from a nuclear attack on our troops or our cities, in hopes that we would withhold nuclear retaliation on Baghdad. But a nuclear strike on the Saudi oil fields would destroy and contaminate the world's main oil supply, precipitating a world-wide depression, and leaving Saddam's own oil wealth that much more valuable. Again, read The Threatening Storm, and you will believe. The real reason we are invading Iraq is to prevent Saddam from carrying out this scheme — to prevent him from attempting to seize control of the oil resources of the Persian Gulf, and a subsequent attempt to hold us off with nuclear blackmail. (Again, the somewhat lesser likelihood of Saddam's passing a nuclear device to terrorists for use against an American city is also a key concern.) Yet the American public does not really understand this. We are in the middle of a great national debate on a war against Iraq, yet the public does not have a clear understanding of the reasons for the war. There are several reasons for this. Had the president gone to the United Nations and spoken openly of the need to prevent Saddam from moving on the Gulf and subjecting the United States to nuclear blackmail, he would have been derided as a paranoid, oil-hungry cowboy willing to sacrifice the peace of the world to his nation's selfish interests. (Even though, in truth, the entire world, and not just the United States, could easily be plunged into a lengthy depression by Saddam's aggressive schemes.) So instead the president, in a judo move, turned the U.N.'s own multilateral principles against its hesitations. That worked brilliantly for a while, but at the cost of the whole truth about our reasons for invading Iraq. And the desire of many Democrats to frame our attack in terms of international law, rather than national interest or balance of power calculations, continues to make it difficult for the president to place the real issue before the country. Another problem is the connection between the need to remove Saddam and the war on terror. The truth is, the need to remove Saddam is both related to, and independent of, the war on terror. If Saddam believed that he could pass weapons to al Qaeda for use against American cities, then he just might do so. And as I argued in " [http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz092502.asp] ," Saddam has every reason to think that detection of his role might fail. So the connection between the need to oust Saddam and the war on terror is real. In the short term, however, Saddam is more interested in conquest in the Gulf, under the umbrella of nuclear blackmail, than in a direct nuclear attack on an American city. Yet, because the political momentum for an invasion of Iraq comes from 9/11, the administration has tended to frame the threat from Saddam more in terms of the war on terror than in terms of Saddam's designs on the Gulf. It's not as though the administration has remained entirely silent about the core reasons for an invasion. In his recent appearance on Meet the Press, for example, the vice president noted how difficult it would have been to plan the Persian Gulf war had Saddam been in possession a nuclear device. And the president himself has said on a number of occasions that he will not have the United States subjected to nuclear blackmail. But between the pressure from the United Nations and the Democrats to speak in multilateral terms, and the critical political momentum provided by the war on terror, the true nature of the threat from Saddam has gotten lost. That is why intelligent Democratic opponents of the war, from Stanley Hoffman to Michael Kinsley, seem genuinely puzzled by the need for an attack. The Democrats complain about the "constantly shifting" justifications for an invasion given by the administration. The implication is that there is no real reason for an attack — that the whole invasion idea is nothing but a scheme cooked up for political reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. But rhetorical traps laid by people and events have made it difficult to speak frankly about the reasons why we must invade. As I have said before — and will say again — Kenneth Pollack's extraordinary book, The Threatening Storm, does tell the truth about the need to invade Iraq. Pollack himself, I think, slightly underplays the danger of Saddam handing a nuclear weapon to terrorists for use against the United States (although Pollack certainly doesn't entirely neglect this issue). Pollack's focus is on how Saddam's regional ambitions are likely to escalate to a nuclear exchange. Of course, as the previous administration's chief expert on Iraq, Pollack has realized for years — long before September 11 — that an invasion of Iraq may be necessary for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism, per se. Here is the truth. While September 11 was a horror that ought never to have happened, something good has come of it. Prior to September 11, Saddam was moving ever closer to nuclear capability, yet there was almost no political prospect of an American president being able to mount an invasion. A number of American observers (like the Clinton administration's Pollack, and like Paul Wolfowitz, now of the Bush administration) understood the mounting danger of a nuclear armed Saddam. Yet these men had little chance of waking the country up to the need to invade. September 11 has woken all of us up. But the (partial) distinction between the threat from Saddam and the threat from al Qaeda has sewn confusion and skepticism. If the invasion of Iraq is part of the war on terror, ask the critics, why not attack Iran — an even greater sponsor of terror? Or why not wait till we find Osama and destroy al Qaeda? Or why not produce a "smoking gun" of cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda? All of these questions miss the point — a point that the administration has not been entirely free to emphasize. We need to invade Iraq regardless of all these other considerations. Even for a moment, we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to obtain atomic weapons, because aggression and nuclear blackmail will quickly follow. Last Saturday, Turkish police reportedly seized a cache of weapons-grade uranium from two men smuggling the material — perhaps into nearby Iraq. We need to understand that time is running out. Saddam knows that we are coming for him. No doubt he has stepped up his effort to commandeer material for a bomb. Even if these smugglers were not headed for Iraq, or if the uranium turns out to be less threatening in quality or quantity than feared, Iraqi agents with greater prospects for success are certainly in the field. The hour grows late. Our lives, quite literally, are at stake. Even the risk of isolated wartime chemical or biological attacks by Saddam's agents on U.S. territory is nothing compared to the danger of a fight after Saddam has obtained his bomb. The Democrats are right about one thing, though. We must now put party aside. But to do so, we must unite around the president and unite against Saddam Hussein. History will judge harshly those who hesitated at this moment. We must arm ourselves with the truth — and strike quickly. — [http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/kurtz.html] is a research fellow at the [http://www.hoover.org] at Stanford University. ***************************************************************** 42 Iraq and UN agree over weapons inspectors Staff and agencies Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search Guardian Unlimited Tuesday October 1, 2002 The chief UN weapons inspector for Iraq said tonight that tentative agreement has been reached with Baghdad on the return of his team to check for the presence of illegal, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Hans Blix said the Iraqi representatives have said "that they accept all the rights of inspections that are laid down" in previous resolutions authorising UN inspections. The agreement, thrashed out in Vienna, comes ahead of any new UN security resolution on weapons inspection which is currently being sought by Washington and London. A new UN resolution may change the Iraqi position and there have been reports that sources close to the inspection team fear this could undermine their mission. The main progress for the inspectors was on practical details such as an agreement that the UN team will now be allowed to fly into Baghdad's main airport, rather than one further way. The decision on whether to amend the agreement will be taken by the UN security council when Mr Blix reports back on Thursday. If the UN security council formally approves the mission it could begin by the third week of October. Suggesting that little stood in the way for the resumption of inspections, Amir Al Sadi, the head of the Iraqi negotiation team, told reporters: "We expect the advance party to arrive in Baghdad in about two weeks." Mr Al Sadi declined to outline specifics on what was agreed but suggested terms of the inspection would be regulated by previous security council resolutions. That would keep spontaneous inspection of Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces - a US demand - off the agenda. The negotiations were to determine how far Iraq will let the UN inspect government buildings and presidential palaces but also to amend a 1998 UN-Iraq agreement on inspections that restricted the inspectors' access to eight presidential sites. The Bush administration is pushing for a resolution that would eliminate the conditions from an earlier agreement in 1998, saying that failure to comply would result in grave consequences. Mr Blix said the talks focused on practical aspects of the renewed inspections such as, "Where do you fly into Baghdad ... what are the customs controls ... the accommodation of inspectors in Baghdad ... the movement within Iraq. We have talked openly about them, and we have gone through what you can at this stage," he said. President Saddam pledged unconditional access to sites across Iraq last month but Baghdad has since rejected the notion of a new UN resolution - that would broaden and toughen the inspection regime. An Iraqi cabinet spokesman said today that threats of war will not force the country to accept any new UN resolutions it finds objectionable. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said in a television interview yesterday that before inspectors returned to Iraq, Mr Blix would have to wait and see whether the security council came up with new guidance or additional resolutions that might require him to modify his plan. "I'm pleased that he is in that state of readiness and we'll have to see how things develop over the next couple of weeks with respect to a resolution with new requirements," Mr Powell said. Meanwhile, delivering his keynote speech at the Labour party conference in Birmingham, the prime minister, Tony Blair, was unwavering in his stance on Iraq and his support for the US. Mr Blair said: "My vision of Britain is not as the 51st state of anywhere, but I believe in this alliance and I will fight long and hard to maintain it." He went on: "Let us lay down the ultimatum. Let Saddam comply with the will of the UN ... but here is the hard part: if he doesn't comply, then consider ... sometimes, and in particular dealing with a dictator, the only chance of peace is a readiness for war." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 43 Sharon in Moscow sets out Israeli views on Mideast settlement Tuesday, 01-Oct-2002 7:40AM Story from AFP / Charly Wegman Copyright 2002 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) MOSCOW, Oct 1 (AFP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon set out his proposals for a Middle East peace settlement to Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov at the close on Tuesday of a 48-hour visit to Moscow, an Israeli spokesman said. "(Sharon) explained in detail his settlement plan for the Palestinian question, notably the need for democratic reform of the Palestinian Authority, " government press secretary Gidon Saar said. Sharon also met Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov to discuss trade and economic cooperation, ITAR-TASS news agency reported. Summing up Sharon's Russia visit, Saar said the talks had "made it clear that the two states agree on most strategic issues". He said Sharon's talks with Ivanov had focussed on the Middle East since the Iraqi crisis and the question of Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran had been "fully discussed" with President Vladimir Putin on Monday. Describing the visit as "excellent," Saar said the meetings had strengthened ties between Sharon and Putin and boosted bilateral relations. Traditionally pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian, Moscow has gradually moved closer to Israel since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Russian foreign ministry said in a statement Sharon and Ivanov had had a "thorough exchange of views about the steps to be taken to resume the peace process" in the Middle East. Sharon expressed his "appreciation of the role Russia is playing in seeking an end to the crisis", the statement said. Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissin said on Monday the Israeli premier had again said Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat "is yesterday's man and no-one takes him seriously". Sharon and Putin spent three and a half hours together in the Kremlin, although they had been scheduled to meet for only 90 minutes. Their talks focussed on Iraq, which faces the prospect of a strong UN Security Council resolution demanding that it disarm totally or face US military action, officials said. The two leaders also touched on Iran and the Middle East. Putin said Russia agreed with Israel on the threat posed by terrorism but insisted on a peaceful rather than a military solution to the conflict over Iraq's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction. Sharon said Israeli was concerned about Iraq holding chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. But Putin stressed Russia had done a lot to secure from Baghdad the return of UN weapons inspectors which should meet Israel's concerns -- "and not only Israel's". He also welcomed what he termed Israel's "difficult" decision to lift the siege of Arafat's West Bank headquarters in Ramallah, a response to pressure from Washington, which is trying to build a world consensus against Iraq. Russia had earlier denounced Israel's "disproportionate use of force" in blockading the Palestinian leader. Sharon thanked Putin for his comments, saying that Russia had a "balanced position", officials said. He was due to leave Russia later on Tuesday. The Palestine Liberation Organisation's number two, Mahmoud Abbas, (also known as Abu Mazen), was due to arrive in Moscow on Wednesday for a two-day visit. He was expected to bring a message from Arafat, Interfax news agency said. ***************************************************************** 44 Inspectors Press Iraq for Access Las Vegas SUN: Today: October 01, 2002 at 3:40:18 PDT By WILLIAM J. KOLE ASSOCIATED PRESS VIENNA, Austria- Gearing up for a return to Iraq, U.N. inspectors pressed a delegation from Baghdad on Tuesday for free access to so-called "sensitive sites" where Saddam Hussein might be concealing weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors preparing for a fresh assessment of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities said the final day of logistical talks would focus on government complexes such as the Defense Ministry, Interior Ministry and headquarters of Saddam's elite Republican Guard, where access has been restricted in the past. "It all has to be immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told reporters as he arrived for Tuesday's session. But he added: "We'll see - the devil is in the details." Although the Iraqi president last month pledged unconditional access to sites across Iraq, Baghdad since has rejected the notion of new U.N. resolutions that would broaden and toughen the inspection regimen. The Iraqi resistance has thrown into question whether the inspectors would be able to come and go as they please at Saddam's palaces, which have been off-limits to surprise visits since 1998. The issue of palace inspections and some other contentious matters would require amending the most recent U.N.-Iraq agreement on inspections - a decision that would have to be made by the U.N. Security Council once Blix reports back on Thursday. Under a deal U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan cut with Baghdad in early 1998, the inspectors' access to eight presidential sites encompassing a total of about 12 square miles was restricted. Under the terms, inspectors were not permitted to carry out surprise visits to the sites, which include Saddam's palaces. The deal also created a team of international diplomats to accompany inspectors when they did enter. The United States and the rest of the Security Council endorsed that plan, which remains in effect. However, the Bush administration is pushing for a resolution that would eliminate those conditions. "We're telling the Iraqis we don't want any limitations on our access," said a senior diplomat close to the talks, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The basic mandate is that we have the right to go anywhere, at any time, and to use any means of inspection." Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency where the talks are being held, said Monday's session took place in a "businesslike atmosphere" in which the Iraqis, who made no public statements, "have been positive and coming with a desire to reach an agreement." The Iraqis were supposed to bring to Vienna a backlog of reports listing items they possess which could have military purposes, and detail the locations and current uses of those items. ElBaradei said the Iraqis promised to turn over the records Tuesday. "We are aiming to restore as much as possible the concept of `any time, any place,'" he said. Blix said the Iraqis and the U.N. experts were nailing down logistics such as where the teams will be based, their accommodations and security, and how samples would be taken out of the country for analysis. If the Security Council formally approves the mission, it could begin by the third week of October. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a television interview on PBS that before inspectors return to Iraq, Blix will have to wait and see whether the Security Council comes up with new guidance or additional resolutions that might require him to modify his plan, "I'm pleased that he is in that state of readiness and we'll have to see how things develop over the next couple of weeks with respect to a resolution with new requirements," Powell said. Access to suspect sites will be crucial in any comprehensive assessment of Saddam's arsenal, said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. "We have satellite photographs, but we don't have a presence on the ground," Fleming said. "As weapons inspectors, we need to see what is below the roofs of those buildings that we see from the sky. What is going on in those buildings? We need to talk to the people. We need to see the documents in order to really find out the truth." Nearly four years ago, inspectors hunting for evidence of weapons of mass destruction withdrew from Iraq on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes amid allegations that Baghdad was not cooperating with the teams. By the end of the 1991 Gulf War, IAEA assessments indicated Saddam was six months away from building an atomic bomb. Inspectors discovered the oil-rich nation had imported thousands of pounds of uranium, some of which was already refined for weapons use, and had considered two types of nuclear delivery systems. Over the next six years, inspectors seized the uranium, destroyed facilities and chemicals, dismantled over 40 missiles and confiscated thousands of documents. On the Net: IAEA: [http://www.iaea.org] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 45 Blair: World Must Set Iraq Ultimatum Las Vegas SUN: Today: October 01, 2002 at 8:25:21 PDT By BETH GARDINER ASSOCIATED PRESS BLACKPOOL, England- An international coalition must set an ultimatum, backed by the threat of force, for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday. "Let us lay down the ultimatum. Let Saddam comply with the will of the U.N.," Blair said in a tough speech to a convention of his governing Labor Party. Blair said the world must be ready to use force if Saddam does not agree to destroy his chemical and biological weapons, arguing that the credibility of the United Nations was at stake. "If we lose our collective will to deal with it, we will lose the authority not of the United States or of Britain, but of the United Nations," Blair said. The prime minister said that when dealing with dictators, sometimes "the only hope for peace is the readiness for war." Blair also dismissed criticism he was too closely allied with the United States and defended his close relationship with President Bush. "The basic values of America are our values, too - Britain and Europe - and they are good values," Blair said. "My vision of Britain is not the 51st state of anywhere, but I believe in this alliance and I will fight long and hard to preserve it," he said, despite what he called widespread anti-Americanism in Britain and other countries. For months, the center-left Labor Party has been roiled by disagreement over Blair's tough stance on Iraq, with many dissenters expressing deep misgivings about the possibility of war. But after an emotional two-hour debate in the seaside resort town of Blackpool on Monday, delegates passed a motion supporting the use of force against Saddam if all else fails and the United Nations supports it. Blair was able to joke about his troubles Tuesday, referring to last weekend's victory by the European golf team over its American rivals in the Ryder Cup. "What about the Ryder Cup, eh? Britain in Europe at its best. Me and George Bush on opposite sides," Blair said, to the laughter and cheers of the delegates. Blair's hour-long speech focused largely on domestic issues, drawing parallels between the need for decisive action against Iraq and Labor's plans to reform Britain's public services. "Interdependence is obliterating the distinction between foreign and domestic policy," Blair said. "I believe we're at our best when at our boldest. So far, we've made a good start, but we've not been bold enough." The government's plans to partially privatize schools, hospitals and other public services have angered unionists and other Labor supporters. On Monday, conference delegates rebuked their leadership, backing a motion calling for an independent review of the program. The conference voted 67 percent to 33 percent for the resolution, which called Blair's Private Finance Initiative "discredited." Blair said the reforms would be pushed through, even faster than before, despite the opposition. Blair also gave one of his strongest arguments in favor of joining the European single currency, saying Britain should accept the euro as soon as it meets the country's economic requirements. "We should only join the euro if the economic tests are met. That is clear," he said. "But if the tests are passed, we go for it." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 Old Argonne secrets seen in documentary* Spokane.net Monday, September 30, 2002 Idaho Falls _ The secrets of research done at the Argonne National Laboratory 50 years ago is the subject of a new documentary available to the public. Scientists in the Arco desert were working to prove that a breeder reactor, a reactor that produces fuel as well as energy, could work. "They had to do these things for the first time," Atomic Heritage Foundation president Cynthia Kelly said. "The project gave a chance for everyone to be brilliant." A crew from the Atomic Heritage Foundation was in Idaho Falls last week filming "Nuclear Pioneers," a documentary history of the project. The Idaho test reactor, EBR I, was the first plutonium-fueled reactor, the first to produce more fissionable material than it consumed and the first to use liquid metal as a coolant. Camera crews spent the week interviewing scientists, engineers, machinists and support staff who worked at the reactor. The film, commissioned by the Argonne National Laboratory, will be on display at the EBR I museum at the now-closed facility. The video will also be used by the Bonneville museum. After years of secrecy about projects at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Kelly said it was good to get information out to the public. "We can now have the opportunity to look back and reflect and share this," she said. "It has influenced every reactor developed since that time." ***************************************************************** 47 SRS is candidate for new plant Augusta Georgia: Metro: Web posted Tuesday, October 1, 2002 By Josh Gelinas [josh.gelinas@augustachronicle.com] South Carolina Bureau AIKEN - Savannah River Site is a strong candidate to receive a permit to build a new nuclear-power plant, a Dominion Energy Inc. official said Monday. Dominion turned in its federally funded study of potential sites to the Department of Energy on Friday. The company evaluated SRS, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and the Portsmouth site in Ohio. Company officials said each site was evaluated on its potential for new missions. They would not say whether one site was recommended over another and said DOE would likely release the report this month. "SRS' infrastructure is excellent," said Gene S. Grecheck, the vice president of Dominion's Nuclear Support Services. "I would certainly expect that" it will be strongly considered for the permitting. Dominion was contracted to do the study as part of President Bush's $38.5 million budget proposal for fiscal 2003 to have a new power plant built by 2010. The Aiken-Edgefield Economic Development Partnership is anticipating the permit, and said last month that it has submitted an offer to SRS to buy several thousand acres. The group wants the acreage to make way for the private commercial nuclear reactor and a park that could be used to demonstrate new nuclear technologies, Fred Humes, the director of the economic partnership, said after the group's annual meeting Monday. He said SRS had not responded to the group's purchase offer. He said if SRS receives permitting for a new power plant the site will likely sell the acreage. The next step, he said, would be finding private backing to build the plant, which could cost upward of a billion dollars. The effort could create up to 1,000 jobs and pave the way for future private investment at SRS, Mr. Humes said. Facilities equipped to create medical isotopes and deal with hydrogen technology are also being considered, Mr. Humes said. "We think we've got a real story," he said. "We certainly have a nuclear-friendly community." Reach Josh Gelinas at (803)279-6895 or josh.gelinas@augustachronicle.com [josh.gelinas@augustachronicle.com] . [http://augusta.com] . ***************************************************************** 48 Worldcom-inspired 'whistle-blower' law has flaws The Gate www.sfgate.com * MICHAEL OREY, The Wall Street Journal Tuesday, October 1, 2002 ©2002 Associated Press URL: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/whatsnew.htm Last year, Kim Emigh sued WorldCom Inc., alleging that the company directed him to falsify financial records and fired him for failing to go along. WorldCom got the suit tossed out, claiming that Mr. Emigh gave up his right to sue in return for severance pay. The $11,200 check remains uncashed on Mr. Emigh's refrigerator while he appeals his case. In July, after WorldCom's implosion in a massive accounting fraud and a parade of other business scandals, Congress enacted legislation to combat corporate corruption. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act includes measures to protect "whistle-blowers" who report financial wrongdoing, the first-ever that apply to employees at all public companies. Taken as a whole, the law "will significantly change the way business is done and the way violations or possible violations are responded to," says Stephen Crimmins, a Washington, D.C., defense lawyer involved in securities-law cases. But don't rush to rat out your boss or company for cooking the books. Employment lawyers say the antiretaliation provisions in the statute are cumbersome and anemic. For the most part, they say, workers who air allegations of fraud should still expect their employers to strike back, and the result will often be months or years of emotional and financial turmoil. You'll still be faced with figuring out "how to save your job and how to do the right thing," says Michael Kohn, a Washington, D.C., attorney who represents employees, "and it's very often difficult to do both things." That's the situation in which Mr. Emigh finds himself, and it's unlikely the new law would have helped him if it had been in force when he left his job, employment lawyers say. In December 2000, Mr. Emigh (pronounced Amy) was working as a financial analyst in WorldCom's network systems division in Richardson, Texas. He alleges in his court complaint that he was directed to record as operating expenses millions of dollars that should have been treated as capital expenses. (This is the opposite of the widely publicized misallocation of billions of dollars in expenses that led to WorldCom's collapse.) As a result of his refusal to do this, he claims, the company fired him in March 2001. In an interview, the 45-year-old Mr. Emigh acknowledged that he signed a release in which he gave up his right to sue WorldCom as part of his departure from the company -- a common feature of severance agreements. At the time, he said, he thought, "What the heck, I want to put this thing behind me." But Mr. Emigh said he then revoked the waiver within a time period allowed by federal law. Robert Sheeder, a Dallas attorney representing WorldCom, says the company has no comment on the suit. Nothing in the new whistle-blower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation prevents workers from waiving their rights to sue. This includes anyone who has signed a mandatory-arbitration agreement as a condition of his employment, a widely followed practice in the securities industry. Robert Lipman, a Jericho, N.Y., attorney, agrees that the new law is deficient, but says it at least gives him some ammunition. "We used to get a lot of phone calls from mid- and senior-level employees who had complained about financial wrongdoing and were fired" and "there was nothing we could do to help those people," says Mr. Lipman, who represents both workers and management. The Sarbanes-Oxley law requires companies to set up procedures for anonymous reporting of fraud allegations. Setting up such systems, legal experts predict, could create a culture in which these allegations are taken more seriously. The law also authorizes lawsuits by employees who have been fired, demoted or even threatened or harassed for reporting such allegations. The worker can disclose his or her concerns within the company or to regulators, law-enforcement officials or Congress and doesn't have to have proof that a crime has occurred, merely a "reasonable belief" that a law has been violated. Reflecting Congress's new get-tough mood on corporate chicanery, the law also authorizes criminal penalties against someone who retaliates against a worker for reporting concerns about illegal conduct to a public official. Creating an atmosphere conducive to exposing financial crimes is important because workers have no legal obligation to take such information to public authorities, legal experts say. For years, a patchwork of federal statutes has offered protection to workers who report certain kinds of wrongdoing -- fraud that bilks the government, for example, or matters affecting safety in the nuclear or airline industries. Otherwise, a person demoted or fired for pointing out corporate misconduct has had to look to state laws to pursue a retaliation claim. The state laws, often known as whistle-blower statutes, vary widely, says Jonathan Ben-Asher, a New York attorney who represents employees. New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act offers some of the strongest protections in the country for workers who bring allegations of wrongdoing to the attention of public officials, allowing them to sue for reinstatement of their jobs, back pay, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. By contrast, New York's statute is "completely pathetic," Mr. Ben-Asher says. It addresses only disclosure of "a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety" and thus offers no protection to someone who reports financial misconduct. Texas has no whistle-blower statute, so when Mr. Emigh sued WorldCom in Dallas County district court he based his claim on Texas court rulings that say companies may face liability if they fire someone for refusing to engage in illegal conduct. Anyone who does want to file a claim under the new federal law will have to move quickly. The statute requires them to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor within 90 days of the alleged retaliation, which can involve merely a phone call to the agency. A Labor Department spokeswoman says Sarbanes-Oxley complaints will be fielded by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA already has responsibility for enforcing whistle-blower protection under about a dozen other laws, but some observers wonder how officials who deal with retaliation complaints involving such things as asbestos and drinking-water safety will cope with complaints that raise complex financial and accounting issues. Richard Fairfax, head of OSHA's Directorate of Enforcement, says the agency will bring in outside experts on these issues when needed. Only if the Labor Department fails to act within six months can an employee file suit in federal court. Here, too, Mr. Lipman says, the new law comes up short. It allows workers to sue for such things as reinstatement and back pay, as well as attorneys' fees. But it doesn't provide for punitive damages and it is unclear if a claimant can seek damages for emotional distress -- something that can significantly boost an award. Lawyers will have less incentive to take these cases, says Mr. Lipman, because "there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow." Do the Right Thing Employment lawyers recommend taking the following steps if your boss asks you to cook the books: * Don't comply. `Just following orders' may not protect you from criminal charges. * Consider reporting the problem internally to your legal or human resources departments. Or call the Securities and Exchange Commission. * Consider hiring a lawyer. * Look for another job, just in case. ©2002 Associated Press ***************************************************************** 49 At 40, accelerator center full of energy / Stanford lab's researchers set sights on cosmic puzzles Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer [kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] Monday, September 30, 2002 --> Age 40 is a "shadow line" in life that must be crossed "in style -- or else," warned the writer Gore Vidal. He was speaking of human beings, not of scientific laboratories. But his point may apply to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, celebrating its 40th birthday this week. A glorious past -- including five Nobel Prizes -- is behind SLAC, one of the pioneering "atom-smashing" labs. Does a glorious future lie ahead? Or is the age of big particle accelerators waning because of their great cost and their declining glamour as public attention turns toward biotechnology, computer science, nanotechnology and other wonders? SLAC officials are optimistic as they approach the celebration at the lab, which Stanford University operates under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy. They'll celebrate four great decades Wednesday at the lab off Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park. "I have enormous respect for the past," said Persis S. Drell, the lab's new director of research. "(But) the past glories of SLAC are not what brought me here. What brought me here are the opportunities for the future." As part of that future, lab officials plan to almost literally fasten their wagon to the stars. They hope to answer Big Questions such as: What is the universe made of? In March 2001, SLAC officials announced plans for an institute for the study of particle astrophysics and cosmology. The institute's goals include providing "an understanding of the links between subatomic particle physics and cosmology -- the continuum linking the inconceivably tiny with the incomprehensibly vast," a SLAC official said at the time. Institute scientists will investigate puzzles such as: What is "dark matter," the hypothetical particles that are thought to comprise the bulk of cosmic matter? And what is "dark energy," the ghostly force suspected of pushing the universe apart faster and faster with time? The institute is named after its benefactor, Pehong Chen, founder and CEO of the Redwood City firm BroadVision, and his wife, Adele. The couple gave Stanford and SLAC $15 million to create the institute. It is expected to open in about three years, with about 90 employees and a minimum of 20,000 square feet of building space. Why is half the universe "missing"? For several decades, astrophysicists have wrestled with the question: Why does the universe consist almost entirely of matter? According to physical theory, the Big Bang should have generated equal amounts of matter and antimatter. So where is all the antimatter? Decades ago, some scientists expected to spot faraway galaxies made entirely of antimatter. But they don't seem to exist. At SLAC, scientists are investigating the matter-antimatter mystery through something called the "BaBar" experiment. BaBar stands for "B and B-bar," technical terms for the matter and antimatter versions of particles called "B- mesons." By generating and studying these particles, physicists explore how nature contains a built-in "kink" that favors the production of slightly more matter than antimatter -- like a grocery cart with a rusty wheel that tends to veer one way or another. In 2001, BaBar scientists -- and, independently, a Japanese team -- reported finding the first evidence of such "kinks" involving B-mesons. End of cosmic mystery? No way. Unfortunately for those who prefer quick, easy solutions, the known forms of cosmic "kinkiness," so to speak, aren't intense enough to explain the near-absence of cosmic antimatter. In seeking a final solution, "we're really groping," Drell said. "Which is kind of exciting." How can we catalog and explain the functions of the 10,000 or so proteins in the human body, much as the human genome project is doing with genes? With "synchrotron" radiation -- that's one way. When an electron is forced to move in any direction other than a straight line, it "expresses its unhappiness" by emitting synchrotron radiation, said SLAC scientist Keith O. Hodgson. Synchrotron radiation can be "tuned" to a wide range of frequencies, ranging from very intense X-ray radiation to very low-frequency infrared radiation. Stanford already has a major synchrotron site, the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory. There, numerous researchers from a wide variety of fields tap into a synchrotron-radiation beam via many observation ports -- like piglets suckling simultaneously on a sow. Next step: a new synchrotron machine, the Linac Coherent Light Source, scheduled to begin operation in 2008. The $220 million device will be a beam of X-ray synchrotron radiation generated by free-electron lasers installed inside an existing SLAC tunnel. The lasers will emit photons (light particles) that herd electrons into "microbunches," which wiggle as they pass by powerful magnets. As they wiggle, they emit rapid, intense bursts of X-rays. Each burst will be used to repeatedly "illuminate" a target, like a strobe light in a disco. For example, researchers could use the device to better understand the structure and dynamics of proteins. In this way, they might figure out how proteins interact with drugs and viruses, and how they affect or retard the progress of diseases. Is our basic understanding of matter sound, or is it full of secret holes? Initial answers may come from the construction of new accelerators, including the Next Linear Collider (NLC). According to tentative plans, the 20- mile-long collider would smash together electrons and positrons at hitherto unavailable energies. At the moment, physicists' version of the ornithologist's guide to birds is the so-called Standard Model. This is a generally accepted theory of the underlying structure of matter. It depicts quarks, leptons and other particles as the basic constituents of "familiar" matter, like the atoms and electrons in your body. But there's more to matter than "ordinary" matter, or so physicists suspect. In fact, the existing Standard Model might be relevant to only a fraction of the hypothesized types of matter, force and energy in the cosmos. "In my career lifetime, every experiment has either agreed with the Standard Model or the experiment has turned out to be wrong," Drell said. Yet, she added, theory predicts that the Standard Model should begin to show weaknesses as scientists start firing particles through a future generation of higher-energy accelerators. At the moment, no one knows where the Next Linear Collider will be built, assuming that it's approved and funded by the participating governments, including the United States. California is one of many possible sites for the collider, although it won't come to SLAC because it's too big. With such megaprojects in the offing, SLAC Director Jonathan Dorfan said, "I think physics is in an exciting time. There are important, big questions. I think that this century will be as exciting as the last one." SLAC'S WEB SITE Information on the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and its 40th anniversary is on the Web at www.slac.stanford.edu [http://www.slac.stanford.edu] / E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com [kdavidson@sfchronicle.com] . ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   ***************************************************************** 50 Racial Tensions: 'Things are not black and white' Colorado Daily By MARIA BONDES/Colorado Daily Staff On the heels of a recent series of anti-Semitic incidents on the CU campus, three Israeli students visited CU on Tuesday as part of the current "Israel Week" to talk about their experiences and challenge what they feel are bigoted perceptions with facts about their country. Students active with Hillel, a Jewish student organization, have organized "Israel Week" on various Colorado campuses this week. The project is to inform students about the country's culture, as an answer to the sometimes-controversial picture of Israel that is depicted in the media. The visit of the Israeli students is a part of the week's events. Their main mission is to "tell our story, tell what is really going on and tell the story of Israel," said Itai Amir, one of the guest students. "We are telling our personal stories, difficulties of daily life that we have to go through in Israel. We want people to see our side, to see our pain," he said. The students are taking part in a project sponsored by "Israel at Heart," an Israeli organization whose purpose is to "demonstrate the diversity within Israeli society and therefore begin to change the way people see Israel and its people," according to an information sheet provided by the group. The project has brought 48 young Israelis to the United States for a speaking tour. The students are traveling in groups of three to speak at colleges and similar venues all over the country. The group says it wants to educate American students whose main impressions of Israel are taken from the media. "Many of them (American students) do not really understand the roots of this conflict. Some people just think 'the Israelis took the land of the Palestinians and that's all.' There is a blank that we have to fill, we have to explain," said Lior Dahan, one of the students who visited CU Tuesday. "What I think is that the American students know mainly what they see from the media and they don't really know what happens in day-to-day life. We are here to clarify some of those issues," said Batya Lipshitz, another of the visiting students. The three students agreed that this lack of knowledge about and recognition of the Israeli side is responsible for rising anti-Semitism in Boulder as well as worldwide. They also said it figures into the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict at American campuses, as well as into problems in Israel itself. "People have a wrong conception of the situation," Amir said. "Students need to see things in the big picture, not in the small picture of the Anti-Semitism that's going on on campus," Lipshitz said. "Things are not black and white as they are seen on CNN. And it is important for us to show the gray lines of our personal lives," Lipshitz added. The students were concerned that, instead of having an objective view of the conflict, most people favored the Palestinian side due to a misrepresentation of Israel. "Mostly in the media Israel is being held as the strong side, the bad side, the conquering side, the militant side," Dahan said. "We are here to show them (the students) that we are not the bad side, and that it's not the other way around either. We want to show them our own personal experience.... We are also suffering, we are also afraid to take a bus, we are also afraid to do the daily life activities. We can't feel safe in our towns and streets." The students spoke of scenes like bus explosions distracting them from school exams, a constant fearing for their lives when entering a bus or going out with friends and an apprehension that has become de rigueur - a feeling that, at any time, they may be seeing friends and family for the last time. "In Israel life goes on, but at the same time it is difficult to live that way. It is a situation people can't really understand," Dahan said. "Your whole day is full of tumult. It is hard to cope with the mixed feelings throughout a day," Lipshitz added. The students feel that something must change in Israel, and soon. "It is a crisis that has to be ended," Amir stated. "We are peace-seeking people. We want this quarrel to end." Although they said they saw a chance for peace, the students admitted it was a difficult issue that demands will and work from both sides. They asked the Palestinians to take a step towards a solution of the conflict as well. "What has to be done is that they (the Palestinians) have to recognize the importance and the right of the existence of the Israeli state. And once they have the recognition they have to come and talk to us in peace and not in terror. We are waiting for that," Lipshitz said. She added it was very hard for the Israelis to push aside violent aspects of the actions of the Palestinians like the suicide bombings and "find the core that wants peace." "We see terrorism and it must be the Palestinians who find that core," she said. "It is also very important to understand that we don't want to be in the (occupied) territories. We do not want to go and fight there. The situation is forced on us. We have no other way of defending ourselves and defending our people," said Dahan, who was a soldier in the Israeli army and went to Gaza and the West Bank. "I know the Palestinians want peace as well. They just want to have normal daily lives as well," he said. He added the main problem is the Palestinian leadership, which he called "similar to other totalitarian governments all around the Arab countries," who do not want peace for fear of a loss of control in peacetime. Lipshitz addressed another problem that she saw in a move toward peace. She called the Palestinian education system counterproductive for a solution of the conflict. "The Palestinian education is anti-Semitic, Israel-hating and lacking," she said. Yet, each of the students emphasized that they were not anti-Palestinian and were open to peace with Palestinians. "If someone would ask me if I hated the Palestinians," Dahan said, "I would answer from the bottom of my heart that I don't." Pro-Palestinian groups at CU could not be reached as of press time for this story. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************